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

Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: EF 8-15 mm f4 L:review of the new Canon Fisheye Zoom

Expand Messages
  • Sacha Griffin
    I think peter was pole shooting so errors can be excused. I don t think any fisheyes are problematic from an npp perspective. What do you mean? Just a matter
    Message 1 of 24 , Nov 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I think peter was pole shooting so errors can be excused. I don't think any fisheyes are problematic from an npp perspective. What do you mean? Just a matter of knowing how to optimize for your rotation and proper stitching.
      From all reports the 8-15 is the perfect vt lens beating even the prime 15.

      Sacha Griffin
      Southern Digital Solutions LLC  - Atlanta, Georgia
      Office: 404-551-4275
      GV: 404-665-9990


      On Nov 1, 2011, at 4:20 PM, robert <image360@...> wrote:

       

      So, it's a great lens, not really much of a surprise since Canon seems to be finally hitting all gears on super wides. I mean what could you expect after the 17mm TS lens?

      But is there any perfect lens for 360's?

      Peter's example is filled with errors if you look a bit too close. Are all fish-eye lens's just problematic from a NPP?

      Robert

      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Michel Thoby <thobymichel@...> wrote:
      >
      > Exactly one year after the new 8-15 mm zoom lens announcement by Canon, it landed at last on the shelf of my local store about two months ago...
      >
      > Here is a review with my point of view as a panorama photographer:
      > http://michel.thoby.free.fr/Canon_8-15mm/8-15mm_review.html
      >
      >
      > Michel Thoby
      >

    • robert
      There are errors, insignificant, for all but the purest in just about every 360 shot with a fisheye since any fisheye lens does not have a single NPP point.
      Message 2 of 24 , Nov 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        There are errors, insignificant, for all but the purest in just about every 360 shot with a fisheye since any fisheye lens does not have a single NPP point. You can optimize or minimize the issue, but it still exists simply because a fisheye has no single NPP. Post is almost always required if you care about absolute image fidelity.

        I'm not trying to knock the new Canon 8-15, on the contrary it seems like a great lens and I plan to get one or two next year. It does seem to be better than the Canon 15 at the edges and perhaps in contrast, color through out the FOV.

        But the Canon 15 at 2.8, verses the 8-15 at 4.0 seems like the 15 still has a place at the table. If I was Canon I would not discontinue the 15.

        And believe me, I'm not in anyway trying to knock Peter. I know how challenging a non-stable platform can be to work with, I've been stitching aerial 360's for a few years now. Talk about a drunken sailor. It can make handheld seem easy. :)

        cheers,

        Robert

        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Sacha Griffin <sachagriffin@...> wrote:
        >
        > I think peter was pole shooting so errors can be excused. I don't think any
        > fisheyes are problematic from an npp perspective. What do you mean? Just a
        > matter of knowing how to optimize for your rotation and proper stitching.
        > From all reports the 8-15 is the perfect vt lens beating even the prime 15.
        >
        > Sacha Griffin
      • Sacha Griffin
        I haven t done any post due to seams in about a year or more. 10.5 It s just a matter of placing your seam where it really overlaps. No single npp refers to
        Message 3 of 24 , Nov 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          I haven't done any post due to seams in about a year or more. "10.5"

          It's just a matter of placing your seam where it really overlaps.
          No single npp refers to your rotation. Like I said if you optimize for it as well and stitch accordingly youre good to go. If I need pixel accuracy "high detail" I can always take extra time on the stitch or pass it off to a content aware blender, which usually is faster.

          The 15 is still a really good lens and 2.8 may fit some circumstances.

          Sacha Griffin
          Southern Digital Solutions LLC  - Atlanta, Georgia
          Office: 404-551-4275
          GV: 404-665-9990


          On Nov 1, 2011, at 7:40 PM, robert <image360@...> wrote:

           

          There are errors, insignificant, for all but the purest in just about every 360 shot with a fisheye since any fisheye lens does not have a single NPP point. You can optimize or minimize the issue, but it still exists simply because a fisheye has no single NPP. Post is almost always required if you care about absolute image fidelity.

          I'm not trying to knock the new Canon 8-15, on the contrary it seems like a great lens and I plan to get one or two next year. It does seem to be better than the Canon 15 at the edges and perhaps in contrast, color through out the FOV.

          But the Canon 15 at 2.8, verses the 8-15 at 4.0 seems like the 15 still has a place at the table. If I was Canon I would not discontinue the 15.

          And believe me, I'm not in anyway trying to knock Peter. I know how challenging a non-stable platform can be to work with, I've been stitching aerial 360's for a few years now. Talk about a drunken sailor. It can make handheld seem easy. :)

          cheers,

          Robert

          --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Sacha Griffin <sachagriffin@...> wrote:
          >
          > I think peter was pole shooting so errors can be excused. I don't think any
          > fisheyes are problematic from an npp perspective. What do you mean? Just a
          > matter of knowing how to optimize for your rotation and proper stitching.
          > From all reports the 8-15 is the perfect vt lens beating even the prime 15.
          >
          > Sacha Griffin

        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.