FF Commentary by Thom

Started Nov 4, 2013 | Discussions thread
Roland Karlsson Forum Pro • Posts: 27,728
Re: My Summary

Ian Leach wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

Ian Leach wrote:

The problem is balancing a scientific fact with 1 how much impact it really makes (print size) and 2 different approaches in the field (landscape). I use FF lenses most of the time. My APSc only uses the sharper centre image circle area. I make up for loss of angle of view and pixels by stitching several images together. This has other advantages; you can use a more normal angle of view lenses which keeps objects in perspective. To me a landscape of two 50mm shots stitched looks better than the wide angle equivalent. To get a FF lens which has sharp (I’m very picky) corners can be very expensive.

There is absolutely no difference in perspective between one wide angle shot taken with a wide angle lens and one wide angle shot made by stitching several normal angle shots.

Please note I do not think APSc is better than FF, I just think some balance is necessary.

Yes, balance is necessary. But the balance needs to be based upon correct facts.

I’m afraid I was working very late last night and trying to post in between, as a result I wasn’t doing a good job of reading replies or writing coherently, sorry. Now I’ve had time to read everything I can see I wasn’t being very clear about the landscape method.

OK - lets see what a good nights sleep can do

If you are standing in front of a nice view and it takes a 16mm to fit it in, I would take a 35mm and take about 4 shots to get the same left to right view. I am not walking backwards to reframe the shot, I am losing some of the grass, beach, whatever and some sky. It is a different view of the same thing. I prefer the 35mm lenses because they are inherently less prone to distortion and field curvature. On an APS-c it is a normal lens and it doesn’t stretch things out away from your point of view and looks more natural. You end up with a larger file as opposed to cropping top and bottom of a 16mm shot where you halve your megapixels. I can then print a panorama on my A3+ print 13” by 36” and I have sold many of these over the years.

I am not 100% sure what you are trying to say.

This is what I say:
* If the 16 mm lens is distortion free ...
* and the four 35 mm images are stitched (using rectilinear) to cover the same width ...
* and the 16 mm lens image is cropped (up and down) to cover the same hight ...
* then the images (except for image quality) will look identical.

They will have exactly the same perspective and the same distortion, i.e. none.

Now ... you hint at the 16 mm lens having distortion. That changes things of course. Note though that super angle lenses usually have barrel distortion, ie. things (if flat) in the corner gets compressed and not stretched out.

You also say that the 16 mm lens stretches things. Hmmmm ... yes super angle lenses makes things near the corner being elongated, if they have depth. That is a kind of 3D distortion that super angle lenses (except fish eye) has. But ... exactly the same happens with stitching, if you use rectilinear projection.

 Roland Karlsson's gear list:Roland Karlsson's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma dp2 Quattro Sony RX100 III Pentax K-3 Pentax K-1 +14 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow