I mean that with fisheye you have better balanced piixel stretching, better
borders, more resolving power, less trouble.
If you ever try to stitch a multirow panorama with APSC sensor and 16mm
fisheye, and then one with the zoom level you want of a 10-22 rectilinear,
having for target the same 16000x8000 fisheye always win, giving you less
stitching troubles, more quality and less pictures to shot.
Tokina 10-17 for panos wins over 10-22 Canon in the whole range of both.
I'm not talking about "web only"shots.
6600 x 3300 from www.canalview.it
printed as large as 80x160 cm are a pleasure to see...
2009/9/30 Keith Martin <keith@...
> Sometime around 30/9/09 (at 17:42 +0200) luca vascon said:
> >I prefer using fisheyes cos you have less shots for the same ending
> Yep, certainly when shooting for online delivery.
> As long as your stitched output is at least as high res as your final
> delivery needs, the only difference a fisheye makes is fewer shots
> required to capture everything. That difference can be really useful,
> as the longer it takes to capture a scene the more chance there is
> for something to screw it up.
> 'Course, if you need to take more shots (because your lens isn't as
> madly wide as a fisheye) then you're able to generate a *higher*
> resolution stitched result. But is that necessary for your needs?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]