Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: smaller camera
- Ken Warner wrote:
> At 480 grams(c7070) + 500 grams (or more) for the Raynox,"acceptable" is a very poorly defined term, I think.
> that's not exactly a small system is it? And I just don't
> believe that the quality is acceptable.
- 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?