On 4/23/2020 4:28 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
<<Perhaps you missed my post "How Wide is Wide?" (repeated below the double
line)
<<and the subsequent thread?
Yes, but that has been remedied. You make a compelling extremely well
illustrated case for ultrawides.
Thanks!
I'm not advocating that one put one on the camera and go out to shoot only with it. I'm saying that they are a great way
to get shots that suggest themselves to the eye, but would otherwise be impossible to capture.
<<<LR (Mike, get with it and load the gallery!) saith I took 480 shots with the
Tammy 17-35 @ 17 mm on 5D.
Done!!! on one system at least, 2nd system tomorrow. Took day off after all
the sad commotion and scrambling to tie up loose ends for final time. :-(
Gotta be tough.
I don't know how to search by lens yet either.
At the top of the thumbnails display, click on "Metadata". You can select up to
four nested selection criteria.
<<<Finally, the cover shot for my book "Mount Desert Island and Acadia National Park"
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Travel/NorthEast_2009/MtDesert/Misc&image=_MG_7928n.jpg>
I remember and love that shot. Well done.
Thanks!
All I did was see it and have the right gear at hand. Light, tide and clouds were provided. :-) The car literally
skidded on gravel as I stopped as fast as I could, leapt out and ran through some low trees to the view. I took lots
more shots, including a wider panorama, but none were quite as good.
The interior shots demonstrate utility of ultrawides. I was surprised that the
defished fishies were insufficient.
There's a distortion problem. It doesn't show in all shots, depending on the subject. With shots like at the entrance to
Capitol Gorge trail, with no reference, they look good. But they aren't very accurate. Also, of course, all that
stretching wreaks havoc with resolution.
This one worked out well. I had nice lines to work with, v2 of Fisheye-Hemi, with lots more control, it's displayed
fairly small, and there isn't much of interest in the corners.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/Panny_8mm3dot5/StAudensFish.htm>
For subjects that look good cropped to a narrow horizontal band across the
center, they are fabulous.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/Heliar%2010-56/HWAoV.htm>
I fully realize this is just an AOV illustration but one can see how it takes
compositional skill to use these UW's well. Anything close on the sides gets "the
stretches" from volume anamorphosis --most of the time I don't like that look.
Yup, that's a good reason to go with pana crops. All the old, film based ultra wide cameras did that for practical film
and mechanics reasons, but it also hid most of those problems. There is also width stretching at the horizontal edges,
but it's not as noticeable.
The point may be that it depends on the subject - AND - one gets to choose the crop. With sky corners and dark and/or
nondescript subject in bottom corners, and it won't be seen, for example.
There is also the hope that I can spend much less time in the digital darkroom,
un-fishing.
The other thing is the lens is just a couple stops too slow for astro for my
sonnie cam at least.
Certainly not an astro lens, unless you can stop the Earth from spinning for a few seconds, or get an order of magnitude
increase in low noise ISO. :-)
It is a very nice lens for what it is however.
I hope so, in practice. Oddly enough, I'm not impatient or frustrated at having no "real" subjects for it; just happy to
have a tool I've wanted for some time in the kit.
Side to Side Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
