Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: smaller camera
- I suggest that a compact camera and a fisheye adapter is not really a good
way to go. With the higher resolution of modern compact cameras, the flaws
of any fisheye adapter will be magnified. Soft edges with lots of CA is
what you can expect.
I have an LX3 which is one of the best compacts and I tried it with both
the Nikon fisheye lens adapters -- the FC-e8 and FC-e9 and the results were
not useable even with 6 around.
You can get good wide angle lenses for compacts. Panasonic makes a very good
wide angle converter, the DMW LW46 which makes about a 18mm lens. You can
do 3x6 around and get very good results.
I've put a lot of thought into trying to figure out a compact+fisheye that would give you
a 4 to 6 + nadir or zenith and currently I don't think there is such a combo
that is worth bothering with.
I haven't put my hands on a Sony or G series Panasonic. I'm very interested
in both. They are about the same size as a compact. Just can't afford them
so I stick with multi-row panos on my LX3.
> Depending on how small you want to go (and the quality you seek), you could indeed go for a P+S with fish-eye adapter. Higher end P+S have raw capabilities, or with CHDK you may be able to access raw images on cameras with no native raw support. Fish-eye adapters are definitely available for some of these cameras. I couldn't recommend a particular setup or vouch for the quality as i haven't used such a setup. I have however used CHDK with much success and know it can enable raw. I guess it's up to you to decide where the balance between size and quality lays.
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, web@... wrote:
>> I've been using a D300 and D700 for my panoramas, but am looking for something smaller and lighter for 360s, preferably with raw file storage and video, for remote trips where weight (and saving my back) are a priority. Something like a high-end point and shoot with a fisheye adapter is what I'm thinking of. I've only done a quick search thus far and came across the Lumix fisheye and the GF2 body is the sort of size I'm looking for, but I know nothing about them or how well 360s turn out with it. Any suggestions or links to prior discussions would be appreciated; feel free to contact me directly as well.
- The problem with adapters is that they need to match the optics
of the host camera or there will be various kinds of distortions
from vignetting to severe chromatic aberration to soft corners.
If you are going for a compact plus wide or fisheye adapter,
you will get the best results with adapters purpose built
for that particular camera. The early Nikons like the 5400
and 8400 worked well (for their day) with the Nikon fisheye adapters.
So if you are getting a P7000, go to the Nikon web site
and be sure it is compatible with the fisheye or wide
angle adapter you use.
Just selecting adapters because they are available is not
necessarily going to give you good results.
> Does any one have experience with Nikon P7000 and FC-E9 fisheye adapter? Apparently they can be attached together using a UR-E22 tube with 46-52mm adapter ring. This is kind of the size I was looking for -- a compact camera with full manual controls and raw files that I can keep in a pant pocket, then pull out an adapter from a backpack when needed for sphericals. I found an example of this on Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/raneko/5157116441/
> I'm not familiar with these sorts of attachments, but if I understand correctly the image circle is smaller than the sensor? This seems to waste a lot of pixels; it does also look like a big, fragile thing and I saw some comments about the intermediate adapters not quite fitting right. The only other wide angle attachment I could find for the P7000 was the WC-E75A, but it doesnt seem quite wide enough to be really useful for sphericals. Is there something in between these two of high quality?