Wayne Culberson wrote:
>Thanks Moose,
>
>I think I learned something, as I have many times from your posts. I'm not
>saying I fully understand it, but I do believe that you do.
>
>What would I know anyways, as I was always satisfied with the coverage of
>the T20 with the 28mm lens before I got a T32? :-)
>
>I still invite anyone who lives in a typical bungalow to go into their
>living room and compare the actual coverage of a 24mm lens to a 28mm as to
>the extra included in the edges. Use your OM that gives the fullest
>viewfinder image so you get the best idea. I think you'll find that it won't
>really matter whether those extra few inches of side walls are lit to the
>exact 1/2 stop or not.
>
I quite agree, although 28=>21 or 24=>18 do make quite noticable
differences in coverage. For someone photographing an interior on its
own, it could make a difference how evenly the edges are covered by the
flash. Most of my indoor flash pics, wide angle or not, are of people,
who are generally closer to the camera than are the walls and furniture.
So, if the people are exposed correctly, the background is less exposed,
to the benefit of the people shot, and I would never notice edge
fall-off in the background anyway.
When I used my XA quite a bit for gathering shots, I used to use 200
speed film and set the flash (which only has 100 & 400 asa auto
settings) to 400. That generally avoided the classic snapshot flash
result of nicely exposed background and blown out faces.
>It's not really what photography is all about.
>
I generally agree, but think that knowing the tools is useful. But all
one needs to know is that a T32 covers a 24mm lens, not all the angles
and such.
>Just my opinion. But it's still a more interesting discussion to me than cars
>and engines :-)
>
Oh, yeah!!
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|