>
>I am sorry Hans, but I think you are a little bit wrong here.
>Yes, the 35mm shift's image circle covers the angle of view of a normal
>24mm. (The 24mm shift eaquals that of the 18mm).
>But if you have to tilt a normal 24mm lens to get a building in the frame,
>you also have to tilt the fully shifted 35mm shift.
>AFAIK, The right approach would be: If you can get a building into the
>frame on a normal 24mm lens without tilting, you can also get it (the
>height) into the frame with the 35mm shifted. If you can get a building.
>Same goes for normal 18mm and 24mm shift.
>
Hmmm... Unfortunately I no longer have either lens to test but I don't seem
to recall that they worked like this. A 24 shift should only record on film
the same as a normal 24. Pointing it at a building only allows you to point
it at the base of the building and then shift it up, as opposed to pointing
the camera up as you would do with a regular lens.
In NYC, the 35 shift was practically useless because I couldn't even fit my
own 6 story apartment building in it, never mind a real skyscraper. It
certainly did not have the coverage of a 24.
Denton
< 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 >
|