----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> The small scale of some natural landscape features can mean they can't
> be shot from a distance, yet encompass a very wide field of view
> close-up. This image and nos. 6 & 7 are shot from within the canopies of
> dwarf oak trees. My feeling at the time I took them was that wider would
> be better
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MorroBay/ElfinForest/slides/_MG_1141ptl.html>.
>
> Number 9 was taken from a boardwalk that protects the delicate habitat.
> Backed up as far as I could go without falling off, I could only capture
> part of what I thought was a very beautiful tree with 17mm. Again, I
> think wider would be better. 12mm? I don't know, but wider than 17mm.
>
I won't classific them as landsacpe, just some close distance natures. Don't
you think the coverage need to be taller, wider may not give you better
views here. BTW, the images do not give a sense of 'wide' to my eyes.
> Interior
> --------
> I don't usually do a lot of interiors. But when I have, I don't recall
> wanting greater coverage in the short dimension. Certainly not at the
> expense of loss of any of the long dimension coverage angle.
>
> Almost all the images in this gallery, even exteriors, were shot at
> 17mm. <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MorroBay/HearstCastle/index.html>
>
> Looking at them again, I only see a couple where it appears to me that
> greater short dimension coverage might be of use. On the other hand,
> there are many where more long dimension coverage would have been
> useful. I certainly remember feeling constricted by 17mm, and wanting
> something wider. I don't think the short dimension coverage was ever a
> conscious issue for me.
>
> The Roman pool simply screamed for a wider lens. Vertical coverage of
> the 17mm caught lots of ceiling detail, but it couldn't capture the
> sweep of the room. Had I not been on a tour, and had a tripod, I think a
> panorama would have been wonderful. However, neither of those things are
> possible there. I think I may have the shots for a panorama of the
> Neptune pool.
I'm sure you will find some examples that fit a 16:9 view or panorama but I
can also give some examples that benifit from 4/3 and even square:
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/P8275391.jpg
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/P8173100.jpg
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/P8173103.jpg
Actually, most people use superwide for special perspective effect not for
landscape, the beautiful shots from Jan Steinman are some typical examples.
After using the 40D for four months I really miss the 4/3. BTW, there is a
rumor about the Olympus square format DSLR, it sounds very interesting!
C.H.Ling
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
