CV 15 or 21 for house interior?

[Sparrow]

And I don't really care what you call it. I'm just not as pedantic or utterly convinced that I am the only person who is right.

The 'silly word "true"' is used to distinguish it from barrel and pincushion distortion, which are not necessarily to do with the wideness of the angle. There is a clue in the fact that these are phrases, not single words: "pincushion distortion", "barrel distortion", "[true] wide angle distortion." "Distortion" is quite a versatile word, also used in such phrases as "distortion of the facts" and "distortion of the truth", not to mention mechanical senses.

It is a common mistake to thnk that our teachers are the only people who really know what they are talking about, when if we had had different teachers, we might believe something else entirely.

Cheers,

R.

I always find it odd that people will readily accept a distorted image like this, as reality

than this

I wonder just how much is learned, I catalogued my children's art for their first four years and sort of came to the conclusion that their cognition and perception of spatial relationships just developed spontaneously at about three.
(sorry for that tortured and rather poncy sentence)

If I were looking for a theses I'd look for links to the development of self-awareness as an adaption to throwing stones at mammoths, I can see how it would be an advantage if the brain filters out the Planar effect of what we see and concentrate on vector

 

[Roger Hicks]

I always find it odd that people will readily accept a distorted image like this, as reality

than this

I wonder just how much is learned, I catalogued my children's art for their first four years and sort of came to the conclusion that their cognition and perception of spatial relationships just developed spontaneously at about three.
(sorry for that tortured and rather poncy sentence)

If I were looking for a theses I'd look for links to the development of self-awareness as an adaption to throwing stones at mammoths, I can see how it would be an advantage if the brain filters out the Planar effect of what we see and concentrate on vector

Dear Stewart,

An interesting observation. The relationship between 'perception' and 'distortion' is indeed intriguing. As is vector/planar, insofar as I understand your use of 'planar' (not your lack of clarity; my lack of familiarity).

Unless I am misreading you, I think you may have missed out 'more' in front of 'readily': 'will more readily accept'...' or 'rather' in 'rather than this'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

Yep, dyslexic

The Planar projection is just that perspective drawing thing using a vanishing point, or like any rectilinear lens.

Straight lines remain straight but the area of objects varies, like Canada on most maps.

 

[thinkfloyd]

I'm in the same situation, which is better for interior shots? 15 or 21? (though I won't be using it for architectural shots, just indoor shots since I'll be covering events, bars and restaurants...)

 

[tomnrides]

Wide angle is often used in interior documentation shots to cover as much of context as possible, this is different use of wide angle in "art" photos -sorry for my lack of term here, where the lens is used to get close to subject.
The comparison framing (boats and pier on lake) Sparrow uses is how I see/use lens in Interior documentation shots, where as normal use of wide angle is to have the same content/subject filling the same frame size but the rest relates differently (recedes as if farther away).

 

[Finder]

And I don't really care what you call it. I'm just not as pedantic or as utterly convinced that I am the only person who is right.

The 'silly word "true"' is used to distinguish it from barrel and pincushion distortion, which are not necessarily to do with the wideness of the angle. There is a clue in the fact that these are phrases, not single words: "pincushion distortion", "barrel distortion", "[true] wide angle distortion." "Distortion" is quite a versatile word, also used in such phrases as "distortion of the facts" and "distortion of the truth", not to mention mechanical senses.

It is a common mistake to thnk that our teachers are the only people who really know what they are talking about, when if we had had different teachers, we might believe something else entirely.

Cheers,

R.

I can help you out again, Roger. Barrel and pincushion come under the category of curvilinear distortion. So you don't have to use "true." And you can take my word for it as I am a professional in this field. BTW, my teachers were not photographers. They worked in the field of imaging science. It is important in the science not to invent words and use them as you would like. Disciplines have standards for terms to avoid confusion.

 

[Finder]

Well .. we were discussing photographing a house interior and I did say "from the same spot"

It really isn't a matter of belief it's simply a result of the linear transformation of the Planar projection, and yes I know why I like big prints and realise Antarctica isn't a great big oblong continent like they show on the maps.

I was simply trying to point out that while your illustration is correct, people may not perceive it that way because the final images would be magnified to a final display size that would impact the final perspective.

Not knowing that you actually knew that the wide-angle effect was a projection problem rather than a distortion and that viewing distance actually impacts our perception of an image, I just used that as the example. I am thinking the member who was having difficulty visualizing why your example did not match his experience. Perhaps I should have quoted him...

 

[le vrai rdu]

Oh, no... There is a difference.

For example, my 15 Heliar shows spaces in a different way than my 20 Nikkor, and in that same progression, than my Zeiss 50 2.8 in my Hassy...

It's not just about what gets in... It's a lot more about the way a lens sees around it and how it contrasts the relationship between near and far volumes... The difference between a 15 and a 21 is certainly smaller than that between a 15 and a 28, but it's still there.

Cheers,

Juan

the light goes in straight line

sparrow is right with is assembled picture : as long as you shot from the same distance

 

[Roger Hicks]

I was simply trying to point out that while your illustration is correct, people may not perceive it that way because the final images would be magnified to a final display size that would impact the final perspective.

Not knowing that you actually knew that the wide-angle effect was a projection problem rather than a distortion and that viewing distance actually impacts our perception of an image, I just used that as the example. I am thinking the member who was having difficulty visualizing why your example did not match his experience. Perhaps I should have quoted him...

Of course it's a projection effect. This doesn't stop it being a distortion of the image as compared with the way it's normally seen. To a very large extent this is because the retina is curved and a piece of film is normally flat: technically. an example of anamorphism.

Calling something 'silly' because you disagree with it, and fancy yourself an expert, is not really much of an argument. By all means hold yourself out as a greater expert than I, but consider that L.P. Clerc cheerfully uses the word 'distortion' for this effect in his Photography, Theory and Practice,[/I which is generally regarded as one of the great standard works on photography.

Do you also refuse to use the word 'distortion' for the distortion introduced by a focal plane shutter when photographing a moving subject?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Finder]

Of course it's a projection effect. This doesn't stop it being a distortion of the image as compared with the way it's normally seen. To a very large extent this is because the retina is curved and a piece of film is normally flat.

Calling something 'silly' because you disagree with it, and fancy yourself an expert, is not really much of an argument. By all means hold yourself out as a greater expert than I, but consider that L.P. Clerc cheerfully uses the word 'distortion' for this effect in his Photography, Theory and Practice,[/I which is generally regarded as one of the great standard works on photography.

Do you also refuse to use the word 'distortion' for the distortion introduced by a focal plane shutter when photographing a moving subject?

Cheers,

R.

Roger, you can attack me personally. I really don't care. I am sorry if I hurt you. You seem very put out that I would question what you believe.

But this is a technical point. I have no personal investment in it. If you want to think something else, that is fine. But it is really a very basic concept.

Look, I won't bother posting in this thread anymore. We are getting way off topic.

 

[Sparrow]

I always think of the physics stuff as aberrations, and the human perception stuff as distortion ... that way I can differentiate which bits are real and which bits are just the way I'm interpreting them.

I realise this isn't generally accepted as an aberration, btw

 

[Tim Gray]

The 21 might work fine, but for some of the rooms, you might want the wider coverage of the 15mm. Also, as Roger points out, after you are done covering your house, you'll have the lens to use. To that end, I think the CV 15mm is a lens everyone should own. It's so great, so small, and reasonably affordable (at least the LTM version was).

Here's two examples of using the 15mm in smallish rooms.

 

[jl-lb.ms]

I recently bought a CV 12, and it's sitting in its box on my desk. Even on a cropped M8, its wide angle effect, roughly equivalent to an 18, is way too pronounced. I had used a 15 on an Epson R-D1, and its approximate 21 coverage seemed wide, but just narrow enough to be managable. For a film M, I think I'd be inclined to the 21.

I've been a fan of wide angles, but were generally limited to the 1.5 crop factor. So the widest I had experienced was 12 x 1.5, and that was too wide. The widest that I use as a matter of course now is 28; just purchased a 25 - we'll see.

Having said all that, I still am holding on to the 12 in case I need to shoot an interior. So maybe disregard all the above!!!

john

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, you can attack me personally. I really don't care. I am sorry if I hurt you. You seem very put out that I would question what you believe.

But this is a technical point. I have no personal investment in it. If you want to think something else, that is fine. But it is really a very basic concept.

Look, I won't bother posting in this thread anymore. We are getting way off topic.

You seem even more put out that I question what you believe. Do you deny that Clerc is a significant authority? Or are you saying that he, like I, failed to understand basic concepts?

As I said, terminology is disputed, and as I demonstrated with Clerc, it's not just me who uses the term 'distortion'. It may not be the term that suits you, but it is widely used, and has been for decades (Clerc was published in 1930, as I recall). Your only option at this point is to say, in effect, "No, it's not disputed, and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong," which is somewhat missing the meaning of the term 'disputed'.

Also, we're not that far off topic. The nature of projection onto curved and flat surfaces, and consequent anamorphism, is fundamental to how ultra-wide-angles 'see'. This may well be an important part of what others have said about volumes (rather than spatial relationships).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I recently bought a CV 12, and it's sitting in its box on my desk. Even on a cropped M8, its wide angle effect, roughly equivalent to an 18, is way too pronounced. I had used a 15 on an Epson R-D1, and its approximate 21 coverage seemed wide, but just narrow enough to be managable. For a film M, I think I'd be inclined to the 21.

I've been a fan of wide angles, but were generally limited to the 1.5 crop factor. So the widest I had experienced was 12 x 1.5, and that was too wide. The widest that I use as a matter of course now is 28; just purchased a 25 - we'll see.

Having said all that, I still am holding on to the 12 in case I need to shoot an interior. So maybe disregard all the above!!!

john

Dear John,

I had a 12 for review and decided not to keep it for much the same reason, albeit on full-frame: too exaggerated. Yes, there are times it would be very handy, but not often enough for me to justify buying it. Besides, I already have a 15 CV and a 14 for the Nikons! The number of times I need anything wider than that is small.

Cheers,

R.

 

[robbeiflex]

Finally, the results...

Finally, the results...

I'm stuck at home today due to some carpenters here to install an armoire, and I finally have time to post the house photos that I took with the ZM, CV 21mm Skopar, tripod and bubble level back in August plus a more recent one after the glass railings arrived. I'm quite happy with the choice, as I already struggle with the 21 for framing and keeping it level and need way more practice shooting wides to handle a 15. I've used the 21 a bit for travel too, but have since gone over to a 28mm for that and prefer using the ZM with its 28 frameline in the viewfinder and skipping the external finder. That said I plan to keep the 21 for landscapes and architecture.

At long last, here are the results. I use the term "room" loosely since it is mostly open floor plan.

Ground floor from the living room:

Ground floor, dining room, stairs and entrance to kitchen:

Kitchen (great colours on this one, BTW: Fuji Superia 100):

Upstairs looking down:

Bottom of the stairs looking up:

BTW: I'm not super-tall, I took this one handheld standing on a chair then straightened it in photoshop - neat perspective IMO

Thanks for the advice earlier, I'm happy to have the right tool to photograph this house, which we're enjoying living in very much despite it still being a work in process.

Cheers,
Rob

 

[robbeiflex]

^ Thanks !

 

[Sparrow]

^ yep, lovely house .... but it needs' some clutter ... also, you are all wrong about the 12, it is a god-given bit of kit

 

[ampguy]

I've used both the CV15 and CV21 on the M8 and film for interiors. I think the 15 is too wide on film, but the 21 is good for film, and the 15 is great on the M8.

These are also possibly the best buys in the CV lineup at $400 or so with included finders. Also, smaller and focus closer than the later M ones.

 

[robbeiflex]

^ yep, lovely house .... but it needs' some clutter ... also, you are all wrong about the 12, it is a god-given bit of kit

Thanks! And don't worry about the clutter, we're working on that pretty much every day. 😉