All valid points in your second paragraph, Shagrath!
That is why I elaborated the point what I see as a valid definition of "normal" in my second post. But perhaps I was not clear enough:
I did not
require the image to cover your whole field of view, but only some part: The part (frame) that you wanted to put into your image. But I required to reproduce the perceived size of objects in this frame exactly as you have seen it in the real world.
This concentration on a frame (a "cutout of the real world") is only to make the discussion simpler. As you will see, the formula can also be applied to images that are made of (stitched) panoramas or spheres.
So perhaps you understand why I don't concur with your first paragraph:
- I think the definition is a valid and beautifully simple description of what would be perceived normal
- And the question of how to achieve this "normalcy" is also a valid question
I concede though, that not every photographer in every image tries to achieve normalcy in the sens of the above definition. And it also holds true, that a "normal" picture not necessarily equals a "good" picture.
But that was never the intention in the discussion about "normal" lenses.
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews
, My Pictures
, My Photography Blog