Does shifting a shift lens (say the 35 Zuik) up or down by so many
millimeters, say 10, correspond to changing the height of a non-shift 35mm
lens on a camera up or down 10mm via tripod?
If that were true, there wouldn't be very many shift lenses sold!
(They're usually more expensive than taller tripods. :-)
Imagine a lens with an image circle twice the diagonal length of a
35mm lens. So, it would capture twice the image as a "normal" 35mm
lens of the same focal length. Now shift that lens up or down so that
the large image circle is offset on the film.
Let's say you're trying to shoot a waterfall, but you can only fit
half of it in the frame with your 35mm wide angle. Put on the shift
lens without moving the camera, shift it full up, and now you can see
the entire waterfall. In effect, shifting the lens has lengthened
your tripod to half the waterfall's height, NOT just the amount by
which you shifted the lens!
These are illustrative examples. I don't think actual shift lenses
double the image circle -- probably more like 50% more.
And there's a down-side -- all that extra light bouncing around
inside the mirror box reduces contrast via increased flare.
: Jan Steinman <mailto:Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
: Bytesmiths <http://www.bytesmiths.com>
< 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 >
|