Thread: Why are there no 50mm fixed focal length serious compacts?

The 50mm in 35mm was an odd ball. It was taken from cinema camera lenses and stuck onto a Leica. 35mm was the only format not to have a true normal--at least for a very long time.

A normal lens does not have the same angle of view as the human eye. In fact, the eye does not have a single field of view, which is why there has been so much debate and such about this. A normal lens has the same apparent perspective as your vision. This is because with a normal lens, the "standard viewing distance" (as defined as the distance equal to the size of the image) is the same as the "correct viewing distance" (as defined as a viewing distance matching the POV which is a ratio of format size to focal length). The apparent perspective is "normal."

I'm learning new stuff in this thread!

I feel that the manufacturers are correct in that 35mm is a better compromise focal length for a fixed-lens camera, pre-supposing that that camera is your only camera or that you are only likely to carry one camera. I don't even like the idea of carrying just one focal length so the idea of a best compromise is lost on me (by-the-by, it also explains why my only fixed lens camera is a zoom).

For a single focal length lens my preference is also towards the 40-50mm zone. At one point I thought that 35mm might be a good number but in truth I have always shot around it rather than at it (40+, or 28 and wider).

Originally Posted by TraamisVOS

I never knew they had 'starter' kits. I thought it was up to each dealer how they want to package their products.

The so called "starter" kits that I recall were M7's with 50mm Summicrons. I think Leica discounted the package by $100 or something like that.

There are 'starter' kits on eBay like that I think.

Some of the fixed lens cameras have a zoom step function that would allow you to select 50mm and stay there.

50mm in 35mm full-frame was popular as it was the cheapest lens to make. A bit of a compromise with interior work - just not wide enough and a bit of a compromise with portrait work - too wide meant distortions when shooting close.

Originally Posted by Hikari

The 50mm in 35mm was an odd ball. It was taken from cinema camera lenses and stuck onto a Leica. 35mm was the only format not to have a true normal--at least for a very long time.

A normal lens does not have the same angle of view as the human eye. In fact, the eye does not have a single field of view, which is why there has been so much debate and such about this. A normal lens has the same apparent perspective as your vision. This is because with a normal lens, the "standard viewing distance" (as defined as the distance equal to the size of the image) is the same as the "correct viewing distance" (as defined as a viewing distance matching the POV which is a ratio of format size to focal length). The apparent perspective is "normal."

it's such a relief to finally see someone get it right! although the one thing that's still relative about this, is the "standard viewing distance". I suppose having a viewing distance equal to the image diagonal makes for an image you can easily take in at once while still being able to discern plenty of detail, but still it's kind of arbitrary. But indeed, if we choose to accept this "standard viewing distance", then a 43mm equivalent lens will give you a natural perspective, as if you're looking through a window rather than at a photograph.

[edit] for those who are interested in FOV, the total FOV of a human being using both eyes and focusing on a single point is about 180*100 degrees, which is wider than most fisheye lenses (and it's shaped like an ellipse with a vertical narrowing in the middle). The area that's seen by both eyes is about 120 degrees wide, and the area that's in focus is about the size of a coin held at arm's length (super-tele territory). Focus and colour perception gradually (but non-linearly) fall off towards the edges while movement perception increases.

I really don't care what the "accepted" "new normal" is. After 50+ years, in photography, as my primary hobby, I know what I like. I almost never use anything wider than 50mm equiv. I understand, and agree that others have different "views". I don't expect camera companies to make something to my specs. But I sure would like something like the X100, with a 50mm, equiv. F1.4.
Sigh. Not holding my breath!
Even if they did, I couldn't buy it, until it was at least 2 generations old.

Originally Posted by snkenai

I really don't care what the "accepted" "new normal" is. After 50+ years, in photography, as my primary hobby, I know what I like. I almost never use anything wider than 50mm equiv. I understand, and agree that others have different "views". I don't expect camera companies to make something to my specs. But I sure would like something like the X100, with a 50mm, equiv. F1.4.
Sigh. Not holding my breath!
Even if they did, I couldn't buy it, until it was at least 2 generations old.

I guess folks like you who find 35 too wide and folks like me who find it too long are exactly why ILCs are a good idea. We can each be happy with the X-Pro, you with the 35mm (53-ish equivalent), me with the 18mm (28-ish equivalent). And Fuji only had to make one body for it.

-Ray