Archibald <Archibald@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:q37mt316bqc8m5sgmkt1348r9h1ipg9b2n@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:41:01 GMT, Ray Paseur
> <Ray.Paseur@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>Steven Green <steven.green30@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>news:3TCCj.1028$dq2.934@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> I am interested in a digital SLR for landscapes, especially wide
angle
>>> photography.
>>>
>>> I see lots of lens reviews for various cameras, but what I am
looking
>>> for is something that compares them using angle of view rather than
>>> 25mm etc.
>>>
>>> I am trying to decide if I really want a FF sensor or something
>>> smaller, OK I want a FF sensor, but I guess I am trying to decide if
>>> bigger is better.
>>>
>>> Is there a comparison of 12mp smaller format camera/lens with a 12mp
>>> full frame sensor at various angles of view? Is there something
>>> inherently better about bigger lenses and sensors? I think I read
that
>>> a bigger sensor has less noise, but is there anything better about
the
>>> lenses?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>
>>Steve: I've done some landscape wide-angle work and gotten good
results
>>with the Canon 5D and the 17-40mm zoom. There is a 16-35 zoom but
much
>>more expensive. I've also made panoramas from stitched together
>>vertical shots made with the 5D and a 50mm. Mount the camera on a
>>ballhead and rotate the camera around a nodal point. If you do this,
>>you have to shoot in manual to achieve the same exposure for all the
>>images that will be stitched together.
>
> I have not been able to do stitching to simulate ultrawide coverage.
> When you try to do this, the stitching program has to distort the
> individual shots, and this makes them impossible to join.
>
> Example: you want 18mm coverage but only have a 35mm lens (all 35mm
> equiv.). The 35mm gives a horizontal angle of view of 54.5 deg. If
> you take 4 shots, that will give adequate overlap for the final pic,
> which has a 90 deg angle of view.
>
> But each of the 4 pics has to be stretched really a lot out to the
> corners, and now they won't fit together.
>
> This has been my experience. If you know better, pls let me know the
> secret.
>
> Archibald
>
Archibald: I use PTGUI, basically an interface for PanoTools. It works
just fine. I posted a couple of samples here:
http://www.202photo.com/panosamples/
The Jefferson Columns image is still a work in progress - I don't have
enough material to make a printable version yet. I reshoot it in the
mornings periodically. One day I will get the right combination of
focus and light!
The Great Falls photos are of printable resolution. You can see the
effect of merging the several images in one version of the photo - there
are black bands showing curvature across the top and bottom. I just
crop these off to make the final print. That picture shows a panorama
of something more than 180 degrees.
You are right when you say that the stitching program has to distort the
individual shots, but I have found that if you start with enough
individual shots and enough overlap between the images, the distortion
is not noticeable in the final print.
Incidentally, the Great Falls panorama was made with a hand-held Canon
5D and the 24-105mm zoom lens. I don't have the EXIF data, but it was a
fairly bright day. I'm guessing "Sunny 16" - probably 1/200 at f/8.
There were five images merged to make the panorama.
~Ray
|
