TAKO. INTERNET SEIT 1996.
Olympus-OM

Re: [OM] Hyper?

Subject: Re: [OM] Hyper?
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 12:46:47 -0700
On 9/12/2020 9:38 AM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:
At 9/11/2020 10:40 PM, Moose wrote:

I wonder if anyone noticed what lens the front yard photo of Smog chez Moose 
was taken with?

I grabbed the A7 II with 16-35/4 lens. Once outside, I found that I could get 
either a shot of the yard, with a little bit of sky, or a shot with enough sky, 
but lots of perspective distortion. And correction of perspective distortion 
narrows the AoV quite a bit.

So I switched to the Voightländer Heliar-Hyper-Wide 10/5.6. Ahhh, foreground AND sky, 
with only moderate perspective distortion from imperfect hand holding. 
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/Heliar%2010-56/Hyper.htm>
Definitely a better shot wide.

Thanks!

I read that smart phones with auto-WB do not capture the color correctly.

I'd think that any camera set for Auto WB would get these colors wrong. OTOH, any Raw shot, including DNGs from iPhones, allows getting it right in post. I always shoot in Daylight WB outdoors. I often remember to switch to Tungsten indoors. In museums and galleries, I tend to pull my WhiBal card out of my wallet and get reference shot(s).

Is that the 16-35/4? 16-45/4 must be typo.

"Eyepo"? Both the part of my post quoted above and the one in my Sent box read "16-35/4". Sony/Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS. Not sure yet how much I like it. There is was, Bargain grade, for way less than  new, at KEH when I bought my used A& II. It would be Mint+ on the 'Bay. Seems nice enough, optically, but sure is big and heavy.

The perspective correction, to my eye, does not add much over just the Lens 
correction.

Talking about all three shots? Or only the Voightländer? Makes a big difference for the 16 mm shot, pointed up. I've over compensated a bit. The left utility pole is not, in fact, vertical, and the one on the right leans a lot. I made the left one vertical because it's such a strong element in the composition. The Voightländer shot is close to perfect sans any correction of either kind.

Which tool did you use for Lens correction?

For the Sony lens, the profile built into LR/ACR. For the Voightländer, I 
checked the DxO profile, but didn't use it.

It seems to me that the wider view is more compelling as to the phenomenon of 
the sky, while also showing its effect on colors below it.

Of note is that the Sony has considerable linear distortion, while the 
Voightländer has essentially none. DxO PhotoLab has a profile for it, but the 
change is infinitesimal.

Differences in light/color are likely 'cause the light was changing.

I know a lot of people are fearful that such a wide AoV lens is too hard to 
use. I'm not convinced, I think it opens up opportunities.
The wider looks great. And nothing looks stretched out of place. When I want 
wide, sometimes 16 does not always get there.

Exactly so. Even the 14 mm eq. of a µ4/3 7mm isn't there. You can see that here. <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/Heliar%2010-56/HWAoV.htm>

And I don't see how a stitch could quite do the job either.

I don't think that would work at all well for this subject. And, a heck of a lot more work! I don't MIND stitching panos, but I can't say I LIKE it. :-)

Wide Eyed 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/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>