Re: [PanoToolsNG] Gigapan & Canon G9 examples
- lol. "assisted MF"
That sure is an odd feature. ie. a camera assisting someone with
Thanks for the warning.
Would I disable that by setting "safety MF" in the menu to OFF?
losing settings due to power saving mode. ouch!
I wonder if storing the shot settings in "C1" or "C2" would work
Might have to power the camera off and back on to load them.
But that goes pretty quickly.
I'll try it out.
Are you using image stabilization when mounted on the gigapan?
What did you use to process the RAW files?
Maybe the vignetting could be removed there?
I replaced my sd800 with a G9.
The first gigapan-o that I tried with it was not as sharp as I expected.
So I need to go through the settings a bit more carefully and try again.
It might have just been a slow shutter.
On Sep 1, 2008, at 11:31 AM, Bernhard Vogl wrote:
> Hello Terry,
>> Did you process the images at all or just run them through the
> The 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
> 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
> 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]