4 of the 357's and a little wad of aluminum foil. A bit tedious install, but works fine. The only 544 size 6v silver battery I know of is branded Exell . Looks very generic and Chinese. The 357 silvers are name brand and about 5 dollars for a 3 pack at the Dollar General store. I'm not about to order some generic looking and probably Chinese battery off the internet. And then wait for it to be shipped. Probably doesn't last 5 minutes, like their light bulbs.I've had the same 6v battery in my ELW for several years now, probably only the 2nd one in over 10 years, so it doesn't seem to be any more battery-dependent than other AE Nikon bodies. And I'm probably putting about 10 rolls/year thru it (too many other Nikon bodies to use). I didn't know it was possible to use four 1.5v batteries instead.
In any case, it's a great camera. The weight, fit and smooth finish just scream "quality". Hope you get the battery issue resolved and have fun shooting it.
Cheers!
I collect and repair Trip 35's, and I have found that most of them have good Selenium cells. I think Olympus used good quality cells, unlike many others.Yeah a selenium cell would be great. And in 2018 about as good as the Rochelle Salt cartridge in an old phonograph.
I'd never read that definition either. I have read either:
- (definion A)
- a focal length such that the view of objects through the viewfinder matches in size what the (other) open eye sees
I just took a look at the battery installed in my ELW - it's a Duracell 6v lithium 28L. Comparing the metering accuracy to my other Nikon bodies with silver-oxides installed, I don't see any difference. I haven't bought one in a long time, but I see them on Amazon for around $10 each. Might be worth a try...4 of the 357's and a little wad of aluminum foil. A bit tedious install, but works fine. The only 544 size 6v silver battery I know of is branded Exell . Looks very generic and Chinese. The 357 silvers are name brand and about 5 dollars for a 3 pack at the Dollar General store. I'm not about to order some generic looking and probably Chinese battery off the internet. And then wait for it to be shipped. Probably doesn't last 5 minutes, like their light bulbs.
This second 'definition' is a totally undefinable angle!
...
<calculations omitted>
...
The central field of vision for most people covers an angle of between 50° and 60°. Within this angle, both eyes observe an object simultaneously. a 35mm FL provides a 55 degree horizontal AOV. Yet 35mm FL is certainly NOT ever stated as the 'normal' for 135 format!
...
Yet that is the very question asked as the topic of this thread. So perhaps 35mm is perfectly reasonable for someone to consider "normal"..
...which is why I stated the eye's AOV... to show that the 'normal' lens AOV is NOT 'like the human eye...it is too narrow! Even measured on the diagonal the 50mm is not 50 degrees wide like the eye sees.
Trying to make the viewfinder apparent size of an object (like a tree) at a certain FL setting might indeed match size and even 'perspective' as seen by the eye, but then it fails to match the breadth of the scene seen by the eye.
thanks for the clarification. I think, you got something there.Ralph,
When I got interested in large format photography 25 years ago, I got a book by Sinar. They first presented the approach of using the short dimension of the frame height as 'wide angle' FL. That FLdetermination gives all formats the same Angle of View in the short dimension, when all cameras are at the same camera position.
I adapted their use of the frame small dimension to make other FL to be multiples of the frame height (rather than using frame length or frame diagonal) Using that approach brings all FL choices to be multiples of the frame height regardless of aspect ratio of the format! That FL determination also gives all formats the same Angle of View in the short dimension for all the same multiplier, when all cameras are at the same camera position.
So with 135 having 24mm frame, using a classic 100mm portrait lens is a multiple of 4.167x frame height. So I can get the same portraiture Angle of View (in the short dimension) if I use 180mm on 645, or 233mm on 6x7 or 387mm on 4x5 sheetfilm, and make an 8x10" print size from all four formats.
For whatever it's worth, I have simply taken a zoom lens, put it on my camera, and looked around the room with the lens set at various focal lengths (I keep my other eye closed so as not to be influenced) - I then choose the view which I like the best. In my case, it's about 48mm for 135 format.
Another happy Trip user-I find it very handy for both street and landscape work, plus the odd environmental portrait (along with my XA2). 35mm IMO gives you a useful slightly wider view without distorting things too much. I used to have a 40 mm 'pancake' for my Pentax LX, which was tiny ...an SLR which was the size of a compact with it fitted!Trip 35 lens was very normal for me. So is normal zoom on SLR, 50 on FSU RF and 35 on Leica M.
Right - we are in agreement on this. The customary terminology I find confusing: 50-58mm focal lengths have been called "normal", whose angle of view is too narrow compared the eye's angle of view, as you stated.
Agreement again. But because the sizes match when both eyes are open, perhaps that's why the terminology "normal" was chosen for something like a 55mm lens.
I have no idea when the terminology "normal" was applied to various lens' focal lengths - it may well have started in the late1800's.
For the sake of the OP, I go back to my first post and say that whatever lens feels the most natural in typical situations is the one that should be used. If it happens to be 35mm - so be it.
I had XA, it quit on me. Sold da Trip and 40/2 Rokkor in M.Another happy Trip user-I find it very handy for both street and landscape work, plus the odd environmental portrait (along with my XA2). 35mm IMO gives you a useful slightly wider view without distorting things too much. I used to have a 40 mm 'pancake' for my Pentax LX, which was tiny ...an SLR which was the size of a compact with it fitted!
What makes a lens a "normal" lens isn't what most people think. It's not directly related to the film or sensor size, like most people are told. What actuall makes a lens "normal", is that it's designed so at infinity focus, it's focal length and the distance between the optical center of the lens and the focal point (the film or sensor) are roughly equal. In other words, it's not a telefocal or retrofocal design. Compromises in image quality must be made in order to make a lens retrofocal or telefocal, due to the extra elements involved. Hence why "normal" lenses tend to be faster and sharper on average. Most (but not all) lenses for bellows camera (like large format) are "normal" regardless of focal length. Most SLRs have their flange mounted around 40mm from the film plane (or sensor) so that's why most "normal" lenses for 35mm cameras are around 50mm in focal length. In a rangefinder, a true "normal" lens could be wider. It's also possible to have longer focal length lenses still be true "normal" lenses, provided that the barrels be longer and there are no telephoto elements involved.
Some people talk about "normal" lenses as lenses that best mimic the human viewing angle. There's a huge flaw in that logic, however, as the human eyes can perceive around 160 degrees in their periphery, yet only around 1 degree of that is in sharp focus. So basically we can pick up a super wide angle's worth of image, but only really maintain a sharp focus on a super telephoto's worth of image. So a 50mm lens will pick up a lot less information than our eyes would, yet can bring into sharp focus a lot more information than our eyes can. So basically, there is no way to mimic the way our eyes see with any lens, due to the dramatically different ways in which they render images.
Now, the perspective distortion people talk about has nothing to do with lens focal length. Perspective distortion is a product of subject distance. Since a wider angle lens has a wider viewing angle, the photographer is forced to get closer to the subject to get a similar composition to what might be achieved with a longer lens. In the context of a head shot, that might mean getting uncomfortably close to the model and creating unflattering distortion, making their head look more bloated than it should. With a very long focal length lens, the photographer would have to move uncomfortably far from the model to achieve a similar composition, and make their head look flatter than it should. Hence why 85mm is such a popular portrait lens length. It puts the model at about 12 feet away (which is a good distance to eliminate perspective distortion) while maintaining a tight crop on the model's head and shoulders. But perspective distortion can be eliminated with most lenses (except for things like fisheye lenses), provided the photographer prioritizes subject distance over composition. In other words, you can take a tight head shot with a super wide angle lens and be free of perspective distortion, if you are willing to crop a large portion of the image afterwards.
With all of that in mind, if you prefer taking photos with a wider viewing angle, like if you prefer incorporating more of the model's body into the frame, then it makes a lot of sense to use a wider lens. So there's nothing wrong with using a 35mm lens as your main lens (even if it's not technically a true "normal" lens), if that's what best suits your compositions. The biggest advantages true "normal" lenses provide are they are cheaper to make and typically smaller in size when made with wider apertures due to the lack of telephoto or retrofocal elements. They are also easier to make so that they avoid inducing pincushion and barrel distortions on the final image without these additional elements. So choose your lens because it provides the images you want, and not because it's supposed to be "normal".
this might be true, but i know sometimes parents and teachers have eyes on the back of their head. unfortunately the wiki article doesn' t take that into consideration !Paraphrasing what Wikipedia says (as a quick but sometimes quesionable source of accurate information) "Humans have about 180-degree forward-facing horizontal arc of their visual field, ...the vertical range of the visual field in humans is around 150 degrees."
the perfect normal lens for 35mm is 43mm focal length or other wise the lens you normally use, which for me is either the 35 or 50mm. I can never decide which to take with me but, I usually end up with the 50.I decided to post this because I'm curious as to the frequency or wisdom of twisting my old 35mm 2.0 Nikkor OC onto the Nikkormat ELW that I just finished restoring, and calling it my "normal" lens. I like the correct perspective of the 50mm, but it sure seems restrictive so many times when I have a group of 3 or 4 people in an average living room. And so often if I want to shoot an old church or barn, I can't get back far enough with a 50. Although a 50 gives correct perspective, it is very much like looking at the world through a keyhole. And it's easier to get closer to something than to back away when your back is already against the wall. So how about it? I wonder how many others call a 35 mm lens their normal lens. Thank you.
Perspective is not correct or incorrect. It is a choice. Select whatever perspective you deem appropriate for the image.I decided to post this because I'm curious as to the frequency or wisdom of twisting my old 35mm 2.0 Nikkor OC onto the Nikkormat ELW that I just finished restoring, and calling it my "normal" lens. I like the correct perspective of the 50mm, but it sure seems restrictive so many times when I have a group of 3 or 4 people in an average living room. And so often if I want to shoot an old church or barn, I can't get back far enough with a 50. Although a 50 gives correct perspective, it is very much like looking at the world through a keyhole. And it's easier to get closer to something than to back away when your back is already against the wall. So how about it? I wonder how many others call a 35 mm lens their normal lens. Thank you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?