Ahh, Moose, then we probably agree much much more :)
I've never done much close-up or macro work "above water" in nature,
but I would assume that you are quite right. Now, don't go around
talking about how great it is, let alone show some of your usually
very nice photos to make me lust for a 90/2 or some such longer focal
length for macro......the CDFO will not look kindly upon that....:)
--thomas
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:58:14 -0700
Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Let me restate. "I prefer longer focal lengths for nature work that
>
> doesn't involve shooting through water because of their longer
> working distances."
>
> Moose
>
> Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:
>
> >Uhh, Moose, I beg to differ. When photographing something with
> >water(be that underwater or in a fish-tank) then "shorter is
> >better" is the rule.
> >
>
>
>
>
> < 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 >
>
>
--
------------------------------------------------
Thomas Heide Clausen
Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt)
M.Sc in Computer Engineering
E-Mail: T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
WWW: http://voop.free.fr/
------------------------------------------------
< 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 >
|