wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: Raynox DCR-CF185PRO( was Another introduction)
Bjørn K Nilssen 2006-Mar-22 22:41:00
On 22 Mar 2006 at 14:53, Wim Koornneef wrote:
> >BTW, I read some of your(?) comments/warnings about that lens at
> ><http://www.kekus.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1006>http://www.kekus.com/forum/sh
> >owthread.php?t=1006
>
> Indeed, thats me, the only "MacUser" that signs with "Wim" ;-)
That's what I thought too ;)
> But I have a suggestion so you can do a little resardh yourself:
>
> On the site of Raynox you can see some example images of the 185Pro lens.
> One is taken in a park, in the image you can
> several lanterns. As you take a closer look at
> those lantarns then you see that the lanterns in
> the middel part of the image are not bending as
> much as they should when taken with a "normal"
> fisheye lens, this points to the fact the 185pro
> is not a "normal" fisheye.
I tried to find the image you're referring to, but couldn't find it. Is there a
URL to it?
> When you just remap that image with a panotools
> plugin to a sphere (equirectangular) format,
> without using any lens correction factors, you
> can see that regarddless the angle you use
> 180-185-190-195 degree all objects with vertical
> lines that are close to centre of the remapped
> image all are pincussioned, while at the edge all
> objects are extremely curved and pushed/pressed
> into a small area.
And that won't happen with other fisheye lenses?
> Perhaps you already know that all vertical lines
> in a sphere image must be straight, otherwise you
> can't stitch them together.
I didn't really know that, as I have only stitched wide angle photos (18mm)
> This simple test shows that there is a lot of
> correction needed in PanoTools to solve this
> issue.
> You can get at best an average result with the
> 185Pro but after I read your goal I am sure that
> the 185Pro lens is not the lens your looking for.
>
> As you can read in my comment I was very pleased
> with this lens and I pitty that I had to return
> it so my opinio is not biassed.
>
> I suggest that after reading this comment, and
> doing some tests yourself on the example images,
> uour still not convinced, could be ;-) you try it
> yourself, there is a very little chance that it
> will perform better on your camera then it did on
> my Panasonic. I doubt it because the Nikon FC-E9
> performed well on my FX5 (except for the lack of
> sharpness).
As there are now other posts here with more positive experiences with that lens
I was wondering if the problems reported by you and others could be caused by
the lens on your camera, inside the CF, and that some combos perform better
than others?
> BTW, did you noticed that Raynox do not promote this lens for making VR panos ?
> The big silence about this major option of a fisheyelens tells us a lot.......
I noticed that too, but as they don't promote any of their lenses, not even the
180, for panos, I didn't really read anything between the lines there ;)
Thanks for sharing your experiences.
I am still in the think box regarding this lens, as there apparently are
different opinions/experiences.
-- #removed# // Bj?rn K?re Nilssen http://bknilssen.no/
Kristiansand, Norway