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.
Piers
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Walt Wayman
Sent: 05 July 2004 18:21
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: Shift lenses
I just put an OM-4 on a tripod, stuck on the 35 Zuiko shift, took note of
what was at each edge of the viewfinder, then replaced it with a 35/2 Zuiko.
At a distance of 10 feet, the 35/2 actually covers about a six-inch wider
field than the shift lens. Shifting the shift lens in any direction
actually DECREASES the field of view so that the 35/2 then covers nearly a
foot wider field at 10 feet. This hands-on, with-the-gear experiment makes
a lot more sense to me than mysterious calculations and folded paper.
What am I missing?
--snip
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|