Two separate things here.
You are correct about perspective distortion
There is also simply different perspective. Whoever wrote about 17mm and
500mm giving same images at different scales is correct - as long as the
camera position doesn't change. Take pictures of a subject, say the
trees in the middle distance in Joel's lovely pics, and make the size of
the subject the same size through wide angle and tele lenses and the
images will be very different. That's because the perspective will be
different, that is, the angle subtended by objects in front of and
behind the subject will be very different and they will appear as
different sizes relative to the subject. Take a picture of the grasses
at the near edge of the water from close up with a 17mm and the Three
Brothers will appear as insignificant little things in the far distance.
Step back quite a ways and take a picture of the grass at the same size
in the frame with a 500mm and the Brothers will appear enormous, looming
over the pond.
Perspective change applies to our eyes too, but they compensate and we
tend not to notice it unless it is extreme or we are photographers
looking for that perfect shot.
I've got pics of the Brothers from last year about this time, at least
one with a 28/2, also across water, a pond, but I think from a bit
further west. Lovely spot.
Moose
Bob Fenstermacher wrote:
Nice shots for comparison. Unless I'm mistaken, they are basically
identical images except for cropping or blowing up because the subject
matter is too far away to show any perspective distortion (like a huge nose
with a 16mm lens up close and personal).
From a matter of taste, in this set, I like the 28 because the Three
Brothers is more dominant in it's image size-it's a more interesting subject
than the extra trees the 24 adds. IMHO...
< 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 >
|