Never mind. I think the whole story about this is marketing BS. Why should the sensor diagonal matching the focal length have anything to do with our eyes? The angle of view is roughly the same of our natural perception. But since we don‘t have a fixed focal length it can‘t exactly match, or did you ever wonder why our eyes are not popping out whenever we are looking to something very close? It‘s a good story made up by Leica, especially fore those who believe in the unique Leica look 😉
@@dr.rationalist9669 sorry, but what the F are you talking? First, basic trignonometry, (focal) length divided by width (sensor diagonal) translates (via cosine) to an angle (=FOV). "The angle of view is roughly the same of our natural perception" you litterally say it, thus contradicting yourself. "Since we don't have a fixed focal length". Idk what weed gives you the superpower to zoom in into your vision, but the normal eye cannot change the focal length. You're confusing focal length and focussing distance. "did you ever wonder why our eyes are not popping out whenever we are looking to something very close" That has nothing to do with focal length, but focussing. I would heavily suggest you to reconsider what those two things are and what they do. I dont know (and dont care about) this "Leica story" you're talking about, but how about you take some courses in basic biology and (optical) physics before talking such nonsense.
@dr.rationalist9669 it's not marketing, actually. The focal length corresponding to the sensor/film diagonal is the median focal length, or to put it another way, the cross-over point where lenses transition from wide angle to telephoto.
This is why I love photography. As passionate as James is about capturing things the way our eyes see them, I am passionate about capturing perspectives that are unusual to our eyes - ultra wide, extreme height, or in a wide format like xpan or 2.35:1. I love James’ work, don’t get me wrong, I just think it’s awesome this hobby can be done so many different ways, and none of them are wrong!
Spot on. I saw a comment in a previous video of James' where one commenter issued a few sentences complaining about James' style being too literal and 'flat', instead of being dark, rich and moody. .. Honestly . . 🙄..theres a million TH-cam channels with photographers pumping out dark, dramatic and moody. Ad nauseum. This channel is hugely refreshing And also! I'm not fond of parsnips, but I don't make a point of hanging around in the greengrocers moaning about the notion. ;) It's all subjective.
Same. I like that people shoot their own perspective only so they can connect with the images in a natural way. I do not. I almost never use an EVF only LCD so I can get away from my eyeline and my perspective, work a scene and find maybe an optimum angle to shoot from. Kind of like a director of photography on a movie.
I agree and I also love wide angle and panoramic views. Camera lenses are largely about managing the crop. With my eyes I see a much wider angle of view than a standard lens, a telephoto lens sees a narrower angle of view than my eyes. Camera lenses also manage depth of focus in a different way to human optics, and making photographs and images is a wonderful game we can play with the tools we have, whatever we use them for.
@@-greyI made a list of things I wanted from a new camera before I allowed myself to upgrade from my Canon T7, and one of those things was a folding screen specifically so I can more easily get photos that I just can't get by looking through the viewfinder
I was just telling my wife the other day that all phones have one wide and one ultra wide lens and really the main lens should be 35mm. I find 40+ just a bit too narrow.
My Pixel's 'standard' lens is way too wide! Perhaps more annoyingly the 'x2' realistic perspective on the 8 Pro is the only lens option - out of the four - that is not 100% optical. It's still very usable to be fair, but .. ;)
What worked for me is fixing myself to spend a year with a lens that was uncomfortably wide. The amount of tricks and solutions I had to come up with to make it work where I was otherwise out of luck gave me a bag of tools for any focal length. Meaning: I didn't have to try so hard to work a scene anymore, I could quickly check off a bunch of things that would work in my head, and also pivot better when I truly could not shoot what I originally intended.
I agree. I stumbled on this with 28mm, the standard lens for APS-C. I noticed this in particular filming people talking. Standard lens replicates social distances, standing about 6ft away from a stranger. And people are the same size thru the lens. I recently learned I over-estimated the sensor size of a studio camera. I thought 28mm was standard, but discovered it was 24mm. I notched the zoom to 24 and it was magically better in terms of depth and spatial relationships. But I'm a believer. On the other hand, I know that if someone is a good distance away, they will be the same size to the eye and thru a 50mm lens (APS-C). This is why the idea of 'social distances' is so important
I _knew_ it! 😂 As soon as I saw the 43 announced, I thought you would be on it. I'm shooting with a Fuji X-T4 and the 27mm, and getting used to that focal range. The Leica is the dream 👌😊
Sorry James, you've bought into a common myth that I've written articles on in the past. The idea that 42mm is the magnification that we see in real life is complete and utter nonsense. That may be true for the viewfinder of your particular camera, but it's camera dependent. They can make a camera viewfinder so that any length you like corresponds to real life. Of course for a long lens, that would be a ridiculously tiny view, and it would be hard to see what's going on. For a super wide, it would be tricky optics to project an image to your eye up close from all those angles. The thing we CAN say about 42mm lenses, both the lens itself, and Leica style viewfinders that can mimic it, is that they are the simplest optics to make and integrate into a camera, aka they're cheap... and small. But once you print the photo, or put it on a computer screen, which is after all supposedly the whole point, the angle that is most like real life depends on the size of the print and how close you are to it. . Got an 80" TV that you're standing 1 metre from? You'd better be using a 14mm lens. Want to mimic a 300mm lens? I guess a 20" screen and stand on the other side of the room down the hallway. Now sure, nobody wants to stand down the hallway to admire a photo. Do you want to stand up close to an 80" screen? If it's a landscape you're admiring, I'd say absolutely you do! And indeed we'll be getting virtual reality glasses that do exactly that. And your 42mm lens will give terrible virtual reality because you didn't capture 80% of the scene. Let me repeat THERE IS NO PARTICULAR LENS THAT IN ANY WAY IS "CORRECT" WITH REGARDS TO REAL LIFE. The human eye can to some extent see a full 180 degrees. On the other hand the fovea, the tiny part in the middle that you can read with, is only a few degrees, and is like a 1000mm lens. In between the fovea which has excellent vision, and 180 degrees which has terrible vision and can basically just see movement, there is a continual drop off. I guess you could say a 42mm lens with its 90ish degrees of vision is a kind of half way point between the fovea and total drop off, but so what?
Not only do I love your videos because of the genuinely high-quality content, but I also appreciate that someone exists on the Internet who changes their mind, does what they say they won’t, and buys gear as as much as I do. You just do it at the budget that I wish I could 😂 In all seriousness though, love the video as always. Had “thin glass” on my mind this weekend as I was shooting.
4:10 - “or the equivalent if you’re using a different sensor size” - How can I figure this out? Say I’ve got a smartphone with multiple lenses, and the phone software says each lens is “24mm”, “35mm”, etc. Can I use these numbers even though the sensor is obviously pretty small? (am I even asking the right question?)
The phone software is lying, the actual focal lengths of smartphone lenses tends to be stuff around 4mm. The "28mm" "35mm" etc labels in the phone camera software are full-frame equivalent focal lengths, not true physical focal lengths. That means you can get the same field of view as discussed in this video if you set your phone to something close to nominal "43mm" even though in truth it won't be anything near that, in terms of true optics.
I've been thinking about photography in a similar way, but your explanation has really helped me solidify my understanding. The Sigma 45mm f/2.8 prime lens is a great fit for this approach to me
James - just want to send a simple thanks for sharing the light you capture and the light you carry in these vids. It brightens life all the way over here in Utah USA. Cheers
Honestly, I didn't think of the magnification before, rather of the field of view the human eye sees when focusing on something. Very interesting point and absolutely right. Great pictures as always. Thank you! :)
This is why I love the Lumix 20mm f1.7. It's really close to what my eyes see so knowing where to stand for a photo is fairly easy, it's small, sharp and fast, and it only costs like 200€. It has a couple of small issues like focus breathing and relatively slow focussing which makes it good for some styles and bad for others but it's great for the price. You can get an amazing EDC setup with it and a small M43 camera for very little money
I've recently purchased a Lumix GX80 and a 20mm lens as a run around camera, I wasn't disappointed. Also having been a long time Mamiya RB67 user, I prefer the 4/3 ration to the usual 3/2.
In a recent video you talked about how you try to stick to photography that would be perceivable with the naked eye (in regards to perspective and focal length). Having been on vacation in autumn for the past week, I've been thinking about that a lot while taking photos and I've noticed that my philosophy regarding the photos I take is the complete other way around. I tend to shoot focal lengths that the human eye can't natively see (>160mm) from angles that humans don't usually view things from (the ground, very close to objects, very far away things). It just made me think about what you said and how fascinating it is what different thoughts people have behind their photos and the way they shoot. Absolutely love the content btw, always a joy to see when a new video of yours dropped!
I feel that too actually. Thinking about the lenses I use on a regular basis it's almost entirely 70mm+ (APSC). I have all the way down to an 11 but the instances I end up using that are so rare. I tend to try and take photos more how I imagine them than how I see them. Like if I could actually paint what I would make. It's an interesting way of looking at photography. Maybe I just tend to focus on the subject(s) more with less emphasis on the environment. Fascinating stuff to think about
My favorite focal lengh is 24mm on canon apsc which is 38,4mm in FF. It´s wide enough to include enough scenery but not too wide to distort the image. 50mm FF i think is too cramped.
Oh man, I've been on that chase for a while now. Been pouring over text books and papers on neurobiology (my uni specialises in human vision funnily enough), calculating with my very mediocre math skills, etc. There are so many factors you can incorporate. Like the way our eyes and brain do "white balance". Or which rectangular aspect ratio fits our weirdly shaped FoV the best for which situations. I've come to the conclusion that for myself, it's more about capturing how I think the scene felt rather than how it "objectively" looked through my eyes. For me landscapes tend to feel like 23mm in a 2:1 aspect ratio. Most other subjects feel like 43mm 3:2, either portrait or landscape orientation. White balance is still tricky. As is colour perception in general with effects like the Purkinje or Bezold-Brücke shifts
The diagonal of the FF sensor is 43mm, not the diameter, but I concur with the 43mm focal length. I bought a Pentax K1ii just so I could use my old 43mm Ltd on it. With APS-C, I often use a 28mm, and I've more or less fixed a 20mm lens to my Lumix gx80. So yes, I also really love that ocal range, 50mm on FF, however, I can't cope with at all.
Well-done! I doubt that I will ever be able to justify acquiring any Q-series Leica, but have enjoyed using Voigtlander 40mm and Nikkor 45mm “pancake” lenses on Nikjon DSLRs, and an EF 40mm lens on Canon DSLRs. 40mm to 45mm lenses do have a quite “natural” field of view.
I love how you frame your videocamera in such picturesque ways to in a way make even the video look like one of your photo's. There's clearly some effort that adds to the quality of the videos.
Hey James! Nice video. Loved the part where you mentioned the make and model of your camera and explained why you wouldn't give an opinion on it - earned my respect by offering that detail up very quickly, as most of us Camera nerds are sat here thinking "I wonder what Leica that is and whether it's full-frame and fixed-lens?!" - so, thank you. We have different tastes in composition, but I shoot a Fuji x100F, so I have the same opinions on focal length! Great video mate, enjoyed it.
As I'm getting into photography and videography I stumbled upon your page by chance. I can't believe you don't have 2million subscribers. I am utterly inspired by your photos and, to be really honest, I now want my style of photography to be like yours.
You should look into the Pentax 43mm Limited then, it was the original one designed for the most natural FOV. There's also a rare "Special" version in Leica screw mount.
After 19 years with a DSLR, and mucking about with lenses from ultra-wide to tele, I’ve realized that over 95% of my photos nowdays are taken with my 35/1.8. I sometimes use a 28-70/2.8 for added flexibility. When I upload the pictures, most of them are around the 30-40mm range.
James, the research and the pin was worth it, even if only for the opening scene which was absolutely great, I had the feeling I'm looking at a painting
As you're in Llangollen, you should head up Dinas Bran to the castle ruins, I was up there a few weeks ago, its got some amazing views and the castle ruins would make for some good photos
The photography at 4:25 is simply ravishing... what a frame! Actually, in all situations when you've made both a photograph and a video frame, I find the imaging (= lower contrast) much better in video than in stills.
Hi James, here's another angle on the "same view as the human eye through the camera" concept. I often photograph wildlife in woodland, by sitting still, watching places where I know that animals pass through. I've noticed, when looking through the camera and keeping the other eye open to watch for animals coming into my scene, that 70mm is the focal length where the view through both eyes overlaps most cleanly. So I would suggest that 70mm or very close gives the same magnification as the human eye (on full frame).
but if it's not about the FOV, and about the magnification. Wouldn't that want you to have 43mm no matter what sensor size? So with a hasselblad you'll get just a lot more image than full frame and the same FOV as 43mm on FF. ?
Interesting video! I think it’s worth diving a little deeper into the idea of a ‘true focal length’ that matches human vision. Viewing Distance Matters - The perceived magnification of a photo depends on how close or far you view it. Without a standard viewing distance, the idea of ‘matching human vision’ becomes relative. It’s an oversimplification that photographers have passed down for decades, but it’s still a great focal length for natural-looking images! Just thought this might add some food for thought. Would love to hear your take on this nuance.
I think the term should be along the lines of the same "compression" as the human eye. Where distant objects seem as close together as the human eye sees. Field of view is a bit harder to guage, because we have two eyes, that stitch together one much wider "image".
I think it is fair to say that your two most recent TH-cam videos have caused me to reconsider how I set my camera up for future adventures. I would love to buy a Leica Q3 43 but my bank manager has given me over 5000 reasons why this will have to wait a while. But my Fuji 27mm has a converted focal length of 40mm and I may weld this to my XE-4 where it already lives most of the time. This will have to do for a while as I put some more of your ideas into action. Thanks for the great videos James
I kind of like your approach using a human eye field of view and taking photos from a standing position. This simple approach works well for your photos. I do like to simplify my setup and approach too. It helps me to avoid having too many decisions to make which works well for me. I currently use a Voigtlander 40mm lens and although I’ve been often tempted, I’ve never yet bought another focal length since purchasing this lens in 2019.
I have the Q3 43. I sold my Q3 28 because it was only a sidekick to my SL3 on landscape trips. But I’m using the Q3 43 every day now. More often than my M11P. Having an APO lens this handy is amazing.
For all the expensive glass I own, currently my favourit is the 28mm Tamron Adaptall which ends up at an effective 42mm on my APSC camera... all manual of course, but there's just something about it that I love. And it cost me £12.
Love your work James and I’m also enjoying shooting a current documentary project at 40mm (equivalent) focal length on a Lumix GX9 and the 20mm f1.7 pancake lens. Keep up the great work, I could watch you talk about focal length for days
I saved this one too for inspiration, but I think he knew what he was doing when he timed it to the moment where he said he wasn't overly excited about the results :D
Thanks for this. I keep struggling to find my one lens. 40-50 is my favorite focal length. I think you hit it on the nail with the magnification aligning to what we see. I think that is the appeal to me. I often want wider, but I don’t want everything being pushed away like a wide angle. I like longer, but that to me , that is typically compensating because you can’t get closer. I hope that makes sense. I’d pick 40 or 50 as my lens to never leave the camera if it worked better in close quarters. Anything wider or longer is a special situations lens to me.
James: sorry Sony, I now see why having a boring but reliable camera is brilliant, I won't need to do that again for a long time. Also James: so I got given a Hassy and then bought this Leica... Yeah yeah I know. Ah I do love your stuff, it's always good and amusing. But we all fall for GAS even if we don't want to 😂😂
If you take a bunch on a tripod and stitch them in a panorama you could replicate the human field of view. Ive seen some half sphere paintings that do that and they are awesome!. Nice video and photography!!! :)
I have got a 43mm limited lens on my pentax k1camera. It’s taken me a while to get use to and appreciate, but love it and produces great colours due the lens coatings
I see what my brain says. If its at distance, I see at 200mm and exclude the power lines. If it is at night I see fisheye 180 degrees looking for the bad man creeping up behind
Yoshihisa Maitani, the designer of so many great Olympus cameras, promoted this idea in the late 1950s. Many of his designs feature 40-42mm focal lengths including his swansong 40mm f2.0 for the OM series.
As a corollary while I like the 50mm and 35mm lately I am liking 24mm and 85mm very interesting focal lengths. They are giving me a view that we do not normally see and helps create interest
I like what David Hockney says, to paraphrase, "The problem with photography is that it's a guy squinting through a hole with one eye." I think that is why I like using different focal lengths, to disrupt that everyday point of view. But I do agree that there is something pleasing about 40 - 50 mm.
Having read quite a bit of Hockney on photography, I'd take what he says with a pinch of salt. IMHO I don't think he has a clue when it comes to the subject.
Natural perspective is exactly why my favorite walkabout lens for my Sony A7CR is the compact and lightweight Samyang/Rokinon f1.8 45mm. The Sigma f1.4 40mm ART is the GOAT, but it's insanely big and heavy for anything but planned shoots.
If you didn't have chance you can go round and walk up on top of the aqueduct. I got some nice shots from up there, or walking down into the tunnel that the canal runs through. Also, nice ice cream canal boat normally docked there.
My old Olympus 35RC had a 42mm lens and I always thought that was pretty much spot on. There's room in my small bag for a Q3 but sadly not enough room in my budget... another thoughtful vid, thanks 👍
Wow your photos look incredible! I had to pause the video all the time and just enjoyed. Also admire your editing style, looks so dreamy and almost rendered. Is that the Leica look or just you being a wizard?
I only just understood focal lengths recently, I always considered them like they were cropping the frame. When you say the 43mm "magnification" is the most realistic to what we see, I think it also has to do with the compression of that focal length. That is, if you took the same photo with a 35mm, or an 85mm lens you'd have to stand closer or further away to get the same framing, but doing this changes the perspective of what we see (I feel like I could do this better with a diagram) This effect is compounded with wider and wider lenses. I believe, if I have understood what you're saying correctly, that the 43mm has the natural human perspective relative to it's crop. So the compression feels really organic to our eyes. I hope this helps.
That nice Leica! Great reward for your good work here. I've shoot mainly with my 40mm f2.8 Canon pancake lens for years. Now it is stuck in my Sony a7IV with an adapter. When I started to use it, my eyes got just so accommodated to that focal length I don't want to use anything else. Planning to buy the Sony 40mm 2.5 in near future, so my daughter can use the canon on the 6D instead of the zoom.
I used to feel 50mm was more ‘natural’ to me. However, now I gravitate to 35mm pretty consistently. In LF 4x5 film I have come to love my 135mm (about 40+ mm 35mm equivalent) over the more normal 150mm. There is something that just pulls me to those.
Hey James. Your vision on photography has really caught my interest. Regarding the 'true' focal length, or as we see with out eyes. How would you go on about panoramas shot at 40-50 mm focal length. Would that replicate both the field of view and the magnification in which we see things?
I appreciate and enjoy your videos, thank you! Please comment on how you reconcile wanting the focal length to match what we see but not the colors. More specifically, your penchant is for taking color out of the sky because you believe that helps avoid distracting from the main subjects of your photos, yet often the result is not what one would see.
I have a Z6 with the 24-200. I think James, you are persuading me to back to MPB and buy the 40mm prime. It will make a much lighter and more wieldy combo for 'walkabout' type stuff.
The moment it was announced I knew the Q343 is something you would enjoy or at least be interested in. Looking forward to seeing more of your work from the 343!
If I had to choose only one lens it would be a normal lens or between 40 and 55 because it is a very natural focal length with practically no distortion and that maintains the real proportions. The problem is that sometimes there are very narrow places where a wide angle is necessary, that's why my minimum travel kit is a 28 and a 50. I think that due to the overabundance of cell phones, the field of vision around 28mm is the comfort zone and getting to 50 requires a little more effort. Furthermore, since the 50mm does not have any special effect on perspective and depth of field like the wide angle, it also requires more concentration or intuition when composing.
Good stuff James. There is a feature of life that changes field of view from natural to narrow instantaneously, glasses. I have been wearing them for 15-20 years and still think I am seeing the world through straws. It's a 1000 mm view with zero magnification.
Great video. I'm still re-learning photography since taking up digital with a Fujifilm. An old X-M1 with the TTArtisans 27mm and I love it. Tried the 35mm (eq 50mm) and not so much. I did dabble with the Lumix S9 and Sigma 45mm, that was awesome but sold it as need one camera with a viewfinder and the X-M1 one was more fun than the S9! I ended up with a Fujifilm X-S20 as the S9 replacement, but the 27mm still goes on it more often than the 35mm.
I shot with a zoom lens for 10 years Recently switched to a prime 35mm (converts to 56mm on crop sensor) Certainly makes some scenarios more difficult, but overall no regrets.
I love photography with a thought out purpose like this, especially when you can see it in the work without having it explained to you. We know exactly why you do what you do, and the connection you make to your subject just by seeing a sequence of your images. For me, working a scene with a 28 via LCD is my sweet spot. I like to get more in, and find the ideal angle and height of view even if that means completely wonky images. My wife says my photos remind her how a dog would see things. 😂 I wonder if it would have a different effect on the viewer concerning voyeurism. Could be an interesting project. 😎
2:42 I find this phenomenon with a 50mm on my old film camera, things just look the right size in the viewfinder. Probably less applicable, because the viewfinder doesn't _quite_ cover the full 36x24 frame, but it's the thought that counts, i guess
Ahh yes, the diagonal not the diameter. Maths and I don’t get on. Thanks for the correction 🙏
😂
Diagonal and diameter is just about the same (image circle) ! But 43 mm focal length is not the only "true" focal length !
Never mind. I think the whole story about this is marketing BS. Why should the sensor diagonal matching the focal length have anything to do with our eyes? The angle of view is roughly the same of our natural perception. But since we don‘t have a fixed focal length it can‘t exactly match, or did you ever wonder why our eyes are not popping out whenever we are looking to something very close? It‘s a good story made up by Leica, especially fore those who believe in the unique Leica look 😉
@@dr.rationalist9669 sorry, but what the F are you talking?
First, basic trignonometry, (focal) length divided by width (sensor diagonal) translates (via cosine) to an angle (=FOV). "The angle of view is roughly the same of our natural perception" you litterally say it, thus contradicting yourself.
"Since we don't have a fixed focal length". Idk what weed gives you the superpower to zoom in into your vision, but the normal eye cannot change the focal length. You're confusing focal length and focussing distance. "did you ever wonder why our eyes are not popping out whenever we are looking to something very close" That has nothing to do with focal length, but focussing. I would heavily suggest you to reconsider what those two things are and what they do.
I dont know (and dont care about) this "Leica story" you're talking about, but how about you take some courses in basic biology and (optical) physics before talking such nonsense.
@dr.rationalist9669 it's not marketing, actually. The focal length corresponding to the sensor/film diagonal is the median focal length, or to put it another way, the cross-over point where lenses transition from wide angle to telephoto.
This is why I love photography. As passionate as James is about capturing things the way our eyes see them, I am passionate about capturing perspectives that are unusual to our eyes - ultra wide, extreme height, or in a wide format like xpan or 2.35:1. I love James’ work, don’t get me wrong, I just think it’s awesome this hobby can be done so many different ways, and none of them are wrong!
Spot on. I saw a comment in a previous video of James' where one commenter issued a few sentences complaining about James' style being too literal and 'flat', instead of being dark, rich and moody. .. Honestly . . 🙄..theres a million TH-cam channels with photographers pumping out dark, dramatic and moody. Ad nauseum. This channel is hugely refreshing
And also! I'm not fond of parsnips, but I don't make a point of hanging around in the greengrocers moaning about the notion. ;)
It's all subjective.
Same. I like that people shoot their own perspective only so they can connect with the images in a natural way. I do not. I almost never use an EVF only LCD so I can get away from my eyeline and my perspective, work a scene and find maybe an optimum angle to shoot from. Kind of like a director of photography on a movie.
I agree and I also love wide angle and panoramic views. Camera lenses are largely about managing the crop. With my eyes I see a much wider angle of view than a standard lens, a telephoto lens sees a narrower angle of view than my eyes. Camera lenses also manage depth of focus in a different way to human optics, and making photographs and images is a wonderful game we can play with the tools we have, whatever we use them for.
well said
@@-greyI made a list of things I wanted from a new camera before I allowed myself to upgrade from my Canon T7, and one of those things was a folding screen specifically so I can more easily get photos that I just can't get by looking through the viewfinder
Petition to make a phone camera system with 40mm as its 1x.
Yeah I hate how wide the "standard" camera on phones are
I was just telling my wife the other day that all phones have one wide and one ultra wide lens and really the main lens should be 35mm. I find 40+ just a bit too narrow.
But I agree, 40mil should be 1x magnification as standard. Then we could talk about real magnification. Like 400mil FF is 10x mag.
My Pixel's 'standard' lens is way too wide!
Perhaps more annoyingly the 'x2' realistic perspective on the 8 Pro is the only lens option - out of the four - that is not 100% optical. It's still very usable to be fair, but .. ;)
Nah just get a camera.
I think photography TH-cam can be funny, educational or just good looking/relaxing videos. Not many do all three! Top stuff
You're the first person i thought of when i saw the Q3 43 announcement.
"There's a photo here, somewhere." is what runs through my head more often than I'd like, I wish I could find a good composition quicker.
What worked for me is fixing myself to spend a year with a lens that was uncomfortably wide. The amount of tricks and solutions I had to come up with to make it work where I was otherwise out of luck gave me a bag of tools for any focal length. Meaning: I didn't have to try so hard to work a scene anymore, I could quickly check off a bunch of things that would work in my head, and also pivot better when I truly could not shoot what I originally intended.
I agree. I stumbled on this with 28mm, the standard lens for APS-C. I noticed this in particular filming people talking. Standard lens replicates social distances, standing about 6ft away from a stranger. And people are the same size thru the lens. I recently learned I over-estimated the sensor size of a studio camera. I thought 28mm was standard, but discovered it was 24mm. I notched the zoom to 24 and it was magically better in terms of depth and spatial relationships. But I'm a believer.
On the other hand, I know that if someone is a good distance away, they will be the same size to the eye and thru a 50mm lens (APS-C). This is why the idea of 'social distances' is so important
I like how you were talking about cold and warm light and colours, there is a variety of warm and cold contrast on you and your studio.
pretty common setup for TH-camrs. Usually with stronger blue and orange lights though
42, The answer to life the universe, and everything.
Just don't forget your towel
Close enough, yes, I do still prefer 42 too
you forgot the universe :)
@@antoszka Yeah, I thought about that. Should I edit my post at this late date?
@@BeardedGeezer Always worth it ;). Don't panic!
I find I like the opposite I do photography to see things my eyes can’t see.
100% agree.
Indeed, like Winogrand said: ”I photograph to see what the world looks like in photographs.”
I love this
Also another great technique!
You deserve an upvote times a hundred. We need to see the unseen. Or else, we'll just be complacent.
I _knew_ it! 😂 As soon as I saw the 43 announced, I thought you would be on it. I'm shooting with a Fuji X-T4 and the 27mm, and getting used to that focal range. The Leica is the dream 👌😊
Sorry James, you've bought into a common myth that I've written articles on in the past. The idea that 42mm is the magnification that we see in real life is complete and utter nonsense. That may be true for the viewfinder of your particular camera, but it's camera dependent. They can make a camera viewfinder so that any length you like corresponds to real life. Of course for a long lens, that would be a ridiculously tiny view, and it would be hard to see what's going on. For a super wide, it would be tricky optics to project an image to your eye up close from all those angles. The thing we CAN say about 42mm lenses, both the lens itself, and Leica style viewfinders that can mimic it, is that they are the simplest optics to make and integrate into a camera, aka they're cheap... and small. But once you print the photo, or put it on a computer screen, which is after all supposedly the whole point, the angle that is most like real life depends on the size of the print and how close you are to it. . Got an 80" TV that you're standing 1 metre from? You'd better be using a 14mm lens. Want to mimic a 300mm lens? I guess a 20" screen and stand on the other side of the room down the hallway. Now sure, nobody wants to stand down the hallway to admire a photo. Do you want to stand up close to an 80" screen? If it's a landscape you're admiring, I'd say absolutely you do! And indeed we'll be getting virtual reality glasses that do exactly that. And your 42mm lens will give terrible virtual reality because you didn't capture 80% of the scene. Let me repeat THERE IS NO PARTICULAR LENS THAT IN ANY WAY IS "CORRECT" WITH REGARDS TO REAL LIFE. The human eye can to some extent see a full 180 degrees. On the other hand the fovea, the tiny part in the middle that you can read with, is only a few degrees, and is like a 1000mm lens. In between the fovea which has excellent vision, and 180 degrees which has terrible vision and can basically just see movement, there is a continual drop off. I guess you could say a 42mm lens with its 90ish degrees of vision is a kind of half way point between the fovea and total drop off, but so what?
Not only do I love your videos because of the genuinely high-quality content, but I also appreciate that someone exists on the Internet who changes their mind, does what they say they won’t, and buys gear as as much as I do. You just do it at the budget that I wish I could 😂
In all seriousness though, love the video as always. Had “thin glass” on my mind this weekend as I was shooting.
4:10 - “or the equivalent if you’re using a different sensor size” - How can I figure this out? Say I’ve got a smartphone with multiple lenses, and the phone software says each lens is “24mm”, “35mm”, etc. Can I use these numbers even though the sensor is obviously pretty small? (am I even asking the right question?)
The phone software is lying, the actual focal lengths of smartphone lenses tends to be stuff around 4mm. The "28mm" "35mm" etc labels in the phone camera software are full-frame equivalent focal lengths, not true physical focal lengths. That means you can get the same field of view as discussed in this video if you set your phone to something close to nominal "43mm" even though in truth it won't be anything near that, in terms of true optics.
The Olympus SP rangefinder from decades ago has a 42mm fixed focal length. So well done Olympus.
Totally agree about warm light in autumn being overkill!
I've been thinking about photography in a similar way, but your explanation has really helped me solidify my understanding. The Sigma 45mm f/2.8 prime lens is a great fit for this approach to me
James - just want to send a simple thanks for sharing the light you capture and the light you carry in these vids. It brightens life all the way over here in Utah USA. Cheers
Honestly, I didn't think of the magnification before, rather of the field of view the human eye sees when focusing on something. Very interesting point and absolutely right. Great pictures as always. Thank you! :)
This is why I love the Lumix 20mm f1.7. It's really close to what my eyes see so knowing where to stand for a photo is fairly easy, it's small, sharp and fast, and it only costs like 200€. It has a couple of small issues like focus breathing and relatively slow focussing which makes it good for some styles and bad for others but it's great for the price. You can get an amazing EDC setup with it and a small M43 camera for very little money
I've recently purchased a Lumix GX80 and a 20mm lens as a run around camera, I wasn't disappointed. Also having been a long time Mamiya RB67 user, I prefer the 4/3 ration to the usual 3/2.
Same, it's so good!
Totally agree. I recently purchased a GM1 and Lumix 20mm f1.7 for an everyday carry. It's my first M43 setup and I love it 👍
Same! I love it more than my 12-60 kit lens.
Love your photos and very much enjoy the videos. You find some very photogenic places to photograph.
In a recent video you talked about how you try to stick to photography that would be perceivable with the naked eye (in regards to perspective and focal length). Having been on vacation in autumn for the past week, I've been thinking about that a lot while taking photos and I've noticed that my philosophy regarding the photos I take is the complete other way around. I tend to shoot focal lengths that the human eye can't natively see (>160mm) from angles that humans don't usually view things from (the ground, very close to objects, very far away things). It just made me think about what you said and how fascinating it is what different thoughts people have behind their photos and the way they shoot.
Absolutely love the content btw, always a joy to see when a new video of yours dropped!
I feel that too actually. Thinking about the lenses I use on a regular basis it's almost entirely 70mm+ (APSC). I have all the way down to an 11 but the instances I end up using that are so rare. I tend to try and take photos more how I imagine them than how I see them. Like if I could actually paint what I would make. It's an interesting way of looking at photography. Maybe I just tend to focus on the subject(s) more with less emphasis on the environment. Fascinating stuff to think about
My favorite focal lengh is 24mm on canon apsc which is 38,4mm in FF. It´s wide enough to include enough scenery but not too wide to distort the image. 50mm FF i think is too cramped.
Oh man, I've been on that chase for a while now. Been pouring over text books and papers on neurobiology (my uni specialises in human vision funnily enough), calculating with my very mediocre math skills, etc. There are so many factors you can incorporate. Like the way our eyes and brain do "white balance". Or which rectangular aspect ratio fits our weirdly shaped FoV the best for which situations. I've come to the conclusion that for myself, it's more about capturing how I think the scene felt rather than how it "objectively" looked through my eyes. For me landscapes tend to feel like 23mm in a 2:1 aspect ratio. Most other subjects feel like 43mm 3:2, either portrait or landscape orientation. White balance is still tricky. As is colour perception in general with effects like the Purkinje or Bezold-Brücke shifts
The diagonal of the FF sensor is 43mm, not the diameter, but I concur with the 43mm focal length. I bought a Pentax K1ii just so I could use my old 43mm Ltd on it. With APS-C, I often use a 28mm, and I've more or less fixed a 20mm lens to my Lumix gx80. So yes, I also really love that ocal range, 50mm on FF, however, I can't cope with at all.
Well-done! I doubt that I will ever be able to justify acquiring any Q-series Leica, but have enjoyed using Voigtlander 40mm and Nikkor 45mm “pancake” lenses on Nikjon DSLRs, and an EF 40mm lens on Canon DSLRs. 40mm to 45mm lenses do have a quite “natural” field of view.
That's an amazing combo.
Q3 43 and X2D + 55mm.
I love how you frame your videocamera in such picturesque ways to in a way make even the video look like one of your photo's. There's clearly some effort that adds to the quality of the videos.
Finally someone who nailed the focal length of the human eye. Matching the compression is the key to make everything the same size/distance.
Hey James! Nice video. Loved the part where you mentioned the make and model of your camera and explained why you wouldn't give an opinion on it - earned my respect by offering that detail up very quickly, as most of us Camera nerds are sat here thinking "I wonder what Leica that is and whether it's full-frame and fixed-lens?!" - so, thank you. We have different tastes in composition, but I shoot a Fuji x100F, so I have the same opinions on focal length! Great video mate, enjoyed it.
Been shooting on Ricoh GR3X (40mm equivalent) for the last 6 months. It’s perfect (for me and my style ). Great video James
As I'm getting into photography and videography I stumbled upon your page by chance. I can't believe you don't have 2million subscribers. I am utterly inspired by your photos and, to be really honest, I now want my style of photography to be like yours.
You should look into the Pentax 43mm Limited then, it was the original one designed for the most natural FOV. There's also a rare "Special" version in Leica screw mount.
James.. the video quality was so good in this video, genuinely might be my favorite video of yours
After 19 years with a DSLR, and mucking about with lenses from ultra-wide to tele, I’ve realized that over 95% of my photos nowdays are taken with my 35/1.8. I sometimes use a 28-70/2.8 for added flexibility. When I upload the pictures, most of them are around the 30-40mm range.
James, the research and the pin was worth it, even if only for the opening scene which was absolutely great, I had the feeling I'm looking at a painting
As you're in Llangollen, you should head up Dinas Bran to the castle ruins, I was up there a few weeks ago, its got some amazing views and the castle ruins would make for some good photos
I have driven a canal barge across that aqueduct. Fightening, but a grand view down the river Dee.
The photography at 4:25 is simply ravishing... what a frame! Actually, in all situations when you've made both a photograph and a video frame, I find the imaging (= lower contrast) much better in video than in stills.
Hi James, here's another angle on the "same view as the human eye through the camera" concept. I often photograph wildlife in woodland, by sitting still, watching places where I know that animals pass through. I've noticed, when looking through the camera and keeping the other eye open to watch for animals coming into my scene, that 70mm is the focal length where the view through both eyes overlaps most cleanly. So I would suggest that 70mm or very close gives the same magnification as the human eye (on full frame).
70mm also works nicely for panoramas when taken in portrait mode!
@@antonoatThat's interesting. Is that because it looks faithful in proportion to what you see yourself?
@@clivebushnell8428 yes I do think that is the case!👍
but if it's not about the FOV, and about the magnification. Wouldn't that want you to have 43mm no matter what sensor size? So with a hasselblad you'll get just a lot more image than full frame and the same FOV as 43mm on FF. ?
Those photos of the churchyard are stunning!👍
I have bad vision so I like to shoot what I usually wouldn't see, but these videos have encouraged me to be more relaxed on what I want to photograph.
Interesting video! I think it’s worth diving a little deeper into the idea of a ‘true focal length’ that matches human vision.
Viewing Distance Matters - The perceived magnification of a photo depends on how close or far you view it. Without a standard viewing distance, the idea of ‘matching human vision’ becomes relative.
It’s an oversimplification that photographers have passed down for decades, but it’s still a great focal length for natural-looking images! Just thought this might add some food for thought. Would love to hear your take on this nuance.
I enjoyed watching this video. Thanks for your concise, humbly presented thoughts, James! And, of course, for sharing photos with us.
I think the term should be along the lines of the same "compression" as the human eye. Where distant objects seem as close together as the human eye sees.
Field of view is a bit harder to guage, because we have two eyes, that stitch together one much wider "image".
I think it is fair to say that your two most recent TH-cam videos have caused me to reconsider how I set my camera up for future adventures. I would love to buy a Leica Q3 43 but my bank manager has given me over 5000 reasons why this will have to wait a while. But my Fuji 27mm has a converted focal length of 40mm and I may weld this to my XE-4 where it already lives most of the time. This will have to do for a while as I put some more of your ideas into action. Thanks for the great videos James
I kind of like your approach using a human eye field of view and taking photos from a standing position. This simple approach works well for your photos. I do like to simplify my setup and approach too. It helps me to avoid having too many decisions to make which works well for me. I currently use a Voigtlander 40mm lens and although I’ve been often tempted, I’ve never yet bought another focal length since purchasing this lens in 2019.
You are completely right, and that is why Pentax has the 43mm limited lens. A great lens.
I have the Q3 43. I sold my Q3 28 because it was only a sidekick to my SL3 on landscape trips. But I’m using the Q3 43 every day now. More often than my M11P. Having an APO lens this handy is amazing.
For all the expensive glass I own, currently my favourit is the 28mm Tamron Adaptall which ends up at an effective 42mm on my APSC camera... all manual of course, but there's just something about it that I love. And it cost me £12.
Image at 8:34 is print worthy 😊
Love your work James and I’m also enjoying shooting a current documentary project at 40mm (equivalent) focal length on a Lumix GX9 and the 20mm f1.7 pancake lens.
Keep up the great work, I could watch you talk about focal length for days
7:29 - this is a lovely photo, don't underestimate it
I saved this one too for inspiration, but I think he knew what he was doing when he timed it to the moment where he said he wasn't overly excited about the results :D
Thanks for this. I keep struggling to find my one lens. 40-50 is my favorite focal length. I think you hit it on the nail with the magnification aligning to what we see. I think that is the appeal to me. I often want wider, but I don’t want everything being pushed away like a wide angle. I like longer, but that to me , that is typically compensating because you can’t get closer.
I hope that makes sense. I’d pick 40 or 50 as my lens to never leave the camera if it worked better in close quarters. Anything wider or longer is a special situations lens to me.
You've just inspired me to go out and do photography tomorrow, thanks James 👍🏻
I see what you did here 😂
James: sorry Sony, I now see why having a boring but reliable camera is brilliant, I won't need to do that again for a long time.
Also James: so I got given a Hassy and then bought this Leica... Yeah yeah I know.
Ah I do love your stuff, it's always good and amusing. But we all fall for GAS even if we don't want to 😂😂
If you take a bunch on a tripod and stitch them in a panorama you could replicate the human field of view. Ive seen some half sphere paintings that do that and they are awesome!.
Nice video and photography!!! :)
I have got a 43mm limited lens on my pentax k1camera. It’s taken me a while to get use to and appreciate, but love it and produces great colours due the lens coatings
I see what my brain says. If its at distance, I see at 200mm and exclude the power lines. If it is at night I see fisheye 180 degrees looking for the bad man creeping up behind
Given the layout of human heads and eyes, you know, side-x-side, lateral arrangement, 'n all....Why shoot or compose/print vertically?
Yoshihisa Maitani, the designer of so many great Olympus cameras, promoted this idea in the late 1950s. Many of his designs feature 40-42mm focal lengths including his swansong 40mm f2.0 for the OM series.
Just came back from Venice after shooting with this camera, astonishing. Great video as always
As a corollary while I like the 50mm and 35mm lately I am liking 24mm and 85mm very interesting focal lengths. They are giving me a view that we do not normally see and helps create interest
Simply put, your photographs are more and more beautiful. Your points are valid, but I come back for the images…
I like what David Hockney says, to paraphrase, "The problem with photography is that it's a guy squinting through a hole with one eye." I think that is why I like using different focal lengths, to disrupt that everyday point of view. But I do agree that there is something pleasing about 40 - 50 mm.
Having read quite a bit of Hockney on photography, I'd take what he says with a pinch of salt. IMHO I don't think he has a clue when it comes to the subject.
Natural perspective is exactly why my favorite walkabout lens for my Sony A7CR is the compact and lightweight Samyang/Rokinon f1.8 45mm. The Sigma f1.4 40mm ART is the GOAT, but it's insanely big and heavy for anything but planned shoots.
Some fab pics, looking forward to seeing more in future from this lovely camera
great video Sir , also amazing photos
Thanks. Enjoyed this insight into Olgas work. Hugely inspiring.
If you didn't have chance you can go round and walk up on top of the aqueduct. I got some nice shots from up there, or walking down into the tunnel that the canal runs through.
Also, nice ice cream canal boat normally docked there.
My old Olympus 35RC had a 42mm lens and I always thought that was pretty much spot on. There's room in my small bag for a Q3 but sadly not enough room in my budget... another thoughtful vid, thanks 👍
There's not a lot nicer than to walk about with a camera! Great stuff, thanks x
Wow your photos look incredible! I had to pause the video all the time and just enjoyed. Also admire your editing style, looks so dreamy and almost rendered. Is that the Leica look or just you being a wizard?
This explains why i like a 35mm lens the most on my 35mm filmcamera.
How many of us thought of James when the Q3 43 was launched?
I only just understood focal lengths recently, I always considered them like they were cropping the frame.
When you say the 43mm "magnification" is the most realistic to what we see, I think it also has to do with the compression of that focal length. That is, if you took the same photo with a 35mm, or an 85mm lens you'd have to stand closer or further away to get the same framing, but doing this changes the perspective of what we see (I feel like I could do this better with a diagram) This effect is compounded with wider and wider lenses.
I believe, if I have understood what you're saying correctly, that the 43mm has the natural human perspective relative to it's crop. So the compression feels really organic to our eyes.
I hope this helps.
I use a Rokkor 45mm F2 alot and being a vintage lens it gives some nice character too... Keep it up sir, amazing as always!
That nice Leica! Great reward for your good work here. I've shoot mainly with my 40mm f2.8 Canon pancake lens for years. Now it is stuck in my Sony a7IV with an adapter. When I started to use it, my eyes got just so accommodated to that focal length I don't want to use anything else. Planning to buy the Sony 40mm 2.5 in near future, so my daughter can use the canon on the 6D instead of the zoom.
You have definitely spoken about it at (focal) length....🥁
I used to feel 50mm was more ‘natural’ to me. However, now I gravitate to 35mm pretty consistently. In LF 4x5 film I have come to love my 135mm (about 40+ mm 35mm equivalent) over the more normal 150mm. There is something that just pulls me to those.
Hey James. Your vision on photography has really caught my interest. Regarding the 'true' focal length, or as we see with out eyes. How would you go on about panoramas shot at 40-50 mm focal length. Would that replicate both the field of view and the magnification in which we see things?
I appreciate and enjoy your videos, thank you! Please comment on how you reconcile wanting the focal length to match what we see but not the colors. More specifically, your penchant is for taking color out of the sky because you believe that helps avoid distracting from the main subjects of your photos, yet often the result is not what one would see.
1:45 Does a sensor have a diameter?
(Makes me wonder why they aren't round like the aperture)
Because people don't want round photos
No they don't really, assumedly he meant the diagonal.
Early on, the only lens I owned was a 50mm. It worked very well for a long time. Good point.
Carry on. 👍🥂
I have a Z6 with the 24-200. I think James, you are persuading me to back to MPB and buy the 40mm prime. It will make a much lighter and more wieldy combo for 'walkabout' type stuff.
amazing video, framing is always so good
This is a topic I've thought about a lot! Excellent video!
This validated my purchases of the new Viltrox 28mm for my APS-C camera. I cant wait for it to arrive!!
The moment it was announced I knew the Q343 is something you would enjoy or at least be interested in. Looking forward to seeing more of your work from the 343!
Ooh another new camera!?! You’ve been blessed this year! If you’re bored of the hassy I don’t mind taking if off your hands for a bit. Nbd
If I had to choose only one lens it would be a normal lens or between 40 and 55 because it is a very natural focal length with practically no distortion and that maintains the real proportions. The problem is that sometimes there are very narrow places where a wide angle is necessary, that's why my minimum travel kit is a 28 and a 50.
I think that due to the overabundance of cell phones, the field of vision around 28mm is the comfort zone and getting to 50 requires a little more effort. Furthermore, since the 50mm does not have any special effect on perspective and depth of field like the wide angle, it also requires more concentration or intuition when composing.
Good stuff James. There is a feature of life that changes field of view from natural to narrow instantaneously, glasses. I have been wearing them for 15-20 years and still think I am seeing the world through straws. It's a 1000 mm view with zero magnification.
Probably why I love the images I get from my Contax G Zeiss 45mm Funleader helicoid converted lens.
That explains why I liked that 28mm on my crop sensor so much.
Great video. I'm still re-learning photography since taking up digital with a Fujifilm. An old X-M1 with the TTArtisans 27mm and I love it. Tried the 35mm (eq 50mm) and not so much. I did dabble with the Lumix S9 and Sigma 45mm, that was awesome but sold it as need one camera with a viewfinder and the X-M1 one was more fun than the S9! I ended up with a Fujifilm X-S20 as the S9 replacement, but the 27mm still goes on it more often than the 35mm.
I shot with a zoom lens for 10 years
Recently switched to a prime 35mm (converts to 56mm on crop sensor)
Certainly makes some scenarios more difficult, but overall no regrets.
I love photography with a thought out purpose like this, especially when you can see it in the work without having it explained to you. We know exactly why you do what you do, and the connection you make to your subject just by seeing a sequence of your images.
For me, working a scene with a 28 via LCD is my sweet spot. I like to get more in, and find the ideal angle and height of view even if that means completely wonky images. My wife says my photos remind her how a dog would see things. 😂
I wonder if it would have a different effect on the viewer concerning voyeurism. Could be an interesting project. 😎
a day ago i searched "what is the focal length of the human eye" and now this video pops up. thank you kind sir
2:42 I find this phenomenon with a 50mm on my old film camera, things just look the right size in the viewfinder. Probably less applicable, because the viewfinder doesn't _quite_ cover the full 36x24 frame, but it's the thought that counts, i guess