> From: "Peter A. Klein" <pklein@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [OM] Re:minimum carry kits
> [...]
> I often get this reaction when I see super-wide shots. They put the
> subject IN YOUR FACE and add a bit of surrealism in the bargain. They are
> great for showing the viewpoint of an insect, or a small child, but they
> create a view that is (in skilled hands) intense, but often more fun-house
> mirror.
>
> So all you folks that think 28mm is already a medium telephoto, why do you
> like your super-wides so much?
Because the field of view of the human eye doesn't necessarily map very well
onto the field of view of a camera lens.
When you're looking at a sweeping landscape or a large building, you see the
whole thing. You may have to move your eyes, or even tilt your head, but you
still manage to take in the whole view.
Stick a 50mm lens on your OM, and look through the viewfinder, and you'll see a
small portion of the vista. The perspective may be "correct," but what you see
through the finder is not what you see with your own eyes.
Super-wides let you get the whole picture. As a case in point, may I demonstrate
with one of my own images at:
http://homepage.dtn.ntl.com/vanda/alasdair/images/Australia/SydneyOpera1.jpg
This was taken with a Nikkor 20mm. (Yes, I know, but look in the bright side. It
was partly the experience of lugging ruddy great Nikons round Oz that brought me
back into the Olympus fold.)
You might argue that the perspective in this shot is exaggerated, and the
balance of foreground and background elements is wrong. Nevertheless, this is
what I *saw*, standing there on the harbour ferry with this whacking great
bridge overhead, and the foam of our wake on the water below. If I'd been using
a 50, I simply wouldn't have been able to reproduce the effect of being there.
Alasdair
< 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 >
|
