the title was intenede to be a bit cathchy and humoristic. I never said that perspective is non sense..but rather meant that for some people this article can clear up some non-sense or misunderstanding.
--
are they the same? from what I can see they are different.
--
it's the way both wide angle and telephoto feel.. Like I said, I am not considering taking off a crop off the wide angle shot to produce the telephoto shot. I understand that from the same distance and angle it does not change. I was simply refering to how wide angle look deep and how telephoto lens make a scene look flat. That's the only thing that it has to do with.
I know from the same distance the perspective does not change..and I was not even refering to that. I also menionted that no crop..since it is not the way was use these lenses. We use them full frame. sure if I take a crop out of 5 pixel by 5 pixel from a wide angle..I recreate the same field of view from the same distance but that's abolutely not what I was talking about.
I don't need to try it. I know it. but I was talking about something totaly different here.
--
in order to tell with that scene is to have a reference. if you frame the scene in the same manner with a wide angle lens and a telephoto lens, they will feel different.Ok... One sample... Shot with a wide angle or telephoto:
----
KEG
All comments should be taken as shameless plugs for me and my
equipment
a1/b1=a2/b2
But that's also exactly my point. There is no difference between how a 35mm makes a scene "feel" compared to a 135mm from the same distance and using identical angle of view. If you agree with that then you agree with the other posters who you are trying to debunk who are all saying the same thing.
it's a retranscription..so maybe he made a mistake somewhere, not sure.
--
from the same distance..but that is not what I was talking about either. I did not say from the same distance. In order to frame the things in the same matter, you do have to change your distance.
for exemple of a portrait..why people don't use wide angle lens for portrait? simple because it distord facial feature...why? because they must get close to get the same framing..and doing so they affect the perspective. The nose will look larger than it really is and it is not pleasing. now you step back and use a telephoto and the nose look more in proportion. that's the way we use these lenses.
oh..I simly thought the article was interesting and that could be of interest to some people. if people are not interested in the article...they should just skip it.
no they were arguing about something else..somethign that I wasn't even arguing about.
it's the way we work with these lens that is different. It does not matter why they look deeper or flater, they do look different. Maybe when a person start to pay attention to composition and framing..they will realize that it make a big difference in the perception of depth. For exemple, the 22mm shot for me does not cut it...it does not look as what I was seing with my eyes for relative distance.
like I said..I thought the article was interesting and I wanted to know the thoughts others had about it. quite simple
--
And there is the rub. People (including me) misunderstood the intent of your original post, and really if you had changed the title of the original post to something more applicable to the discussion this thread would've gone over much more smoothly.
No debate there.
I was interested, but I found nothing new in there. Like I said, this concept has been around a long time, and even newbies learn about it if they look in the right places for how-to tips.
I beg to differ that it doesn't matter why. Knowing the reasons for different optical/photographic behavior is key to truly understanding your craft.
Fair enough.So if you say that a
like I said..I thought the article was interesting and I wanted to
know the thoughts others had about it. quite simple
Sorry, I confess to not having read the article as it failed to load when I first tried. I jumped to the conclusion that it would support the idea that perspective was a function of focal length rather than the distance to subject. Sorry if I jumped on the wrong wagon here - still haven't read the article ;-)
sure..but each time I point this out here..it is always a mess. maybe it is my fault and I don't have the correct way of saying this..why the article is a better way. if it was not useful for you..then too bad..at least it was useful for some people and for that only it was worth it.... we're done. Thus concludes this edition of "DPReview Pointless
Debates"
Back when I was still a complete photography newbie, I read some
basic photography books and they described the flatness that you
get from a telephoto lens compared to a wide angle. This is a
universally accepted concept as old as exchangable lenses, and can
be witnessed in every day photography.
yeah..problem like that happen when you try to find catchy title LOL
yes you, but some people did find something new from it. I did not post this only for you you know
hmm did you read the article? what exactly do you find confusing in it?
----
pakety
somehow I suspect that you are not alone..and many people have responded in this thread without even reading the article
--
Hi Daniella...just seemed like you and Yohan weren't on the same page so some examples would have helped to clarify.
--
yes and that objects will seems closer to each other than they actualy are. inverse goes for wide angle lenses.
it the article create misunderstanding..not my fault. I thought it was quite clear what it meant.
no fuz, just thought the article help understanding it all.Just trying to understand what all the fuzz is about.
--
