Piers,
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate -- that is, a difference
in semantics. What you call "field of view" ain't the same as what I call
"field of view." Yours is theoretical; mine is not. Yeah, you can wiggle the
35 shift around and have it "view" stuff the 35/2 can't without moving the
camera. But that ain't "field of view, at least not by my definition.
According to the way you seem to define field of view, because I can swivel my
head on my neck, my field of view would be something like 280 degrees, or more,
depending on how good my peripheral vision might be. By my definition, no
matter which way I turn my head, my field of view, including peripheral vision,
is a constant 130 degrees or so, no matter which way my head is turned.
Bottom line: under all circumstances, the 35/2.8 shift has a narrower field of
view, that is, the width and height of the scene that makes it to the film,
than the 35/2.
All this is making my head hurt. I wish I were articulate enough to explain it
more better. I think I'll just have another beer and go lay myself down for a
while. :-)
Walt
-------------- Original message from "Piers Hemy" : --------------
>
> 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.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|