I don't see the need for wide-angle lenses...

For best stitching use CS3 or CS4, it is much more accurate and faster than previous versions.

I'm with you on stitching, its really effective for mountainscapes where you don't want a whole lot of sky but still resolve a lot of detail but i use a 70-200 for that, rather than a 50.

--

Zoom's and primes ---- There is no definitive answer to which is better, its all relative.

--

Well, in the end, it's all about enjoying the process, isn't it. If it's a process that works for you and gets you the results you want, more power. I am interested in the debate about perspective. I understand how you can crop a picture from a shorter focal length lens and arrive at the same perspective as a longer lens. I don't understand how you can use stitching to do the reverse without a change in perspective. Additive and subtractive processes don't always get you to the same place. Do you have a reference I can go to?

--Precisely. As soon as the camera has moved you have by definition changed perspective. Each of your panned shots is from a different perspective.

For certain landscape and architectural shots it can make sense if you plan on doing wide panorama or printing very large. For most other things it makes almost no sense at all. Its just too impractical and difficult when much simpler and effective solutions exist (wide angle lenses).

In all my years in the photographic world, you are the first person I have ever seen suggest that stitching be a replacement for general purpose wide angle.

--



Amateurs worry about sharpness
Professionals worry about sales
Photographers worry about light

http://archive.jamiehowell.net

...subtleties such as how curves and lines interact with the edge of the frame or proportions of color balance are hard to perceive w/o that viewfinder view.

When I don't have enough reach, I can center the subject then crop for composition later, but for wide angle I need the frame edges provided by the viewfinder in order to "seek the photograph" from the area my eyes were scanning. When I used to try and shoot "what I saw", my success rate was much lower. Looking through the view finder transports me into a photographic world where I see things much differently.

Are others able to compose w/o looking through the lens? Do you compose with eye and mind and then simply frame a pre-perceived shot?

OTH, it seems as if tele is your photgraphic priority, thus saving for the 300 f2.8. This makes perfect sense to me. Just like a wide angle guy might say, "Until I've save enough for the 14mm f2.8, I'll just use my 24-70 and crop on the few occasions when I need more reach.

--

There is simply too much beauty in the world to photograph it all, but I'm trying.

Exactly. Need is a big word.

PS I love my WA lenses, in fact I do not shoot that much above 50mm, and I NEVER stitch.

This is just such a stupid discussion.

It's actually simpler than you think! The perspective relationships between objects in a scene are determined entirely by the position of the observer. The focal length of the lens that might (or might not) be used has no effect on these relationships -- they are what they are. The lens only determines what part of the scene is selected for viewing in a single frame. Thus, so long as the camera position doesn't move, the perspective relationships will not, cannot, change.

One thing that will change depending on the focal length is the depth of field. Assuming that the camera doesn't change position, the longer lens (50 mm in the OP's example) will produce less depth of field in each and every frame that goes into the panorama, compared with a wider lens used to take a single frame of the same scene. That may or may not be an issue depenidng on the nature of the scene, but it is one thing that a wide angle lens can provide that OP's technique cannot replicate.

(It can be argued that the greater resolution of the stitched picture means less enlargement for any given print size, thus a larger circle of confusion can be tolerated. That's true to a point, and this partially, but not completely, offsets the difference in depth of field gained by using the wide angle lens.)

Dave
--
http://www.pbase.com/dsjtecserv

No you have not, not it you are using a panorama bracket. The camera and lens then rotates around the exit pupil and there is no change in perspective

gladvlad said:

--Precisely. As soon as the camera has moved you have by definition
changed perspective. Each of your panned shots is from a different
perspective.

Click to expand...

No I am not joking

Here's a simple example for you.

Say there is a wall in your house with an open window. Take an image of the entire wall, window and the view with a wide angle.

Then without moving the camera, switch to a 50mm, and take an image of just the window and view.

Then with a panorama head, take multiple images of the wall, window and view with the 50 and stitch them together.

In all images the view out of the window will be exactly the same.

Try it, if you do not move the exit pupil there will be no change in perspective and you will have exactly the same image.

carlk said:

Matthew Field said:

carlk said:

Same as when you crop 14mm image it will not
be the same as one taken with 50mm lens.

Click to expand...

If you and the subject don't move between lens changes then yes it
will, try it.

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

Matthew, I agree, but only to the extent that the stiched image can be presented as a rectilinear projection. Once a cylindrical or similar projection needs to be used, the position of the plane camera back relative to the planes within the subject does affect the result. Rectilinear projection is usable for an angle of view up to 80 to 100 degrees or so, depending on your tolerance for stretching at the ends. Not coincidentally, that roughly matches the maximum angle of view of the widest rectilinear lenses. So, since the debate is over whether a stitched image can replace a wide angle lens, the point is well-taken.

Dave

Matthew Field said:

gladvlad said:

--Precisely. As soon as the camera has moved you have by definition
changed perspective. Each of your panned shots is from a different
perspective.

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/dsjtecserv

Yes, the window will look pretty much the same, but what happens when you get near the corners/borders of the WA shot? Let's say you use a 14mm on 5D for the WA shot, and then 5x5 pics with the 50mm for stitching. Only the center shot with 50mm will have the same perspective. In the remaining 24 shots horizontal and/or vertical lines won't be horizontal and/or vertical anymore.

Matthew Field said:

Here's a simple example for you.

Say there is a wall in your house with an open window. Take an image
of the entire wall, window and the view with a wide angle.

Then without moving the camera, switch to a 50mm, and take an image
of just the window and view.

Then with a panorama head, take multiple images of the wall, window
and view with the 50 and stitch them together.

In all images the view out of the window will be exactly the same.

Try it, if you do not move the exit pupil there will be no change in
perspective and you will have exactly the same image.

carlk said:

Matthew Field said:

carlk said:

Same as when you crop 14mm image it will not
be the same as one taken with 50mm lens.

Click to expand...

If you and the subject don't move between lens changes then yes it
will, try it.

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

I use a mid range FL when I have issues (such as a WA that doesn't handle light source flare well).

Obviously there are different thoughts, as to perspective and the workflow. Subject matter comes into play as well (this won't apply well to Fashion Runway subjects, etc.). This notion is one of many approaches to the craft, that one should keep in mind.

--
...Bob, NYC

'Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes, it doesn't.' - Little Big Man

Galleries: http://www.bobtullis.com

Steen Bay said:

Yes, the window will look pretty much the same, but what happens when
you get near the corners/borders of the WA shot? Let's say you use a
14mm on 5D for the WA shot, and then 5x5 pics with the 50mm for
stitching. Only the center shot with 50mm will have the same
perspective. In the remaining 24 shots horizontal and/or vertical
lines won't be horizontal and/or vertical anymore.

Click to expand...

Yes they will, if the stitched picture is presented as a rectilinear projection. Here's an example:



I forget the exact angle of view, but it was around 80 or 90 degrees (horizontal). This was taken with the EF-S 60 mm Macro, and is composed of 99 images (3 rows, 11 columns, 3 exposures each). This is a rectilinear projection. A cylindrical projection, which is probably what you are thinking of, would have had straight verticals but the horizontals would converge toward the ends.

Dave
--
http://www.pbase.com/dsjtecserv

dsjtecserv said:

It's actually simpler than you think! The perspective relationships
between objects in a scene are determined entirely by the position of
the observer. The focal length of the lens that might (or might not)
be used has no effect on these relationships

Click to expand...

I do stitching and use a wide angle lens and I would say your statement is not correct. If you have subjects close and far then the focal length alters the relative proportions of them in the frame and stitching does not recover that.

Remember much of the stuff on using a long lens because it compresses the perspective. well it stands to reason a wide angle does the converse.

The best way to do this is through experimentation, I know as I use stitching for the following reasons

1 where I do not wish to have the prospective distortion I mention
2 where it is a wider view than my lens can achieve
3 I want a physically large image.

But for stitching I find 24mm to 50mm focal lengths work better for the angle of view reasons. And that is why stitching works well for subjects in the distance or classic panoramas. Place some near elements in the image and it falls apart.

So I use a 10-20 lens and stitching to suit the desired end effect.

Everybody knows that the only important things in photography are 100% crops of the corners. Wait - and when stitching you have more than 4 corners. What a rich idea!
--
Sergey
http://www.pbase.com/sergeyushakov/
http://www.photo.net/photos/SergeyUshakov

strawman_John said:

dsjtecserv said:

It's actually simpler than you think! The perspective relationships
between objects in a scene are determined entirely by the position of
the observer. The focal length of the lens that might (or might not)
be used has no effect on these relationships

Click to expand...

I do stitching and use a wide angle lens and I would say your
statement is not correct. If you have subjects close and far then the
focal length alters the relative proportions of them in the frame and
stitching does not recover that.

Click to expand...

John, this is the very misconception that we are trying to address, and correct in these posts! The focal length of a lens does not change the perspective. Period. The relationship between objects is established by the angles of the light rays reaching an observer (whether a camera or your eyes) at a particular location. How could a lens -- any lens -- change the angle from which the light rays came from? Think about it!

strawman_John said:

Remember much of the stuff on using a long lens because it compresses
the perspective. well it stands to reason a wide angle does the
converse.

Click to expand...

You heard wrong, although it is a common misunderstanding. Long lenses do not compress perspective. The perspective is already compressed (or not) based on where you are standing, camera in hand, in relation to your subjects. A long lens simply narrows the selection of the things you are looking at in the scene, so that your attention is directed to things in the distance that appear closer to things in the foreground. The actual relationship of those things was not changed by the lens, just the amount of attention you are paying to them.

A wide angle lens does exactly the same thing: it widens your view to include things that are very close as well as things that are much further. It allows you to see, in one glance, what is already true: things that are close look bigger than things that are far away. Lenses only change what you are looking at, not the actual relationship of things in three-dimensional space.

strawman_John said:

The best way to do this is through experimentation, I know as I use
stitching for the following reasons

1 where I do not wish to have the prospective distortion I mention
2 where it is a wider view than my lens can achieve
3 I want a physically large image.

Click to expand...

Combining images in a panorama does not change the geometric relationship between objects seen from your perspective as an observer. (Perspective isn't distortion, by the way. It is simply the perceived geometric size of objects relative to the observer.) If you use a wide angle lens to make panoramas (which I do a lot) the relationship between near and far objects will be the same as you would see if you just looked at the scene with your eyes. If you use a long lens to take the same scene (same angle of view) you will have exctly the same results (except for the depth of field, as discussed in an earlier post). You will have to take more pictures to over the same field of view, and you will have a higher resolution image. But the objects in the image will be in the same relationships, regardless of which lens you use for your pano.

strawman_John said:

But for stitching I find 24mm to 50mm focal lengths work better for
the angle of view reasons. And that is why stitching works well for
subjects in the distance or classic panoramas. Place some near
elements in the image and it falls apart.

Click to expand...

It need not fall apart, if you keep the viewpoint of the camera the same, by using a pano head or other method of rotation around the "no-parallax point".

strawman_John said:

So I use a 10-20 lens and stitching to suit the desired end effect.

Click to expand...

Dave
--
http://www.pbase.com/dsjtecserv

dsjtecserv said:

Steen Bay said:

Yes, the window will look pretty much the same, but what happens when
you get near the corners/borders of the WA shot? Let's say you use a
14mm on 5D for the WA shot, and then 5x5 pics with the 50mm for
stitching. Only the center shot with 50mm will have the same
perspective. In the remaining 24 shots horizontal and/or vertical
lines won't be horizontal and/or vertical anymore.

Click to expand...

Yes they will, if the stitched picture is presented as a rectilinear
projection. Here's an example:



I forget the exact angle of view, but it was around 80 or 90 degrees
(horizontal). This was taken with the EF-S 60 mm Macro, and is
composed of 99 images (3 rows, 11 columns, 3 exposures each). This is
a rectilinear projection. A cylindrical projection, which is probably
what you are thinking of, would have had straight verticals but the
horizontals would converge toward the ends.

Dave

Click to expand...

I just said that the (remaining) 24 out of camera pics with the 50mm had a different perspective than the WA shot, because the WA lens is made to have a rectilinear projection of its rather extreme angle of view. The stitching software may be able to simulate that rectilinear projection afterwards, but the 'out of camera' perspective (or projection) isn't the same.

99 images, that's really something! 100-150mp or so? And the man didn't move, but maybe his shadow did!

I just walk closer : )

Seriously, you approach is good for landscapes and I do it a LOT, but it does have flaws.

(1) parallax error is not determined by focal length, but by the closest and farthest objects in the shot. A landscape with a close up tree or lock need very precise location of the nodal point, so you will need a tripod.

(2) Panoramas are pretty much useless for moving objects. Try one at a beach with waves, with trees or grass blowing, not to mention people or cars.

(3) Panoramas are useless for dynamic situations. I have 10MM shots taking in a Bangkok canal boat where I was so cramped I could barely move, in a street bazaar lined with people, inside an elevator, a shot sking showing the tips of my skiis.

(4) You can shoot from the waist/hip with a wide angle for that street candid.

Steen Bay said:

I just said that the (remaining) 24 out of camera pics with the 50mm
had a different perspective than the WA shot, because the WA lens is
made to have a rectilinear projection of its rather extreme angle of
view. The stitching software may be able to simulate that rectilinear
projection afterwards, but the 'out of camera' perspective (or
projection) isn't the same.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess I don't think the other 24 images have a different perspective, if the camera were rotated around the no parallax point, but either way, that is secondary to the main point: the resulting picture is the same, whether it was composed of one shot with a wide andgle or many shots with a longer lens. Sounds like we agree on that!

Steen Bay said:

99 images, that's really something! 100-150mp or so? And the man
didn't move, but maybe his shadow did!

Click to expand...

The full size image is, I think, about 160 mp. The man was made of bronze so I could be fairly confident he wouldn't move! It took about 20 minutes to get all the shots, with other tourists walking in front of me and everything. Fortunately the sun was straight on to the figure, so the shadow didn't change much.

Dave
--
http://www.pbase.com/dsjtecserv

...while it is important that we obsess about corner sharpness so that we get brilliant brick wall shots. It is even more important that we shoot at the very widest aperture so that only a wafer thin part of our main subject is in focus.

That way in the corners of our images, we get that lovely razor sharp bokeh. Soft bokeh is for morons, only tack sharp bokeh is pleasing to my eye.

;-)))

sergey1968 said:

Everybody knows that the only important things in photography are
100% crops of the corners. Wait - and when stitching you have more
than 4 corners. What a rich idea!
--
Sergey
http://www.pbase.com/sergeyushakov/
http://www.photo.net/photos/SergeyUshakov

Click to expand...

--

There is simply too much beauty in the world to photograph it all, but I'm trying.