Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: smaller camera

Expand Messages
  • Ken Warner
    The Tall Ships series are not bad for a compact with a fisheye. They are soft but acceptable. It would be interesting to me to see how your Raynox does stuck
    Message 1 of 43 , Jun 3, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      The Tall Ships series are not bad for a compact with a fisheye.
      They are soft but acceptable.

      It would be interesting to me to see how your Raynox does stuck
      onto an LX3/5 or a G10/11/12? Which Raynox is it exactly?

      You can get an LX3 -- which is pretty much the same camera as
      the LX5 -- for less than $300 and if you spend some time looking,
      you could get a G10 for about the same and double your pixels.

      But one of the Panasonic G series cameras with a Samyang fisheye
      would knock the socks off of what you have now and be a lot lighter
      and smaller and easier to use. And you could get into that kit for
      $600-$800. Maybe less than what you paid for the Raynox and C7070.

      But

      Bjørn K Nilssen wrote:
      > På Thu, 02 Jun 2011 20:16:44 +0200, skrev Ken Warner <kwarner000@...>:
      >
      >> At 480 grams(c7070) + 500 grams (or more) for the Raynox,
      >> that's not exactly a small system is it? And I just don't
      >> believe that the quality is acceptable.
      >
      > No, it's not small and light. I have to use 2 T-pieces to make it fit on a NN3, and then I can't shoot zenith straight up because it's too long.
      > All(?) my panos on 360cities and Worldwidepanoramas are shot with this setup.
      > So are these from last summers Tall Ships Races: http://bknilssen.no/fpp/TSR01/
      > and these for a real estate project: http://bknilssen.no/fpp/Hagens02/
      >
      >> Post a link to prove me wrong on that issue. But I'm sure
      >> I can easily find a better system with less weight and for less
      >> money on eBay.
      >
      > Post a link to prove that! ;)
      >
      >
      >> Bjørn K Nilssen wrote:
      >>> På Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:45:27 +0200, skrev Ken Warner <kwarner000@...>:
      >>>
      >>>> 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 should try with a good fisheye converter before dismissing the solution ;)
      >>> I've been shooting with a Raynox CF converter for 5 years on an Olympus C-7070, and it still works great :)
      >>> Very flexible solution, as you can zoom from a circular fisheye to a FF and beyond if you need more pixels. I usually shoot 6000x3000 on the 7Mpx sensor.
      >>> And I do not get any more CA than with the naked lens. I do get quite a lot of flares though.
      >>> But the Raynox is big and heavy (~500g).
      >>> I also have a dSLR setup, which I use a lot less for sphericals.
      >>> I'll probably buy a Panasonic or Olympus with the 8mm fisheye when I get the money, to get a lighter/smaller setup...
      >>> The future is non-mirror system cameras :)
      >>>
      >>>> 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.
      >>
      >> ------------------------------------
      >>
      >
      >
    • Ken Warner
      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
      Message 43 of 43 , Jul 22, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        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.


        web@... wrote:
        > 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?
        >
        > -Matt
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.