Re: [PanoToolsNG] Gigapan & Canon G9 examples
- Hello Terry,
> Did you process the images at all or just run them through the GigapanThe panorama was done with the Gigapan Stitcher at default settings.
> How did you set up the focus on the G9?MF handling is one of the drawbacks of such a small camera like the G9.
You can easily switch to MF and you can use the "wheel" to change the
focus with the help of a digital magnifier. However, as long as you
don't switch off "assisted MF" the camera will still try to change the
I've also lost MF setting every now and then while trying to change some
other parameters. Also, if you have to wait during the shooting (e.g.
until the clouds disappeared) and the Camera switched off the display or
goes to power saving mode, MF settings are lost. I already ruined one
Gigapixel because MF settings changed without me noticing.
The easiest way is, to set MF to infinity. This is also easy to check
with the focus-bar on the right side of the screen. Also, set the
settings to display the camera status info on the screen and watch if
the "MF" writing disappears... ;-)
- That should be obvious.. heh.
Prime versus zoom.
The problem, is 28 isn't really wide enough to be really useful for a lot of
interior work, and composition without zoom and difficult to say the least,
since you often don't have placement luxury.
As an exterior lens, I'm sure it's a great lens to have.
I've always wondered how the MK2 stacks up against, the 10-22, since you
aren't using the outer parts of the lens with the 10-22.
Southern Digital Solutions LLC
From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Matthew Rogers
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Visible image degadation
Well I've tested the 28 f1.8 and 28 f2.8 against the 16-35 MKI/MK2 and
even the 28 f2.8 easily beats the 16-35 @28 for resolution and
sharpness. The 28mm f1.8 kills it.
On 23 Sep 2008, at 15:50, Sacha Griffin wrote:
> I thought the resolution displayed on the landscape was "decent".
> The shot
> was just a little fuzzy, most likely due to the obvious aberration
> all over the image.
> From what I've heard the 16-35 canon zoom, (canon, zoom, even wider)
> is a
> real hummer of a lens and a different beast altogether than this
> The portrait was a good display of the highlight priority perhaps.
> The landscape wasn't a good example of anything really.
> Sacha Griffin
> Southern Digital Solutions LLC
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]