1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

Olympus 45mm 1.8 as replacement for 12mm 2.0

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by atomic, Feb 29, 2012.

  1. atomic

    atomic Mu-43 Veteran

    224
    Nov 3, 2011
    I've been reading these boards with interest and have started a bit of a lens collection. I think that might be a natural progression... Anyways, I've noticed that when comparing focal lengths of different lenses it is common for someone to suggest that you could achieve the field of view of a narrower lens by cropping a picture from a wider one. This is true, but results in a lower resolution image, not ideal.

    Then I got to playing around with Hugin software and stitching panoramic photos and it occurs to me that you can also achieve a wider field of view by taking multiple overlapping photos with a narrower lens and stitching the results together. Instead of losing resolution, as you do with a crop, you actually gain resolution...

    So, when someone wants a 12mm 2.0, but doesn't want to spend $800... perhaps we could suggest getting a 45mm 1.8 and taking more pictures. :biggrin:
     
  2. dre_tech

    dre_tech Mu-43 Veteran

    314
    Jan 31, 2012
    That's cool if you have time on your hands for landscapes, do you have an example? And just out of curiosity, how many photos do you need at 45mm to cover the 12mm frame? How come you would suggest the 45mm and not 20mm to stitch?

    One of the uses of UWA lenses is indoor, where you will not probably have such an easy time with the 45 mm and the distortions you get when stitching. I'm not familiar with the Hugin software, maybe it can successfully restore proper aspect to everythings.
     
  3. CPWarner

    CPWarner Mu-43 Veteran

    244
    Dec 24, 2010
    Cliff
    Yes you can stitch a couple images to cover the width observed in a wide angle shot. However you will not recreate the perspective created by the wide angle lens. By that I mean the relative size of near and far objects. For example, a stitched panoramic would not make an object in the foreground more prominent as the 12mm will. In my opinion, both techniques have their places. I would not get rid of the 12mm, it is one of the gems of the m4/3 line.

    Cliff
     
  4. fin azvandi

    fin azvandi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 12, 2011
    South Bend, IN
    You can do some neat shallow DoF effects by stitching multiple portrait-length photos together into a wider-angle shot - Bui Photos
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. steve16823

    steve16823 Mu-43 Regular

    181
    Sep 26, 2011
    Brookfield, IL
    Not true. Perspective is not created by the lens, it is created by the relative position of camera and subject(s). Assuming* you could actually do a good job taking a series of 45mm shots and stitching them together to cover the field of view of a 12mm lens, the perspective would be exactly the same.


    *I'm making this assumption for the sake of the argument, not because I think it is a realistic assumption, in reality it would be very difficult to align the camera w/45mm lens to perfectly cover the 12mm field of view.


     
  6. steve16823

    steve16823 Mu-43 Regular

    181
    Sep 26, 2011
    Brookfield, IL
    The 45mm is nearly a 4X crop of the 12mm frame (45mm/12mm = 3.75) so you would need a 4 x 4 grid of 45mm images, perfectly aligned, to cover the 12mm field of view.

    If you really want to start blowing minds we could start discussing the equivalent F-stop of the stitched image when shot at 45mm f/1.8. :eek:
     
  7. speltrong

    speltrong Mu-43 Veteran

    338
    May 8, 2011
    Northern California
    I don't see why this wouldn't work for a motionless subject unless you happened to have four cameras and four 45mm lenses in an array that were all slaved together. Of course the advantage of cost-savings goes out the window at that point ;)

    You'd also have to to have a clear line of sight to your subject from 15-20 feet further back than you'd have to be with the 12mm. Want a cool low angle shot? start digging! :thumbup:
     
  8. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    It looks like most people doing this are trying to capture more frame AROUND their moving subject, meaning that the subject can be kept in one frame, while the scenery is taken in separate frames allowing room for subject movement.

    Of course you have to overlap the images a bit to align them, so a 4x4 spread wouldn't quite cover the 12mm FOV. I'm sure it would be close enough though. ;)
     
  9. daimos

    daimos Mu-43 Veteran

    288
    Jun 23, 2010
    Ottawa,Ontario,Canada
    richard
  10. speltrong

    speltrong Mu-43 Veteran

    338
    May 8, 2011
    Northern California
  11. 13Promet

    13Promet Mu-43 Regular

    84
    Dec 11, 2011
    Milano
    Are you sure? :confused:

    I mostly use wide angle to amplify distances and tele for making elements of the subject closer in depth.
    How can you do that by just alligning a serie of pictures?
     
  12. Ccasey

    Ccasey Mu-43 Regular

    157
    Jul 29, 2011
    Austin, TX
    Chris
  13. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    • Like Like x 1
  14. steve16823

    steve16823 Mu-43 Regular

    181
    Sep 26, 2011
    Brookfield, IL
    I don't understand what point you are trying to make here. The three images are taken from different spots, obviously. You could make a panorama with the 55mm lens with the camera at the same position as the 18mm shot and achieve the same perspective.
     
  15. 13Promet

    13Promet Mu-43 Regular

    84
    Dec 11, 2011
    Milano
    I think he's correctly stating that the perspective in depth of 4 glued together 85mm shots will be very different from a single 12mm shot, even if you're covering the same FOV.
     
  16. steve16823

    steve16823 Mu-43 Regular

    181
    Sep 26, 2011
    Brookfield, IL
    No, that's not correct, and certainly not demonstrated by the image he linked to.
     
  17. steve16823

    steve16823 Mu-43 Regular

    181
    Sep 26, 2011
    Brookfield, IL

    Yes, i'm 100% sure. The "perspective" of an image, or the relative size of foreground and background objects is created by the position of the camera relative to the objects and not due to any special properties of the lens.

    Now, a wide angle lens facilitates capturing the perspective when one object is very close to the lens and the other is relatively far away. But if you were able to stitch the telephoto lens shots together well enough, you would end up with exactly the same image.

    As the original poster said, it's the same thing as cropping a 12mm to a 45mm field of view, in reverse.
     
  18. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    I'm positive about this. Perspective is 100% caused by where you're standing in relation to the subject. If you were to stitch multiple 45mm shots from close up, it would look identical in framing and perspective to a 12mm lens. This is simple to see the other way: take a shot with a wide angle lens, and crop in to a far away scene. Now, standing in the same place, take a photo with a telephoto lens. The shots will be identical. Therefore, the reverse is also true. If you took multiple shots of a scene with a telephoto lens, and you stitched them together, it would give you the perspective of a wide angle lens.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  19. 13Promet

    13Promet Mu-43 Regular

    84
    Dec 11, 2011
    Milano
    Shnitz and steve, you're right actually :wink:
    Sorry! :smile:
     
  20. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    Here is an example, I think you guys are completely misunderstanding the point of the post. The OP's whole point is that you get a wide angle perspective with a telephoto lens. I used the above free-licensed image from Wikipedia, and I added gridlines to split the image into thirds: Perspective.
    This photo was originally taken at 18mm. Now, since I split up the photo into thirds, you need a lens that is 3 times longer, or 54mm. If you stood in the exact same spot as this 18mm shot was taken, and you took the above 9 small-rectangle images with a 54mm lens and then stitched them together, you would get an 18mm perspective and angle of view with your telephoto lens. Even if you only took the top right photo with a 54mm lens, you will notice that you STILL have the same perspective that someone achieved with their 18mm lens, but you have a much smaller angle of view. Really, that's all that a telephoto lens does, is zooms in more without altering perspective. You alter perspective by adjusting your position relative to the subject matter.

    This also shows that when people are claiming that they just use prime lenses and "zoom with their feet," you aren't actually taking the same photograph. Zooming with your feet means that you are changing the perspective of the image. So, while I love primes, realize that zooms have their place as well.
    "I'd Rather Zoom With My Feet." Huh? Is That Even Possible? | BH Insights