The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Wide angle shooting with m4/3rds

Diane B

New member
There's been very little, if any, shown from the m4/3rds and WAZ other than the 7-14, so since i shot a few this past week, thought I would start with these 3.



This one is for my Highway 70 project




I haven't finished processing Saturday's shoot, but I used the 9-18 quite a bit--just about the right FL range for me.

Diane
 

Diane B

New member
I thought I would add that I did no perspective correction and in fact, shot from angles to get the angles shown (in the last 2). I've shot this same place several times before--starting back in 2002 with a WAZ (and corrected perspective as I recall) and then later with TS lens where I could correct it in camera. This time--looking for something not the same as before. The tiltable LCD allowed me an overhead for the top and from the ground for the second. My very first shot of it was with an old Canon D60 in 2002 http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/3943322 and then reprocessed a number of years later with a better RAW processor http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/38456051 This recent was shot very early in the morning with long shadows, a lot of light on the tower and no clouds. Makes a big difference--as does the angle of view of the camera.

Diane
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Diane, The last shot appears (EXIF) to be from the 17/2.8. CA is noticeable.
I am wondering how useful this lens is going to be for me (for street). I will know in a few short days...
 

Diane B

New member
Diane, The last shot appears (EXIF) to be from the 17/2.8. CA is noticeable.
I am wondering how useful this lens is going to be for me (for street). I will know in a few short days...
By george, I think you are right. I forgot I put that lens on at all for shooting here--was using the 9-18, 24 f/2.8 and then at one point, the 35 f/2.8 (its a pain not having the lens info in the EXIF and I've yet to use Godfrey's suggestion to extract and add that--sometimes I write it down--sometimes I just know from the FL--this is one case that the FL overlaps).

I went back and looked at the RAW at 100%. There is no CA on the metal at all--the only place discernible is on the light fixture to the left (red) and right (blue)--I inadvertently had the CA correction turned off (late night LOL) and now when I turned it on (LR) I could easily correct that with a small correction for red and blue and all edges--no issue.

I don't know if you shoot in jpeg how this will go, but shooting in RAW, it corrects easily and in fact, showed less than I thought after you mentioned it. I expected to see it on the metal gate to the right--but didn't.

Guess I need to change that heading--altho' the 17 would still qualify for a wide I guess LOL--just not ultra wide.

Diane
 

woodmancy

Subscriber Member
By george, I think you are right. I forgot I put that lens on at all for shooting here--was using the 9-18, 24 f/2.8 and then at one point, the 35 f/2.8 (its a pain not having the lens info in the EXIF and I've yet to use Godfrey's suggestion to extract and add that--sometimes I write it down--sometimes I just know from the FL--this is one case that the FL overlaps).

Diane
Diane or Godfrey - can you point me to the suggestion on getting lens info into EXIF? It drives me mad that it is not there.

Keith
 

Diane B

New member
Diane or Godfrey - can you point me to the suggestion on getting lens info into EXIF? It drives me mad that it is not there.

Keith
Me, too--I just haven't done anything about it. Godfrey wrote a pretty good tute on how to do it with EXIFtools, shooting RAW + jpeg as I recall. I may be able to find it on dpreview.

In this case-because I hadn't shot with 17 at f/2.8, I looked in LR at captures done sequentially and determined, that yes, I had been using 17 for several shots--wouldn't have happened with the 9-18--plus they have a different 'look'.

Sorry, so far I haven't found his post--but perhaps Godfrey will remind us.

Diane
 
Last edited:
Top