Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Definition of "Normal" (Re: panasonic 20mm am I mad)

Subject: Re: [OM] Definition of "Normal" (Re: panasonic 20mm am I mad)
From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 08:17:45 +1000
It's all a nonsense. If the idea is that a 'normal' lens gives a similar view 
to the human eye, then it would have to be a rectilinear wide angle with about 
a 170deg field of view but with a fairly narrow focussed area in the centre. It 
would also need to be a two element although the variable rear element would be 
tricky. (I think the prawn eye has a sliding rear element). It would also have 
to be an auto-focus fast action tilt-shift.
The closest that comes to all this is a Lensbaby, stopped down a bit.
Finally, you'd have to mount it on a 'normal' camera - that is, one with a 
125mp sensor.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



On 10/05/2011, at 7:10 AM, Bill Pearce wrote:

> A standard definition, but why? It's just arbitrary. I always found a 50 on 
> 35mm to be a little tight. Over my years I have come to use a 28 as my 
> standard.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz