Please explain, give two examples, and provide a three-color
drawing. :-)
You may be right. Triggernometry and perpertrators is something I
used to deal with, but trigonometry is way over my head, and
perpendicular I understand only occasionally.
When I get time, I'll do a "viewfinder study" comparing the 35/2
to the 35/2.8 shift with the shift shifted whichever way the shift
will shift and shifted as much as it will shift. What I can see,
I can sometimes understand. The older I get, the more I know I
don't know.
Walt
_____________________________________________________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time
and to its government when it deserves it." -- Mark Twain
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Piers Hemy" <piers@xxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 19:58:37 +0100
>This has come up before, and I didn't believe the answer offered
>then. But it has taken me awhile to work out why...
>
>It's my understanding that the 83 degrees coverage is *not* the
>image circle, but the field of view when the len is at maximum
>shift.
>
>It isn't that the shift lens itself can defy the laws of optical
>physics, but that when the lens is shifted, the field of view is
>no longer perpendicular to the lens axis and perpendicular to the
>film plane (but still parallel to the film plane). Therefore,
>the greater the amount of shift, the smaller the angle between
>the lensaxis and film plane, and the greater the angle of view.
>
>It's the laws of trigonometry.
>
>
>Piers
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|