Thanks all - I appreciate your points on wide angle not being all that landscapes is about, at the moment I shoot a lot of mine with 25mm or even the 45-150. But there always those situations when I would really like a wide angle shot, and the 14mm doesn't quite cut it.
ISTR the MFT system has a 2x crop factor to equate to 35mm full-frame, and that does make finding wider angle lenses difficult, especially those who like legacy primes on adapters, where anything under 22mm was very rare and expensive, and fish started around 16mm. Common crop fish were about 12mm, and full-round came up at about 8mm.
I have a full-round 4.5mm fish for DX with 1.5x crop conversion, the FX equivilent is 8mm, *The crop factor IS starting to drop off the curve when you get down that short!) I would guess that to get full-round on MFT you would probably have to go below 4mm, probably something like 2.5 or 3mm, anything else would strangle or crop the coverage. NOT that it matters much..... other than to expound on the problem that MFT with such a small sensor,, compared to half frame APS-C format or Full-Frame 35mm formats, themselves still small format's with a lot of crop conversion to Medium format, where a 100mm lens can be a 'standard angle of view', so all will compress the range at the wide end of the scale, does show one of the systems limitations.
This little peek at the subject maybe worth a squint:
Ultra-Wide-Angle vs Kit & Stitch, featuring a fish!
To all extents and purposes, fish are fish and not UWA's. Wowed by a focus free 12mm for 35mm film way back when, and it was as wide as you could go really, did encourage me.
Shooting with the Fish, then, then cropping in printing to get a full rectangle image, wasted a lot of fish, but did give me very wide shots, that I couldn't get with any rectilinear lens I could find and afford at the time.
Early into the digital dark-room, circa 1995, with digital images scanned most often from print, the possible manipulation with early digital editing tools, to try and 'de-fish or rectilinear correct edge distortion to eek out a little more wide fro film shots was disappointing.
Revisiting those early fish shots, with more modern software, and a computer with more dynamic memory than my 1995 one had static hard drive storage! Has been 'more' successful, particularly using., Fish-Eye-Hemi... BUT... not as wonderful as hoped, particularly when I tried rectilinear correcting digital shot 'full-round' images from the 4.5, rather than old 12mm from film shots. Curiously, the amount of edge distortion even from the supposedly rectilinear corrected 8-16 UWA at the wide end are more than a bit fishy, and difficult to dial out.
As tutorial article heading into the realms of wide angle photography, there are fish, which aren't actually distorted images, they are 'straight' uncorrected ones. Rectilinear corrected ones are actually more artificially 'distorted' to generate a more 'natural' 2D image but down at these murky fishy depths, some degree of distortion or un-natural perspective is inherent and isn't strictly 'distortion' its just natural perspective from a lens that has true angular perspective, rather than corrected linear perspective.
Couscous of overloading this thread with archive snap-shots... but here, offers some illustration.:-
That is a shot of Striling, taken with the 12mm fish on film, back in 1996, and is pretty much the full frame put on the negative by 12mm fish, and has aprox 170Deg FoV.
That s de-fished version of the same shot, using software oly really available in the last eight years, and PC powerful enough to process it... its a lot more 'natural' without the masking inherent with a part-round fish-eye, but f you look closely, there is quite a lot of corner distortion where the mage has been 'corrected' to give full frame coverage, in the sky, and in the foreground that's not so discernible only because its texture rather than detail. And for sisplay, a lot of that has been cropped from the de-fished correction.
Also illustrates another issue with very wide angle shots, and that s with such a large area of coverage, the associated range of contrast across the frame, and compromised exposure this one particularly, to retain sky detail, without completely loosing foreground shadow detail. This is an issue that ALWAYS rears its ugly head with wide angle photography, whether using a fsh, an UWA or kit & stitch; and only the 'first' niggle in the extra work you have to do, to find a best compromise exposure, and in 'framing', to try and avoid gross high-lights or areas of shaddow to be able to get a better compromise exposure for the scene as a whole.
Stitching, also explored, investigates the practice common in my film days of folk sellotaping half a pack of true-prints together end to end to create a panorama.. usually not all that naturally... or in the dark-room trying to blend the individual egs together o one piece of pritig paper.... usually even less successfully! But somethng Digi-Dark room made much more vable, accurate and has even automated quite successfully.
Stitching is a cheap trick at the skinny end, BUT as article suggests, you don't need to get enormously precious about the job with protractor mounts and the like, and with a little thought ad consideration you can 'shoot to sttch' and do so pretty easily and pretty successfully, even with relatively low grade stitching software; main tips being to make manual settings and focus to keep exposure and focus consistent across the individual mages of the set, turn the camera to portrait mode to maximize verticle coverage as well as longditudnal, and give plenty of over-lap between shots. Out and about you 'can' get pretty good , stitch sets, hand holding, with perhaps as few as three shots, but more reliably with eight, in two rows, that even cropped in post process, ca give you as much coverage or ore than even an extreme UWA like my 8-16. Stretching that out to get more than 120 deg coverage and go all the way to fish-eye rivaling 180, is possble, depending on how diligent and patent you are are, with use of a trpod.
For zero investment? It has to be worth a try... ad if it IS only for 'occasional' shots could save you a awful lot of money.. AND a system switch..
I mean, being honest, I have both 4.5 fish and 8-16 UWA, both costing more than the damn Electric-Picture-Maker they share a bag with! Both indulgence purchases, because I was obsessed with having the same amount of lens coverage as I enjoyed with film, as well, as fishiness, and more, full-round fishiness, feeling cheated the old 12 only gave me 172 Deg of cropped round fishiness... and they st in the bag 99% of the time! The kit 18-55 is my most used lens, ad that came free with the camera that was actually cheaper as a kit with that lens than body only! Its a heck of an indulgence to have them sat there little ore than decorating the bag! And I have to find reasons to use them even that 10% of shots they share between them! Which, I can confidently say is almost NEVER for landscapes.
The fish? Is fun... but I probably have around 1000 shots taken with that lens on my hard drive, and probably only ONE, I can genuinely say is actually 'made' by having been shot on fish... actually here you go:-
Its the front end of a motorbike with a carouse steering/suspension arrangement, taken at a show, err, two years ago now? Where low angle exaggerates the mechanics of that curious mechanical arrangement, whilst generating some interesting bowing to the stand and back-ground whilst rendering the front wheel slightly more naturally.... and as you may note, that's been cropped, and been slightly hemi'd to make it a little more ' prominent in the frame. As shot, the picture has very little impact, and the attentions drawn t that 'feature' steering/suspension almost completely lost. Note also the stark contrast of blow sky-lights and roof-lights that are impossible to exclude fro shot with such a wide FoV, and exposure optimized to maintain detail of that front suspension/steering so much more in shadow.
This exemplifies, how i the world of the Ultra-Wide, the kit wont do very much for you; even with a fsh or UWA, just like stitching, you have to know and understand the tools, and do work, and lots of it to make them work to get what you want from them, and all three, Fish, UWA and stitch, can take as much patience, thought and attentions from the conception, through to the final display image, t really is a area where you have to have the know-how and be prepared to put in the effort to make the tools do the work, they wont do you for it...
The UWA was bought as this sort of subject, motorbikes in 'tight' access display environments, is something I do do a lot of; and there the care to shoot to stitch s often not viable, unable to back up far enough from the subject to get a decent focus with longer lens, and trouble with other visitors wandering about in shot, between shots, getting 'clean' images to stitch can be ie on impossible. Doing them one touch with a short focus distance UWA, is then more appropriate, if more expensive.... BUT still so much work to do to get the angle, avoid to much unwanted or ugly 'source' distortion... I have just looked and I don't have the shot of an RD350LC at another show, where access was incredibly tight, and I managed, and was wowed I could, get a side on shot of the bike, between two others, hanging the camera down over the saddle of the one parked in front AND get it all in frame, and in focus..... at a range of barely a foot, and had this rather prominent horn of a wing mirror bowing into the corner,, distracting from the rest of the subject, because of the close focus perspective!
The UWA then does get a bit more use, and its forte is more opening up smaller spaces, so it does lend itself better to these sort of restricted access situations, but it's still not a one touch solution, still eeds a lot of care and thought, ad there's still only 'so' much it can do, packing so much into the frame.
For landscapes, see article... it is edged, it is biased against UWA's for the genre, to illustrate why they aren't the 'natural choice', but does explain why. AND I still more often, out and about, use the kit 18-55 for out-door conventional landscapes, AND more often at the tighter end of its range.
Here's two examples for you not in the article. It was a mid-week break o my bike, so packng 'light' to fit me, my daughter, tent, and all her 'essential' beauty products into bags that could be strapped to the machine! Hence, EPM was extracted from its bag, ad taken, with just a couple of spare batteries and an SD card in my pocket, on ts own with just the 18-55 kit lens.
That's Landudno at dusk shot straight with kit at the wide end, hand held. LOTS of brown sea isn't there? c culd have gone wider, but that would have just squashed even more 'boring' into the frame and shrunk what ltte interest is in t to start wth, even more. But relatively tight framing, has excluded a lot of 'clutter on the prom, and the row of lights leads you into the picture, and begs you look at that small far subject in more detail... OK it's no master-piece, it Is just a holiday snap! But, principle is in exploiting your hardware; show is a little under exposed, and deliberately to emphasize the sky, and twilight that wan't quite as dim as it seems at time I took the photo. We rode and walked up and down the beach to get the most pleasing perspective on the beach-front down the coast, find the more flattering perspective and get that hill, the Gt Orm i the background, to give 'place' to the shot (without the obvious 'Holywood' inspired sign on the hill seen in day-light!)
This is the sort of discipline, to making 'better' landscapes that's needed, looking thinking, planning, knowing, and working with he gear to get the best from it.... rather than expecting the gear to do the job for you.... if you cant get good landscapes with a kit, and if you ant take better ones, exploiting a tele which has the feature of emphasising a subject, cutting clutter and drawng viewers attention to a more obvious subject in a more sissified scene, and WILL do more for you i that respect, without so much conscious thought or effort or work, then a UWA is likely to under whelm, failing to provide the drame you hope, then over whelm with the amount of added work and attention it begs to exploit the 'xtra' it may offer.
Here's another from that 1996 sterling set, just s pause for thought. A Landscape shot portrait! I seem to recall I did that a lot! It's something that I tend not to do anywhere near a much, now that the main viewing medium is an electric screen, sat on a desk in landscape orientation, and I end up with a smaller thinner picture, loosing 'impact' to landscape orientated ones, that display full screen. So I tend to shoot a lot more, even portraits now 'wide' in landscape mode to pt picture across the whole frame rather than masking... which is another bit of 'thought' to bear in mind, over and above what you see, ad framing NOT just for the subject and interest n the image, but FOR display, and cropping tight or going wide and expanding to suit the display medium NOT just what you see through the viewfinder. However... rather dire scan that it is; this was probably shot with a 35mm, in portrait mode, mitigating its potential for 'wide' on the horizontal, and putting instead on the vertical, to include as much of that calm tranquil lake as well as moody sky, and exclude potential clutter at the edges, where there was probably an ugly 1960's concrete tower block or car-park or something!
But, apart from the suggestion of thinking beyond capture, it's a demonstration of how less can be more ad how much 'wide' you can forgo to get the kind of 'impact' you perceive at the scene, in this case the juxtaposition between moody sky and tranquil water. Here 'tight' has been used to exclude clutter and draw viewer attention in to the scene, and swapped for some tall, to emphasize that contrast. Mediocre as it is, it was the thought that went into that composition that makes that image what it is, NOT the lens I used.
To demonstrate the potential of stitching with a kit, here, from the motorbike getaway set:-
That is the ancient copper mines o the Gt Orm, which was reason for our mid-week visit on the bike.Its a pretty small hole the ground all considered, BUT that shot, taken using the kit, which was all I had with me, turned portrait to maximize the height, and compiled from aprox 20 shots in two rows, covering I think about 160 Deg FoV, is NOT a panorama, and is a much wider FoV that even the UWA would have given me, almost as much as I could have got with the fish, but with out the fishiness. Its doing what UWA's do best, open up smaller spaces, or at least take the viewer into them, and yup, the sky is blown.... compromise between sky and foreground detail in the shadow of that hole had to be made, but exposure s consistent across the image, without banding or blurring, AND remember, it's a holiday snap, I was traveling light, on a bike, with minimal kit, that was shot hand held, no tripod, no protractor mount, and without even swapping the lens! Its a more involved stitch from 20 images, about as involved as you want to get really, and its not a panorama, its a normal aspect rato 'wide' hot, wider than even the widest UWA'd can delver n one shot. Its a exampl of how 'wide' you ca go without a wide lens.
BUT, conclusion remains; packing so much more into the frame, wides, whether from fish, whether from UWA, or on the cheap, with Kit & stitch... key is i the conception, the planning, and the execution... the three have their own quirks:-
- Fish are more appropriate to some situations or subjects... not many... and main forte does seem to be the 'alternate' perspective they offer, which you either like, and want, or you dont.. but there is only very liited over-lap between fish and UWA, they are NOT wider angle UWA's ad de-fishng doesn't deliver natural looking 180 degree UWA like shots.
- UWA are more appropriate to probably more situations, and MOST of them opening up smaller spaces NOT shrinking down bigger ones. The wder you go so the more demandig they are to use, and the more apparet that rectalnear correcton becomes, and the perspectve more false than from a fsh; you have to be oh-so careful wth them to actually get that supposedly 'neutral' perspectve thier artificial distortion is supposed to reduce.
- Kit and Stitch.. is still a cheap trick, but a very valid one. IT WORKS.. if you work for t! And you can do t pretty sucessfuly wthout spending any money. Stll demands as much care and attention as all wide shots, and more messg around blending the stitch sections. But, for occasional use? It can be damn useful. ts not a one size fits all alternative to a fish or a UWA, but you can get well to and beyond UWA angles of view with it, in a lot of situations and where, like the Ancient Copper mines example, even a UWA would have struggled to deliver the angular coverage, and a fish would have compromised the corners, it does have instances where it is as or ore apropriate tha a Fish or UWA, and the principles aren't mutually exlusive; no reason you cant stitch fsh or UWA shots.
BUT, it is ALL in the conception, it is all in that knowing your kit, and where and how to best exploit it, and being prepared to put i that leg work, to make it work where wide shots, however obtained cram SO much into the frame, for you to consider, you HAVE to consider it ALL, and more, t include the interest, exclude the clutter or distraction, get the best comromise of exposure over the whole scene, get the attension on the bits of t that warrant it and take it away fro the bits that dont. With so much packed into the picture by a wide yu HAVE to pack in as much extra work to make it work. The gadgets wont do it for you.
And on the cheap, for occasional instances it's possibly helpful, even f not essential, Kit & Stitch is a good way to start... and without expense, beg that learning the craft, developing the discipline to see, conceive, plan and execute considering all from the scene observed to the display image that will be seen.
BUT inverting the incentive, exercise is is likely to prove that going the other way, and fraing tight, exploitig a milder or even tele lens, to crop clutter, make interest more prominant, and smplify the mage for the viewer, 'less s so often more', can, with the same sort of dligence and planning ad know-how, do more to help yo get so many more 'better' pictures, not just landscapes, or wide shots.
As opening, more land does seldom more landscape make.
