D60 +1.6 FLM = Problem With Landscapes?

After a long time shooting 35mm, film based Canon equipment, I made the decision, some time ago, to move to digital when the time was right. Based upon expectations, and now the actual reviews, I have been planning to purchase a D60 within the next couple months, depending on available supply, etc. Its primary use would be shooting landscapes,and following that, travel photography, and a few assorted odds and ends.

My concern now is that with the 1.6 focal length multiplier, even a 20-35 EF lens becomes a 32-56. And while I cant afford it, even the new 16-35 "L", which goes for $1500.00 street, becomes a mere 25.6 at the widest focal length.

I am beginning to wonder if digital, at present, is really suitable for landscapes, which are what I focus on. Certainly, longer focal lengths can be used, on occasion, for this purpose, but overall, one would ideally want at least the 20-35 range, with 16/17-35 being optimum. With the D60 causing the "starting point" to begin the upper 20mm's through the 30's I dont see how one can seriously undertake this kind of photography. Please tell me that I've missed something in my understanding of digital principles regarding this. I have really been looking forward to joining the digital revolution in photography.

yes...you are missing something...for static landscapes a well stitched panorama with perspective distortion corrections available in several pano programs...you can pretty much blow away the FOV of any lens combo and film.

check panorama factory

DJM

SwordOne said:

After a long time shooting 35mm, film based Canon equipment, I made
the decision, some time ago, to move to digital when the time was
right. Based upon expectations, and now the actual reviews, I have
been planning to purchase a D60 within the next couple months,
depending on available supply, etc. Its primary use would be
shooting landscapes,and following that, travel photography, and a
few assorted odds and ends.
My concern now is that with the 1.6 focal length multiplier, even a
20-35 EF lens becomes a 32-56. And while I cant afford it, even
the new 16-35 "L", which goes for $1500.00 street, becomes a mere
25.6 at the widest focal length.
I am beginning to wonder if digital, at present, is really
suitable for landscapes, which are what I focus on. Certainly,
longer focal lengths can be used, on occasion, for this purpose,
but overall, one would ideally want at least the 20-35 range, with
16/17-35 being optimum. With the D60 causing the "starting point"
to begin the upper 20mm's through the 30's I dont see how one can
seriously undertake this kind of photography. Please tell me that
I've missed something in my understanding of digital principles
regarding this. I have really been looking forward to joining the
digital revolution in photography.

Click to expand...

except for pro film pano bodies of course!

DJM

David James Miller said:

check panorama factory

DJM

SwordOne said:

After a long time shooting 35mm, film based Canon equipment, I made
the decision, some time ago, to move to digital when the time was
right. Based upon expectations, and now the actual reviews, I have
been planning to purchase a D60 within the next couple months,
depending on available supply, etc. Its primary use would be
shooting landscapes,and following that, travel photography, and a
few assorted odds and ends.
My concern now is that with the 1.6 focal length multiplier, even a
20-35 EF lens becomes a 32-56. And while I cant afford it, even
the new 16-35 "L", which goes for $1500.00 street, becomes a mere
25.6 at the widest focal length.
I am beginning to wonder if digital, at present, is really
suitable for landscapes, which are what I focus on. Certainly,
longer focal lengths can be used, on occasion, for this purpose,
but overall, one would ideally want at least the 20-35 range, with
16/17-35 being optimum. With the D60 causing the "starting point"
to begin the upper 20mm's through the 30's I dont see how one can
seriously undertake this kind of photography. Please tell me that
I've missed something in my understanding of digital principles
regarding this. I have really been looking forward to joining the
digital revolution in photography.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

djm80364 said:

yes...you are missing something...for static landscapes a well
stitched panorama with perspective distortion corrections available
in several pano programs...you can pretty much blow away the FOV of
any lens combo and film.

Click to expand...

Max Lyons has some great pano galleries, with 35 megapixel images from a Nikon 990 ... but if you're going to have animals, or leaves blowing in the breeze in your photo, pano-stitching can be a major undertaking. I'd really like a larger chip, too, like the one in the 1D. But looking around here, luminous-landscape and photo.net, I've seen some great landscapes shot with a D30. So the new D60 certainly can't be any worse...

You might want to think about a Sigma 14 mm prime, though.

David,

I don't think that is neccessarily the case, as (unlike a sheet of film) there is no limit to the number of elements you can stitch together to build your ultimate image. A two row, four column stitch would give a 40MP equivalent picture...

• Woody -

David James Miller said:

DJM

David James Miller said:

check panorama factory

DJM

SwordOne said:

After a long time shooting 35mm, film based Canon equipment, I made
the decision, some time ago, to move to digital when the time was
right. Based upon expectations, and now the actual reviews, I have
been planning to purchase a D60 within the next couple months,
depending on available supply, etc. Its primary use would be
shooting landscapes,and following that, travel photography, and a
few assorted odds and ends.
My concern now is that with the 1.6 focal length multiplier, even a
20-35 EF lens becomes a 32-56. And while I cant afford it, even
the new 16-35 "L", which goes for $1500.00 street, becomes a mere
25.6 at the widest focal length.
I am beginning to wonder if digital, at present, is really
suitable for landscapes, which are what I focus on. Certainly,
longer focal lengths can be used, on occasion, for this purpose,
but overall, one would ideally want at least the 20-35 range, with
16/17-35 being optimum. With the D60 causing the "starting point"
to begin the upper 20mm's through the 30's I dont see how one can
seriously undertake this kind of photography. Please tell me that
I've missed something in my understanding of digital principles
regarding this. I have really been looking forward to joining the
digital revolution in photography.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

digital panos surpass 35mm easily, but there are zero digtal cameras that surpass medium/large format low iso film in terms of resolution..no matter how many pics you stitch...but digital is gaining fast...a few years ago people scoffed at digital ever approaching 35mm

DJM

Woody W. said:

I don't think that is neccessarily the case, as (unlike a sheet of
film) there is no limit to the number of elements you can stitch
together to build your ultimate image. A two row, four column
stitch would give a 40MP equivalent picture...

• Woody -

David James Miller said:

DJM

David James Miller said:

check panorama factory

DJM

SwordOne said:

After a long time shooting 35mm, film based Canon equipment, I made
the decision, some time ago, to move to digital when the time was
right. Based upon expectations, and now the actual reviews, I have
been planning to purchase a D60 within the next couple months,
depending on available supply, etc. Its primary use would be
shooting landscapes,and following that, travel photography, and a
few assorted odds and ends.
My concern now is that with the 1.6 focal length multiplier, even a
20-35 EF lens becomes a 32-56. And while I cant afford it, even
the new 16-35 "L", which goes for $1500.00 street, becomes a mere
25.6 at the widest focal length.
I am beginning to wonder if digital, at present, is really
suitable for landscapes, which are what I focus on. Certainly,
longer focal lengths can be used, on occasion, for this purpose,
but overall, one would ideally want at least the 20-35 range, with
16/17-35 being optimum. With the D60 causing the "starting point"
to begin the upper 20mm's through the 30's I dont see how one can
seriously undertake this kind of photography. Please tell me that
I've missed something in my understanding of digital principles
regarding this. I have really been looking forward to joining the
digital revolution in photography.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

This is my problem too. I love shooting landscape using my 24mm lens and macro with my 100mm lens.

My 24mm will become 38mm on a D60 My macro would be better though at 160mm.

I am still undecided if I should take the D60 to do macro and use my Elan 7e with 24mm for landscapes.

I read somewhere that the 6MP dslr doesn't have enough resolution for landscape with lots of detail when printed 13x19.

I'm being tortured by Canon! So cruel!

GreenArcher--Elan 7e, 420ex24 f2.8, 50 f1.8, 100 f2.8 macroCanon A50 digital----------------------------Wanting a DSLR

It's not that bad....from a D30....some basic stitching, some need more work...but they'll give you an idea of the posibilities.....got to love digital

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=132178

Cheers
Gav

SwordOne said:

After a long time shooting 35mm, film based Canon equipment, I made
the decision, some time ago, to move to digital when the time was
right. Based upon expectations, and now the actual reviews, I have
been planning to purchase a D60 within the next couple months,
depending on available supply, etc. Its primary use would be
shooting landscapes,and following that, travel photography, and a
few assorted odds and ends.
My concern now is that with the 1.6 focal length multiplier, even a
20-35 EF lens becomes a 32-56. And while I cant afford it, even
the new 16-35 "L", which goes for $1500.00 street, becomes a mere
25.6 at the widest focal length.
I am beginning to wonder if digital, at present, is really
suitable for landscapes, which are what I focus on. Certainly,
longer focal lengths can be used, on occasion, for this purpose,
but overall, one would ideally want at least the 20-35 range, with
16/17-35 being optimum. With the D60 causing the "starting point"
to begin the upper 20mm's through the 30's I dont see how one can
seriously undertake this kind of photography. Please tell me that
I've missed something in my understanding of digital principles
regarding this. I have really been looking forward to joining the
digital revolution in photography.

Click to expand...

SwordOne said:

Please tell me that
I've missed something in my understanding of digital principles
regarding this.

Click to expand...

You haven't. I bought the 16-35 2.8L a month or two ago, and it's a great lens but you can only get the equivalent of 26mm or so on the D30.

On the D30, unless you want to stitch several shots together to create a panorama, the widest you can practically get is 22 or so mm using a lens like the Sigma 14mm. I think it runs around $800. There are some good discussions of landscape photography with the D30, and of the Sigma 14mm, over on luminous-landscape.com.

Laura

djm80364 said:

digital panos surpass 35mm easily, but there are zero digtal
cameras that surpass medium/large format low iso film in terms of
resolution..no matter how many pics you stitch...

Click to expand...

If the current crop of DSLRs rival 35mm, then, in terms of image area it would seem that a 2x2 pano would easily match that of a 6x4.5. A 2x3 would have a greater image area than that of a 6x7.

David James Miller said:

yes...you are missing something...for static landscapes a well
stitched panorama with perspective distortion corrections available
in several pano programs...you can pretty much blow away the FOV of
any lens combo and film.

check panorama factory

DJM

Click to expand...

Nothing can stop you from stitching panoramas when using film too, so this is really a moot point, and you get higher resolution. On top of that, most people who shoot landscape do so in the best available light around sunrise and sunset, but that light tends to change quickly, as well as other elements of an image, like clouds, may. That makes stitching highly impracticaal if not impossible.

stiching is highly impractible if not impossible???

tell you what Radek..take a look at this pano shot by Karlg, then read the entire thread (this post is near the end) and then tell me how stiching digital images is so highly impractible if not impossible. And you don't need to spend all that time scanning your film either.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=2338383

DJM

Radek Tezaur said:

Nothing can stop you from stitching panoramas when using film too,
so this is really a moot point, and you get higher resolution. On
top of that, most people who shoot landscape do so in the best
available light around sunrise and sunset, but that light tends to
change quickly, as well as other elements of an image, like clouds,
may. That makes stitching highly impracticaal if not impossible.

Click to expand...

David James Miller said:

stiching is highly impractible if not impossible???

tell you what Radek..take a look at this pano shot by Karlg, then
read the entire thread (this post is near the end) and then tell me
how stiching digital images is so highly impractible if not
impossible. And you don't need to spend all that time scanning
your film either.

Click to expand...

I give you that point, I do not enjoy scanning myself. And I am not going to challenge you on whether it is easier to set up and take a wide angle film shot, or set up and take two shots, stitch them together digitally still with little possibility of high quality 35mm slide ouput for projection. But the picture you are referring to only shows that stitching can be done under some circumstances. It does not show that it is very hard other times, when the light is changing fast or when the clouds or other elements in the picture move fast. I trust you that you think it can be done every time you choose to and leave it at that.

First of all, if one has a panorama head, it is possible to take the picture quickly enough that most of the problems don't really hurt much. You can set up and fire away (I need to get myself one of those QTVR type pan heads sometime). Panorama (the QTVR variety) heads help the most if you have foreground objects to keep from having parallax problems. If you are set up with a panorama head you should be able to get a shot much faster than the light will change (unless it is some artificial lighting like a changing spotlight), and even then many of the stitching programs will adjust it for you.

About the only thing I have found that causes more of a problem is water, particularly if there are some big waves, because it is constantly changing. Clouds are far enough away that they don't move that much relatively.

One thing that helps a lot is if the software puts the image into layers with layer masks rather than just giving you a final result. I finally started using PTGUI which puts a reasonable GUI on top of Panorama tools and gives you the option to save the result in Photoshop Layers with Layer masks. Using layer masks you can pick and touch up problem areas like rippling water or choose boundaries where one would not notice a problem (for example don't split an object if you don't have to).

I really like doing stitching over a wide angle lens. First you gain resolution. Second, usually when I want to go wider, I don't also want to go that much taller. With a panorama, I control the direction of shooting. Another thing is that usually you shoot Panoramas with the camera in "Portrait" mode; this both gains resolution in the vertical direction and reduces the turning angle between shots.

In the following panorama used 9 D30 pictures and is 4,156x768 pixels reduced from original 10,746 by 1,986 pixels. I had about everything going wrong including having to move to shoot around a pole. It was entirely hand stitched (I did this before I learned about PTGUI) using Photoshop's arbitrary transform and layer masks.

http://www.fototime.com/ A371EFE7-9330-4914-A3C6-4B5F4202A2D6} picture.JPG;

There are also some other advantages to panoramas. For example, the shot above was taken at F8 (at about 44mm) and you will notice that the leaves in the foreground at the far left are in focus. That is because on that shot I was focus on the somewhat nearer ship rather than the far shore line. As you go from left to right across the panorama, the focus point is getting further away, thus getting somewhat the effect of a tilt lens.

Panoramas are not a cure for all ills, but it is surprising what you can do with them. Where I want a wide angle the most is for indoor candid shooting. Just to see want would happen, the picture below is a real quick and dirty job at a party. I could not get wide enough with my 17-35F2.8-F4 so I took two hand held pictures (in landscape) to see what would happen. They were taken with flash and with the ETTL the exposures were different. With PTGUI I was able to paste them together in only a few minutes and then adjusted the seam in Photoshop.

http://www.fototime.com/ 18D7B6DC-FDA1-4ABD-856C-D244FF18D615} picture.JPG;

Karl

Radek Tezaur said:

David James Miller said:

stiching is highly impractible if not impossible???

tell you what Radek..take a look at this pano shot by Karlg, then
read the entire thread (this post is near the end) and then tell me
how stiching digital images is so highly impractible if not
impossible. And you don't need to spend all that time scanning
your film either.

Click to expand...

I give you that point, I do not enjoy scanning myself. And I am not
going to challenge you on whether it is easier to set up and take a
wide angle film shot, or set up and take two shots, stitch them
together digitally still with little possibility of high quality
35mm slide ouput for projection. But the picture you are referring
to only shows that stitching can be done under some circumstances.
It does not show that it is very hard other times, when the light
is changing fast or when the clouds or other elements in the
picture move fast. I trust you that you think it can be done every
time you choose to and leave it at that.

Click to expand...

--Karl

Karl where are you from. I think I recognize one guy in your picture. He looks exactly like my friend Romek from Milwaukee. The guy in the white t-shirt stadning with the back toward camera and glasses

Karlg said:

About the only thing I have found that causes more of a problem is
water, particularly if there are some big waves, because it is
constantly changing. Clouds are far enough away that they don't
move that much relatively.

One thing that helps a lot is if the software puts the image into
layers with layer masks rather than just giving you a final result.
I finally started using PTGUI which puts a reasonable GUI on top of
Panorama tools and gives you the option to save the result in
Photoshop Layers with Layer masks. Using layer masks you can pick
and touch up problem areas like rippling water or choose boundaries
where one would not notice a problem (for example don't split an
object if you don't have to).

I really like doing stitching over a wide angle lens. First you
gain resolution. Second, usually when I want to go wider, I don't
also want to go that much taller. With a panorama, I control the
direction of shooting. Another thing is that usually you shoot
Panoramas with the camera in "Portrait" mode; this both gains
resolution in the vertical direction and reduces the turning angle
between shots.

In the following panorama used 9 D30 pictures and is 4,156x768
pixels reduced from original 10,746 by 1,986 pixels. I had about
everything going wrong including having to move to shoot around a
pole. It was entirely hand stitched (I did this before I learned
about PTGUI) using Photoshop's arbitrary transform and layer masks.

http://www.fototime.com/ A371EFE7-9330-4914-A3C6-4B5F4202A2D6} picture.JPG;

There are also some other advantages to panoramas. For example,
the shot above was taken at F8 (at about 44mm) and you will notice
that the leaves in the foreground at the far left are in focus.
That is because on that shot I was focus on the somewhat nearer
ship rather than the far shore line. As you go from left to right
across the panorama, the focus point is getting further away, thus
getting somewhat the effect of a tilt lens.

Panoramas are not a cure for all ills, but it is surprising what
you can do with them. Where I want a wide angle the most is for
indoor candid shooting. Just to see want would happen, the picture
below is a real quick and dirty job at a party. I could not get
wide enough with my 17-35F2.8-F4 so I took two hand held pictures
(in landscape) to see what would happen. They were taken with
flash and with the ETTL the exposures were different. With PTGUI I
was able to paste them together in only a few minutes and then
adjusted the seam in Photoshop.

http://www.fototime.com/ 18D7B6DC-FDA1-4ABD-856C-D244FF18D615} picture.JPG;

Karl

Radek Tezaur said:

David James Miller said:

stiching is highly impractible if not impossible???

tell you what Radek..take a look at this pano shot by Karlg, then
read the entire thread (this post is near the end) and then tell me
how stiching digital images is so highly impractible if not
impossible. And you don't need to spend all that time scanning
your film either.

Click to expand...

I give you that point, I do not enjoy scanning myself. And I am not
going to challenge you on whether it is easier to set up and take a
wide angle film shot, or set up and take two shots, stitch them
together digitally still with little possibility of high quality
35mm slide ouput for projection. But the picture you are referring
to only shows that stitching can be done under some circumstances.
It does not show that it is very hard other times, when the light
is changing fast or when the clouds or other elements in the
picture move fast. I trust you that you think it can be done every
time you choose to and leave it at that.

Click to expand...

--
Karl

Click to expand...

You have made some very good points, Karl. As to the situations, where a wide angle is very useful, I would add those times when taking relatively low light and thus long exposures with moving clouds (I spent a month in Patagonia this winter and I can tell you, the clouds do move fast when you are up in the mountains with all that wind they have got there), situations where you do not want to expose your camera to the elements for too long (same Patagonia or just about any mountains or sand dunes experience), and situations where using a tripod may be too risky . Or have you ever shot a picture of a fast moving car passing you by - try to get a wide angle perspective by stitching those two shots taken one second apart, etc etc.. Do not get me wrong, I like using digital tools, but I will continue bitching until Canon can sell me 1.1-1.2 multiplier 10 Mp camera for $2000.

Karlg said:

First of all, if one has a panorama head, it is possible to take
the picture quickly enough that most of the problems don't really
hurt much. You can set up and fire away (I need to get myself one
of those QTVR type pan heads sometime). Panorama (the QTVR
variety) heads help the most if you have foreground objects to keep
from having parallax problems. If you are set up with a panorama
head you should be able to get a shot much faster than the light
will change (unless it is some artificial lighting like a changing
spotlight), and even then many of the stitching programs will
adjust it for you.

About the only thing I have found that causes more of a problem is
water, particularly if there are some big waves, because it is
constantly changing. Clouds are far enough away that they don't
move that much relatively.

One thing that helps a lot is if the software puts the image into
layers with layer masks rather than just giving you a final result.
I finally started using PTGUI which puts a reasonable GUI on top of
Panorama tools and gives you the option to save the result in
Photoshop Layers with Layer masks. Using layer masks you can pick
and touch up problem areas like rippling water or choose boundaries
where one would not notice a problem (for example don't split an
object if you don't have to).

I really like doing stitching over a wide angle lens. First you
gain resolution. Second, usually when I want to go wider, I don't
also want to go that much taller. With a panorama, I control the
direction of shooting. Another thing is that usually you shoot
Panoramas with the camera in "Portrait" mode; this both gains
resolution in the vertical direction and reduces the turning angle
between shots.

In the following panorama used 9 D30 pictures and is 4,156x768
pixels reduced from original 10,746 by 1,986 pixels. I had about
everything going wrong including having to move to shoot around a
pole. It was entirely hand stitched (I did this before I learned
about PTGUI) using Photoshop's arbitrary transform and layer masks.

http://www.fototime.com/ A371EFE7-9330-4914-A3C6-4B5F4202A2D6} picture.JPG;

There are also some other advantages to panoramas. For example,
the shot above was taken at F8 (at about 44mm) and you will notice
that the leaves in the foreground at the far left are in focus.
That is because on that shot I was focus on the somewhat nearer
ship rather than the far shore line. As you go from left to right
across the panorama, the focus point is getting further away, thus
getting somewhat the effect of a tilt lens.

Panoramas are not a cure for all ills, but it is surprising what
you can do with them. Where I want a wide angle the most is for
indoor candid shooting. Just to see want would happen, the picture
below is a real quick and dirty job at a party. I could not get
wide enough with my 17-35F2.8-F4 so I took two hand held pictures
(in landscape) to see what would happen. They were taken with
flash and with the ETTL the exposures were different. With PTGUI I
was able to paste them together in only a few minutes and then
adjusted the seam in Photoshop.

Click to expand...

Thanks Karl...as always right on the money.

Radek...as I said in my original post..stiching panos is another way to get a wide angle FOV with static, or non moving landascapes. It's also a way of increasing resolution density over a single wide angle shot.

This doesn't negate using a good wide angle lens for landscapes at all, and panos won't work if you have fast moving objects. It is however a valid way to work around the wide angle 1.6x factor with a D30/60.

and it is fun!

DJM

Karlg said:

About the only thing I have found that causes more of a problem is
water, particularly if there are some big waves, because it is
constantly changing. Clouds are far enough away that they don't
move that much relatively.

One thing that helps a lot is if the software puts the image into
layers with layer masks rather than just giving you a final result.
I finally started using PTGUI which puts a reasonable GUI on top of
Panorama tools and gives you the option to save the result in
Photoshop Layers with Layer masks. Using layer masks you can pick
and touch up problem areas like rippling water or choose boundaries
where one would not notice a problem (for example don't split an
object if you don't have to).

I really like doing stitching over a wide angle lens. First you
gain resolution. Second, usually when I want to go wider, I don't
also want to go that much taller. With a panorama, I control the
direction of shooting. Another thing is that usually you shoot
Panoramas with the camera in "Portrait" mode; this both gains
resolution in the vertical direction and reduces the turning angle
between shots.

In the following panorama used 9 D30 pictures and is 4,156x768
pixels reduced from original 10,746 by 1,986 pixels. I had about
everything going wrong including having to move to shoot around a
pole. It was entirely hand stitched (I did this before I learned
about PTGUI) using Photoshop's arbitrary transform and layer masks.

http://www.fototime.com/ A371EFE7-9330-4914-A3C6-4B5F4202A2D6} picture.JPG;

There are also some other advantages to panoramas. For example,
the shot above was taken at F8 (at about 44mm) and you will notice
that the leaves in the foreground at the far left are in focus.
That is because on that shot I was focus on the somewhat nearer
ship rather than the far shore line. As you go from left to right
across the panorama, the focus point is getting further away, thus
getting somewhat the effect of a tilt lens.

Panoramas are not a cure for all ills, but it is surprising what
you can do with them. Where I want a wide angle the most is for
indoor candid shooting. Just to see want would happen, the picture
below is a real quick and dirty job at a party. I could not get
wide enough with my 17-35F2.8-F4 so I took two hand held pictures
(in landscape) to see what would happen. They were taken with
flash and with the ETTL the exposures were different. With PTGUI I
was able to paste them together in only a few minutes and then
adjusted the seam in Photoshop.

http://www.fototime.com/ 18D7B6DC-FDA1-4ABD-856C-D244FF18D615} picture.JPG;

Karl

Radek Tezaur said:

David James Miller said:

stiching is highly impractible if not impossible???

tell you what Radek..take a look at this pano shot by Karlg, then
read the entire thread (this post is near the end) and then tell me
how stiching digital images is so highly impractible if not
impossible. And you don't need to spend all that time scanning
your film either.

Click to expand...

I give you that point, I do not enjoy scanning myself. And I am not
going to challenge you on whether it is easier to set up and take a
wide angle film shot, or set up and take two shots, stitch them
together digitally still with little possibility of high quality
35mm slide ouput for projection. But the picture you are referring
to only shows that stitching can be done under some circumstances.
It does not show that it is very hard other times, when the light
is changing fast or when the clouds or other elements in the
picture move fast. I trust you that you think it can be done every
time you choose to and leave it at that.

Click to expand...

--
Karl

Click to expand...

Radek,

I think we are in violent agreement. I agree that there are times that a wide angle beat stitching. I don't think that clouds or sand dunes would could be worse than rippling water. I guess it would depend on the situation with the fast moving car.

I was caught out a couple of months ago taking a picture of the Walt Disney World Castle and its reflection in water. I had done a daytime version where I took the top at one exposure and the reflection at 2-F-stops slower to get the reflection in the water brighter. They kept changing the color of the castle with different color lights every couple of seconds. Between changing the shutter speed the castle kept changing color. I never got a top and bottom to match .

I had to settle for photoshop maniputation of a single photo. You will notice that the top of spire of the castle is clipped in the reflection (17mm was just not quite wide enough).

ALSO, if your complaining will get us a 1.1 to 1.2X sensor camera with 10MP for $2,000, then I am all for you . I would like a lower multiplier too. I was a bit disappointed by the D60 not having at least a little bigger sensor and I am particularly miffed they did not better address the Predictive AI auto-focus. Maybe the rumored 1DS will be the one -- but I think they are going to miss you $2,000 target by about $3,000.

Karl

Radek Tezaur said:

Karlg said:

First of all, if one has a panorama head, it is possible to take
the picture quickly enough that most of the problems don't really
hurt much. You can set up and fire away (I need to get myself one
of those QTVR type pan heads sometime). Panorama (the QTVR
variety) heads help the most if you have foreground objects to keep
from having parallax problems. If you are set up with a panorama
head you should be able to get a shot much faster than the light
will change (unless it is some artificial lighting like a changing
spotlight), and even then many of the stitching programs will
adjust it for you.

About the only thing I have found that causes more of a problem is
water, particularly if there are some big waves, because it is
constantly changing. Clouds are far enough away that they don't
move that much relatively.

One thing that helps a lot is if the software puts the image into
layers with layer masks rather than just giving you a final result.
I finally started using PTGUI which puts a reasonable GUI on top of
Panorama tools and gives you the option to save the result in
Photoshop Layers with Layer masks. Using layer masks you can pick
and touch up problem areas like rippling water or choose boundaries
where one would not notice a problem (for example don't split an
object if you don't have to).

I really like doing stitching over a wide angle lens. First you
gain resolution. Second, usually when I want to go wider, I don't
also want to go that much taller. With a panorama, I control the
direction of shooting. Another thing is that usually you shoot
Panoramas with the camera in "Portrait" mode; this both gains
resolution in the vertical direction and reduces the turning angle
between shots.

In the following panorama used 9 D30 pictures and is 4,156x768
pixels reduced from original 10,746 by 1,986 pixels. I had about
everything going wrong including having to move to shoot around a
pole. It was entirely hand stitched (I did this before I learned
about PTGUI) using Photoshop's arbitrary transform and layer masks.

http://www.fototime.com/ A371EFE7-9330-4914-A3C6-4B5F4202A2D6} picture.JPG;

There are also some other advantages to panoramas. For example,
the shot above was taken at F8 (at about 44mm) and you will notice
that the leaves in the foreground at the far left are in focus.
That is because on that shot I was focus on the somewhat nearer
ship rather than the far shore line. As you go from left to right
across the panorama, the focus point is getting further away, thus
getting somewhat the effect of a tilt lens.

Panoramas are not a cure for all ills, but it is surprising what
you can do with them. Where I want a wide angle the most is for
indoor candid shooting. Just to see want would happen, the picture
below is a real quick and dirty job at a party. I could not get
wide enough with my 17-35F2.8-F4 so I took two hand held pictures
(in landscape) to see what would happen. They were taken with
flash and with the ETTL the exposures were different. With PTGUI I
was able to paste them together in only a few minutes and then
adjusted the seam in Photoshop.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--Karl

This is a related question to the 1.6 multiplier.

If I put a 24mm lens on the D60, it will become a 38mm. On the D60, am I going to get the perspective of the 24mm?

I assume the perspective is unchanged since the actual lens itself is 24mm, not 38mm.

Am I wrong?

GreenArcher--Elan 7e, 420ex24 f2.8, 50 f1.8, 100 f2.8 macroCanon A50 digital----------------------------Wanting a DSLR

http://www.fototime.com/ 76969CD0-567C-42D2-B709-5EEB8E509C10} picture.JPG;
--Karl