Yes, I'm sure they're working overtime at the lab right now.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The ONLY reason to buy Panasonic 8mm Fisheye...
- Thread starter jaja_m
- Start date
And the edges will look miserable. Which I can not stand in most wide angle photography. I'd rather stitch multiple images from the 9-18/7-14 together If I needed something wider.
Fish eye lenses are a wonderful perspective. I'd go as far as to say, "The ONLY reason to use a fisheye lens if for that fisheye distortion!"
Your suggestion is an interesting one, but I think defishing takes a lot more CPU power than a simple several pixel distortion correction. I'm not sure the onboard processing would do a good job of it in real time.
Jogger
Veteran Member
defishing tends to reduce the number of useable pixels in the image.. which may be a problem for still photos, but, would be AWESOME for videos..
Seems several people doubt the current cpu power. I'm sure it is possible and I'll repeat my argument, 1) For previewing on LCD/EVF, the entire 12MP sensor do not need to be defished, instead defish only the pixel size of LCD/EVF (for example, only 1.44MP need to be defished on Oly VF-2), 2) Current embedded processor can render complex 3d scenes, so to manipulate simple 2D rectangle is POC, 3) Current distortion correction is also manipulate every pixel on image, and 4) The "real" defishing on full 12MP final image do not need to be realtime, like Oly's pinhole art filter.
Anyway this is an option , which wont prevent you from using the fisheye distortion, stitching wide angle images to create same FOV, etc. But I'm glad everyone seems to like it.
Anyway this is an option , which wont prevent you from using the fisheye distortion, stitching wide angle images to create same FOV, etc. But I'm glad everyone seems to like it.
Jogger
Veteran Member
The Sony NEX line takes 14mp shots and builds 3D panoramas from them... im sure a de-fished preview feed (i.e. it doesnt have to be optimal) would be easy.
There's also the Samyang 8mm/3.5.
Weight: 417 g (Panasonic 8mm: 165 g)
Length: 74.8 mm + adapter (Panasonic: 51.7mm, no adapter)
Both differences are huge. With adapter, the Samyang will be nearly double the length of the Lumix, and nearly triple the weight.
Whether de-fishing is going to be practical or not, in-camera or in PP, the Panasonic is already a far more interesting lens to me.
julieng
Leading Member
A Samyang is $340 and we have to assume you already have an adapter.
No lens data transferred to the body, no AF, let alone much bigger.
We don't know the price of the Panasonic yet, but it I really wanted a fisheye, clearly I'd be willing to pay significantly more for the native lens.
I've read daydream talks about wishing that lens as low as below $400. To me a good surprise would be around $600. I expect more.
No lens data transferred to the body, no AF, let alone much bigger.
We don't know the price of the Panasonic yet, but it I really wanted a fisheye, clearly I'd be willing to pay significantly more for the native lens.
I've read daydream talks about wishing that lens as low as below $400. To me a good surprise would be around $600. I expect more.
We'll find out soon enough, but my guess is around $500. Though the lens is probably not intended to compete directly with the Oly 9-18, Panasonic would be foolish to ignore the people who will see it as a possible substitute for one. To reach them, the price should be at least somewhat tempting, rather than a "might as well get the zoom" kind of price.
For me, it's a likely buy @400, possible buy @500. At 600 and up, I'm probably getting the Oly.
I've never shot with a fisheye, but always liked ultra-wide and fisheye photos... not that I would intend to "de-fish" all the time, but my choice of this lens would depend on how difficult and destructive the process is.
As that isn't designed particularly for 4/3", but, I think, to give 180 degrees on APS-C, it won't be 180 on 4/3". To check this I googled and found one person writing that it's 140 degrees on 4/3", which seems about accurate.
Still wider than the 7-14, though.
Ah, I wasn't aware the specs had been disclosed.
Yes.
--
Just my two öre,
Erik from Sweden
Are you sure you want to believe that?
All rectilinear 8 mm lenses will project the exactly the same image (within their image circles naturally). The same is true for all 8 mm fisheye lenses. (Ok, the definition of rectilinear has some wiggle room, a few percent distortion would still count as rectilinear, the same is true for fisheyes.)
Thus if an 8 mm fisheye lens as a diagonal coverage of 180º on 4/3, the circle projected by that 180º has a diameter of about 22.5 mm (which is the diagonal of 4/3). An 8 mm fisheye used on DX/APS-C sensor thus will project the same 22.5 mm circular image, which on the 24x16 mm sized sensor will result in a circular image.
gaf1958
Forum Enthusiast
According to the data sheet for the 8mm lens on the Samyang website, the diagonal angle of view for the 4/3 mount is 139.3 degrees....
http://www.syopt.co.kr/eng/product/8mm.asp
or specifically:
http://www.syopt.co.kr/common/pdf/f=8mm.pdf
Cheers
Gary
http://www.syopt.co.kr/eng/product/8mm.asp
or specifically:
http://www.syopt.co.kr/common/pdf/f=8mm.pdf
Cheers
Gary
julieng
Leading Member
n.t.
Well look at dpreview's sample here!
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1006/10060103panasonic8preview.asp
It is very sharp!
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1006/10060103panasonic8preview.asp
It is very sharp!
There's a few problems with this concept.
1) The fisheye is apparently around $800 and does not include lens stabilization. Not exactly "cheap."
2) Correcting that much distortion in software will degrade the image quality. (Try it in PTLens with the sample images to see for yourself)
3) For at least $100 less, you can get the Olympus 9-18, which will result in better image quality than the corrected 8mm and is a zoom and can use filters.
4) I may be wrong, but I don't recall anyone putting out an UWA prime with more than a 100º angle of view (excepting panoramic cameras). If they have, they certainly aren't popular. While I agree that an 8mm prime would have some buyers, it'd still be a specialty item, would have to offer a lot to compete against the UWA zooms, won't sell much, and would thus carry a fairly high price tag.
The more likely option is they would make a UWA prime that requires some software distortion correction, but not as much as this fisheye. However, since they already make the 7-14mm f/4 zoom, I think that's going to be a long ways out.
E
Ednaz
Guest
I'm in the same camp as the pre-viewer - with all the other lenses that COULD be done for the m4/3 bodies, why a fisheye?
The only thing I can figure is that they saw the Nikkor 10mm fisheye with its de-fish software, and thought, what a nice idea. Without that thought, I have no idea why they'd bring this lens out.
I've always found fisheye images, with very, very few exceptions, to be cliche and narrow. They may be good fisheye photos, but they seldom cross the line to great photos. "Wow, look at that fisheye shot" never becomes "wow, look at that photo." You never seem to lose the qualifier in talking about the image.
It's soooooo hard for people to learn to use ultra-wides well, and a fisheye just adds cliche to complexity.
As to the Nikkor - almost everyone I know who bought that lens used it a ton for a couple of weeks, and almost never afterwards. The novelty kind of wore off. I could be wrong, maybe this is the market space for it.
The only thing I can figure is that they saw the Nikkor 10mm fisheye with its de-fish software, and thought, what a nice idea. Without that thought, I have no idea why they'd bring this lens out.
I've always found fisheye images, with very, very few exceptions, to be cliche and narrow. They may be good fisheye photos, but they seldom cross the line to great photos. "Wow, look at that fisheye shot" never becomes "wow, look at that photo." You never seem to lose the qualifier in talking about the image.
It's soooooo hard for people to learn to use ultra-wides well, and a fisheye just adds cliche to complexity.
As to the Nikkor - almost everyone I know who bought that lens used it a ton for a couple of weeks, and almost never afterwards. The novelty kind of wore off. I could be wrong, maybe this is the market space for it.
Adventsam
Senior Member
ice as part of the collection, but real-world, novelty look.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum