Walt, I agree with almost everything you say!
A failure to communicate.
I wish *I* were articulate enough to explain it.
I think a beer and a lay down is good idea.
What I am saying is if it is possible to frame the full width of a building
standing midpoint in front of it with a 24mm normal lens, it is also
possible to frame the full width by standing in front of one corner of the
building, using the 35mm shift, in both cases with the *film plane parallel
to the building*. No swivelling of the tripod, or your head - that would be
cheating!
Bottom line - we are actually saying the same thing, but one of us sees a
potential advantage, the other a "so-what".
Piers
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Walt Wayman
Sent: 06 July 2004 02:17
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: Shift lenses
Piers,
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate -- that is, a
difference in semantics. What you call "field of view" ain't the same as
what I call "field of view." Yours is theoretical; mine is not. Yeah, you
can wiggle the 35 shift around and have it "view" stuff the 35/2 can't
without moving the camera. But that ain't "field of view, at least not by
my definition.
According to the way you seem to define field of view, because I can swivel
my head on my neck, my field of view would be something like 280 degrees, or
more, depending on how good my peripheral vision might be. By my
definition, no matter which way I turn my head, my field of view, including
peripheral vision, is a constant 130 degrees or so, no matter which way my
head is turned.
Bottom line: under all circumstances, the 35/2.8 shift has a narrower field
of view, that is, the width and height of the scene that makes it to the
film, than the 35/2.
All this is making my head hurt. I wish I were articulate enough to explain
it more better. I think I'll just have another beer and go lay myself down
for a while. :-)
Walt
-------------- Original message from "Piers Hemy" : --------------
>
> What you are missing Walt, is that you needed to move the tripod when
> you put the 35/2 on the OM-4, such that the centre of the frame is the
> same for both exposures. Otherwise you are not comparing like with
> like - that is what I had in mind when I said "a fully shifted 35mm
> lens has the same coverage **(parallel to the film plane) as a 24mm
> normal lens**". If you didn't move the tripod, you must have panned
> the camera round to compare the fields of view. It's a critical
> difference, which escaped me for a long time.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|