wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: Fisheye vs. Rectilinear
Bernhard Vogl 2005-Jun-24 19:33:00
Hello Tom
There is no theoretical maximum for resolution and you can use virtually
any lens you want.
I can affirm Roberts considerations. Personally i am most happy with
Nikon lenses. Even at lower resolutions you can clearly notice the
difference compared to the wide angle Sigma lenses as far as i had
"hands on".
You already have the 10mm Nikkor which is an exeptional lens and
starting from this lens, a quality increase is not so easy. I personally
doubt if you will see that big difference using the 14mm Nikkor - or
Sigma. What i can compare with, is the 18~70 Nikkor Kit Lens and the
17~35 AF-S. The 17~35 is prohibitive expensive for VR-shooting (though a
damned good lens) but the 18~70 (or the new 18~55) is quite acceptable
and could be a cost efficient solution for extra high quality VRs. The
suggested Nikon price in Europe for the 18~70 is 399 EUR and the 18~55
is 219 EUR.
HTH
Bernhard
Robert C. Fisher wrote:
>Hi Tom
>I have used both the 14mm Sigma and currently own the 14mm Nikkor. My
>personal choice is the Nikkor, superior contrast and sharpness with
>really low flair. I had purchased the 14mm Sigma when I bought my Fuji
>S2, after shooting a few months with it I wasn't happy with the images
>so I rented the 14mm Nikkor for a few days and was really pleased with
>the images I shot with it. I bought a 14mm Nikkor the next week, boy
>did my wallet hurt. The Nikkor was $1500US as opposed to the Sigma
>which was around $700US. The thing that I think I noticed was the
>detail in objects farther from the camera. I also have a 8mm Sigma and
>see he same thing, good sharpness up close but lack of definition in
>things farther away. Some times sharpening will bring out these details
>but sometimes not.
>
>The answer to your question is yes you can get higher resolution in
>your images by going to the 14mm, you will also be shooting 22-24
>images per sherical pano. I think the raw stitches from my 14mm were
>around 16K px by 8K px. The panos I shoot with my 10.5mm are 8450 x
>4225 px.
>
>As for the flair issue I find flair more of an issue shooting interiors
>than exteriors. It's hard to control every light inside a space you may
>not have full control of. I have shot many interiors where you have
>lots of track lighting or lights in the ceiling that you need to light
>the shot but flair the lens in some of the images. Also the look of the
>point sources are different with the two lenses, I like the look of the
>14mm Nikkor more than that of the Sigma.
>
>If you think your client will notice the difference and you can afford
>the 14mm Nikkor go for that one but if you like the look of the Sigma
>then I would use that lens. Rent both lenses if you can and shoot some
>quick tests to see the differences. The 14mm Nikkor I rented was
>$50/day at Samy's Camera in Los Angeles. There should be a camera store
>in Winston or Charlotte you could find the lenses for rent.
>
>On Jun 24, 2005, at 6:52 AM, Tom Lassiter wrote:
>
>
>
>>I've been using a 10.5 mm Nikkor, stitching with PTMac, and getting
>>good sharpness and easy stitches with PTMac.
>>
>>I'm trying to land a client who has an extremely critical eye for
>>detail and resolution. He also has a low tolerance for distortion, so
>>the spherical QTVR images will have a more limited wide "zoom" so
>>than I might normally deliver.
>>
>>The question: Can I expect more detail/higher resolution in the
>>finished image by switching to a 14 mm rectilinear lens? Reviews of
>>the Sigma 14 mm seem fairly positive, except for flare. I'll be
>>shooting interiors, so that may be less of an issue. Or for a
>>super-critical client, is the 14 mm Nikkor wide-angle necessary?
>>
>>Thanks for any guidance.
>>
>>Tom
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Cheers
>Robert C. Fisher
>QTVR Photography/Cinematography
>www.rcfisher.com
>
>
>
>