What Focal length and aperture do you think human eyes are?

18mm 3.5, but I do a lot of ketamine

A 20mm with very sharp center, absolutely terrible corners and mid-frame performance, plenty of resolution to crop to 135mm equiv, bad bokeh, and close focus ability.

Why are 35mm,50mm and 80mm considered "normal" focal lenght for aps-c, 135, and MF?

>>2986312
Read it and shut up:
http://petapixel.com/2012/11/17/the-camera-versus-the-human-eye/

>>2986373
Convention. It has nothing to do with what your eye sees.

>>2986373

"normal" depends on print size and viewing distance. a very wide angle lens printed large and view up close will have an immersive effect that gives the illusion of "normal". A telephoto shot printed small and viewed from far away will also appear "normal", but with the effect of looking through a small window.

50 is just a common middle ground for print size (8x10) and viewing distance (a couple feet).

>>2986312
Around 40mm. Lens is great in the center but often suffers from astigmatism in the corners - but you can get a firmware update for that. Foveon sensor inside with terrible ISO performance but fantastic dynamic range at lower (base) ISO.

>>2986392
>terrible ISO performance
Better than most crop SLRs

>>2986392
>terrible ISO
You blind son?

I can see totally fine in the dark. The problem is the slow auto opening of the eyes diaphragm.

>>2986312
Each human eye has their own Field of Vision (FOV) which equals roughly 180 degrees, but of course depth perception and other fanciness only happens if both eyes are able to achieve focus simultaneously without moving the head, unless you want to bob around like a bird.

A camera has only 1 "eye" and at wide angles (<30mm to achieve a higher FOV) distorts closer subjects, while telephoto (>50mm) flattens space and distorts perception of far away subjects (since a photo is always 2D).

There is no way to "match" a human eye in photography as you are always giving something up due to it being a 2D medium.

>>2986446
lytro, overconfident asslord

>>2986447
You might think you made a valid point, but you didn't.

>>2986312
About as detailed as a MacBook with retina display

>>2986312
About 10mm and f8. They also have a shutter speed of 1/25th (judging from how fast I can blink).

id say 35mm when your not doing a 'thousand yard stare'

>>2986398
Sure.. but yet are our eyes not as sensitive as, let's say, a cats eyes. That's what I meant by writing ISO.

Amplifying your own eyesight in the dark without using a nightscope. that'd be sweet.

File: pig's eyes.jpg (285KB, 992x744px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 992x744px

>>2986312
>Focal length
Around half an inch (10mm ish as others have said, perhaps less)

>aperture
A young person has an iris aperture about 7mm. So that would be around f1: 1.4.

The human eye is pretty much spherical so the optical performance is like a cine/cctv lens on full frame.

The human brain is the best image image processor (raptors and cats are also cool).

57.3 degrees

>>2986775
>Human has no lenses

Why investing in such a shitty ecosystem? Having the best processing unit is all nice and good but they fucked up with the lens design. Hell, you can't even change lenses on that body.

>Xboxhueg point&shit

>>2986804
>Human has no lenses

>>2986805
That derived from the Sony meme ("Sony has no (quality) lenses")

>>2986812
More like they only have quality lenses. They lack poor lenses for poorfags.

>>2986804
The answer you seek is more evolution, more culling of undesirable traits, more breeding of desirable traits.

When you setup the world so that the ones with great eye sight has greater advantage for survival and mating, that's when you develop better lenses.

(Un?)fortunately, all this has come to a standstill, there is no more lens development for human species. The welfare states will keep alive even those with bad eye sight, and they will have a chance to breed a next generation with roughly as bad eye sights.

>>2986312
idk but the bokeh is bad, I've tested it and I have really gross bokeh

File: IMG_7243.jpg (4MB, 4777x1365px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4777x1365px

I think mine is broken desu senpai

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL SL1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)
Photographer	https://www.flickr.com/photos/neglektphotography/
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:16 21:07:42
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/16.0
Exposure Bias	-4 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2986833
Like apples and oranges....

>>2986373
"Normal" means the focal length is approximately equal to the diagonal length of the image. Designing a lens with a focal length matching the diagonal gives the simplest and most compact lenses for that format, it's not really anything to do with human vision or whatever bullshit. A "natural" perspective depends on how large you print the image and what distance you view it from, no single focal length is inherently more natural than any other.

35mm film is 24x36mm giving a diagonal of 43.3mm, APS-C has a diagonal of 30mm, 6x6 film has a diagonal of 79mm.

File: Screenshot_20161226-140744_01.png (313KB, 1080x1513px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 1080x1513px

>>2986312
How do you google?

File: Screenshot_20161226-140928_01.png (361KB, 1080x1693px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1080x1693px

>>2989550

>>2986846
resize

>>2986312
24mm f2-10 ISO512000