Re: Gigapan & Canon G9 examples
- Open source is nice for software, but we are talking about mechanics
and electronics. You can easily use any microcontroller board, write
some lines of code and drive the motors, release the cam via IR or
optocoupler. This is np at all.
But how many people are out there, who could build this device from
You would also need to find a shop who could deliver the packaged
mechanical hardware and the electronic parts.
I had the same idea as I developed the GigaPanBot, but If I open it to
public, I guess i would need to do full time support on answering
If you want to swap the servo, np, you can replace it any time with an
IR transmitter http://www.gentles.ltd.uk/
and you don't even need to change the code.
--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "jo4mail" <jo4mail@...> wrote:
> Disassembling or pimping GPs mechanics make no sense to me, as GPs
> solid chassis sizing is just for PS-Cams.
> But swapping the monster-servo-shutter-release and the correspondent
> code part is an option that would pleasure me :))
> Some nice IR-solutions or eletric triggers ..
> But open hardware, open source may be a different approach adressing a
> different community ...
- 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]