http://petapixel.com/2012/11/17/the-camera-versus-the-human-eye/
Tldr; on 35mm film/full frame cameras, peripheral vision is equal to about an 8mm fisheye lens in terms of FOV, general forward vision is equal to a 17mm lens, and focused vision is equal to a 43mm lens.
In the future, we need
> curved, super resolution sensors with similar qualities to our eyes
> glass that can simulate multiple focal lengths on the curved sensors
Until then, based Pentax is the only company with 43mm lens.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/409200-USA/Pentax_20180_SMCP_FA_43mm_f_1_9_Limited.html
Watchu thinkin /p/?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Express 9.0 (Android) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:02:06 09:01:01
>>2782620
>Watchu thinkin /p/?
what a shit, non photography thread.
>>2782621
How is it not photography related?
People always talk about 50 vs 35 when discussing what looks most like our eyes, when it's apparently 43 that is.
Also opening up theories on future sensor and lens design that could most closely resemble our own vision in a camera.
>>2782646
Different anon, but I'm going to presume it's because it's about physics and engineering.
Duplicating human vision for photography is useless; eyes are fucking stupid. Determining human eye fov for lens selection is also stupid, just pick a lens that works for the photo's content.
It's all absolutely useless, that's what I'm thinking.
>>2782671
>It's all absolutely useless, that's what I'm thinking.
/thread
>>2782671
> Implying lens optics and sensor design doesn't pertain to photography.
Must be why there hasn't been very many posts regarding X-Trans, Foveon, Bayer, 35mm, APS-C, MF, etc. Oh, wait...
> Implying that designing either sensors or lenses to come closer to our natural vision won't allow for more depth, more dynamic range, more detail, more accurate spatial references in the image, or anything else.
That must be why camera manufacturers have been doing all they can to improve sensors and lenses so that they show details, lots of dynamic range, and all the rest.
Yeah, pretty much a useless post. Everyone return to your gearfagging
>>2782708
Camera manufacturers developing sensors with better dynamic range, detail, etc isn't done in an attempt to mimic eyes.
It's done in an attempt to get a better image.
Also, you aren't talking about existing lens optics and sensors that we can talk about and then go out and purchase, you're talking pure conjecture about nonsense like emulating eyeballs, with a link to one arbitrary 43mm lens that's supposedly the best for emulating an eyeball.
>>2782620
>based Pentax is the only company with 43mm lens.
My 40mm voigtlander still gives me a stiffy
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH Camera Model GR Digital Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.3 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2007:11:18 11:48:18 Exposure Time 1/32 sec F-Number f/3.5 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/3.4 Brightness 0.3 EV Exposure Bias 0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 5.90 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 800 Image Height 600 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal
I shoot a 28mm on a 1.5 crop sensor
Checkmate Atheists
>>2782646
>, when it's apparently 43 that is.
My field of view is dramatically more than 43mm. Even with only one eye open. And if you're talking about detail view, it's something akin to like 350mm. Why the heck would it be "43mm"?
>>2782819
>60mm equivalent fov
lmao'ing @ you crop-babby scrubs
>>2782829
Enjoy shelling out heaps of cash on aspherical or holographic lenses to avoid the aberrations on full frame sensors. Also have fun carrying all that glass.
>>2782620
You use a focal lenght to capture the picture you wan't. There's no right or wrong, just as with exposure.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Maybe I've had a few too many whiskey.
>>2782722
Tell me, what product ever made didn't start off with an idea based purely on theory or conjecture?
Our eyes are one of the most sophisticated visual design in the animal kingdom, far out classing modern camera sensors and glass. Emulating the human eye would be a huge photo quality increase if it can ever be done.
>>2782824
Did you even bother to read the article? Yeah, our entire FOV is a lot wider than 43mm, but most of that is peripheral vision, where we don't pick up as many details. 43mm is our central vision, where we focus on details. 350mm FOV is physically impossible for humans.
>>2783864
My point is that we could specially design future cameras and lenses to emulate human vision, which could improve photo quality.
Nothing to do with this lens vs that lens, or any of the other usual arguments we see here.
>>2784336
Why would emulating human vision lead to better photos? What do you mean by better?
>>2784336
>43mm is our central vision, where we focus on details
I'm looking at the word FOV in your post, and by the time you reach "43mm" it's crossing the threshold into "not enough detail to read without moving my eyes" from two feet from my monitor. That's a LOT tighter than 43mm, which would cover nearly the whole screen. Can you read every word on your screen without moving your eyes away from a dot on the center? I ask rhetorically, because I know that you can't.
>350mm FOV is physically impossible for humans.
In what way.
>human vision
>okay resolution in a tiny portion of the center, shit everywhere else
>distortion everywhere
>wanting to emulate it
ok ther
