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/
|