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

Re: Nikon D800 test with 16mm and 10.5mm

Expand Messages
  • Hans
    ... The first I checked was the maxpixelzoom as I had the same impression as you. But it is set to 1.0 so that is not why they are not as sharp as I would have
    Message 1 of 36 , May 9, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "jrgen_schrader" <panorama@...> wrote:
      >
      > Thank you, Ignacio.
      >
      > Of course we are talking about a test shoot here and my judging has of course nothing to do with your work which is highly admirable.
      >
      > But looking at the panos I can see nothing that would make me want to buy this camera and use it with either of these lenses.
      >
      > So no joke here, but as I know that what I see on the screen is highly dependent of some key facts which I do not know I started to ask.
      >
      > Probably it is only the maxzoom factor in krpano that is too high so one can zoom in to a pixelsize > 1. But it's also the sharpening and probably the process to compensate dynamic range that add some signifcant outlines here which to me spoil the impression of "crispness".


      The first I checked was the maxpixelzoom as I had the same impression as you.
      But it is set to 1.0 so that is not why they are not as sharp as I would have expected.

      Actually I made tests the other day which confirms to me that 1.0 can easy be set up to 1.2 for my 5D Mark II with the Canon 15mm.

      It may seem a lot that that you have 36 megapixel but in reality the difference from 21 is not very large. Its just 30% more in width on your panos. I doubt that you get much more real resolution unless you use a lens like the 14-24mm.

      Hans




      >
      > Maybe I am a bit ignorant here, but when I zoom into a panorama to the max (especially to judge a killer camera) I expect it to be _really_ sharp.
      >
      > Sorry for bothering, but that was just my impression.
      > Maybe I should have kept it for me.
      >
      > Jürgen
      >
      >
      > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Ignacio Ferrando Margelí <fotografia@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Jürgen,
      > >
      > >
      > > I used the same exposure on both cases and made some bracketing to fix the highlights...
      > >
      > > Shoot at 100ISO, uncompressed RAW 14bit, then transformed to 16bit TIFS with Nikon Capture and stitched with PTGUI
      > >
      > > I applied USM adapted to the size of each pano...
      > >
      > >
      > > regards
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > El 09/05/2012, a las 09:20, jrgen_schrader escribió:
      > >
      > > > Hm - to me they both look horrible :)
      > > > Would you mind to give some more details?
      > > > How did you treat the images, if at all?
      > > >
      > > > Cheers
      > > > Jürgen
      > > >
      > > > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Ignacio Ferrando Margelí <fotografia@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Hello
      > > > >
      > > > > I have made a test with my new nikon D800, I made the same pano with the 16mm and the 10.5mm you can check the difference :
      > > > >
      > > > > 16mm: 6+1 photos 19656 pixels wide
      > > > > http://www.abaco-digital.es/ignacio/elgaraje/
      > > > >
      > > > > 10.5mm: 4+1 11272 pixels wide
      > > > > (I have'nt corrected the nadir because I will not use it...)
      > > > > http://www.abaco-digital.es/ignacio/elgaraje10/
      > > > >
      > > > > regards
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
      > > > >
      > > > > Ignacio Ferrando Margelí
      > > > >
      > > > > 976 297980 / 646154023
      > > > >
      > > > > Abaco Digital
      > > > >
      > > > > http://www.abaco-digital.es
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > En cumplimiento de lo dispuesto en el artículo 5 de la Ley Orgánica 15/19999, de 13 de diciembre, de Protección de Datos de Carácter Personal, le informamos de la existencia de un fichero de datos de carácter personal cuyo titular y responsable es ABACO DIGITAL S.L. La recogida y tratamiento de sus datos tiene como finalidad gestionar las relaciones comerciales, jurídicas o contractuales que le vinculen con esta entidad.
      > > > > Usted podrá en todo momento ejercitar sus derechos de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y oposición al tratamiento de datos personales, en la forma legalmente prevista, mediante comunicación firmada y remitida a ABACO DIGITAL, S.L., sito en Méndez Núñez 31, 3º dcha, C.P. 50003 de Zaragoza.
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ----------------------------------------------------------
      > >
      > > Ignacio Ferrando Margelí
      > >
      > > 976 297980 / 646154023
      > >
      > > Abaco Digital
      > >
      > > http://www.abaco-digital.es
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > En cumplimiento de lo dispuesto en el artículo 5 de la Ley Orgánica 15/19999, de 13 de diciembre, de Protección de Datos de Carácter Personal, le informamos de la existencia de un fichero de datos de carácter personal cuyo titular y responsable es ABACO DIGITAL S.L. La recogida y tratamiento de sus datos tiene como finalidad gestionar las relaciones comerciales, jurídicas o contractuales que le vinculen con esta entidad.
      > > Usted podrá en todo momento ejercitar sus derechos de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y oposición al tratamiento de datos personales, en la forma legalmente prevista, mediante comunicación firmada y remitida a ABACO DIGITAL, S.L., sito en Méndez Núñez 31, 3º dcha, C.P. 50003 de Zaragoza.
      > >
      >
    • Ken Warner
      Yup!
      Message 36 of 36 , May 15, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Yup!

        luca vascon wrote:
        > I'm perfectly aware of Madoka 360, but I feel the circular fish to be of
        > quite zero interest panoramicwise.
        > A cropped circular, instead, is perfect. I mean 7.5 samyang adapted to nex.
        > Lens producers do not give a dam to us, they will always think in a matter
        > of circular or diagonal.
        >
        > 2012/5/10 Ken Warner <kwarner000@...>
        >
        >> That Madoka fisheye has been lurking around for a while. I wish Sigma
        >> would make some more E-mount lenses. Sigma is making a few and they get
        >> high marks. Then Samyang has been promising an E-mount fisheye for almost
        >> a year now.
        >>
        >> Mirrorless cameras seem like a no-brainer way to make a better, cheaper,
        >> smaller camera.
        >>
        >> Jesse Garnier wrote:
        >>> On 5/9/12 12:42 PM, Ken Warner wrote:
        >>>
        >>>> So as mirror-flap becomes a problem to overcome -- how does that reflect
        >>>> on mirrorless cameras as a possible avenue for reducing that particular
        >>>> problem?
        >>> Great question. I look forward to finding out soon, now that a circular
        >>> fisheye is imminent for some of the mirrorless bodies. I hadn't seen the
        >>> Yasuhara fisheye mentioned here. Might have missed it:
        >>>
        >>>
        >> http://www.43rumors.com/yasuhara-plans-to-make-a-crazy-vest-pocket-kodak-lens-for-m43/
        >> http://www.ephotozine.com/article/yasuhara-madoka-180-fish-eye-for-m43-and-nex-18561
        >>> --
        >>> Jesse Garnier
        >>> San Francisco, Calif.
        >>> http://stonehopper.com/360
        >>>
        >>
        >> ------------------------------------
        >>
        >> --
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.