Tactus 360
Posts: 1245
Location: Tynset, Norway
Registered: 2 Sep 2010
|
Nikkor 16 mm or 10,5
Posted: 6 Jan 2011 at 17:54 GMT
|
|
Hi Guys,
Would anyone offer me advice on whether to stick with my Nikkor 10,5 on a D700 or upgrade to the 16 mm fisheye?
I suppose to get the most from the lens I already have I would have to get it shaved, but wonder if whether the alternative would be an altogether better choice.
Your responses are eagerly awaited!
Jon
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Juergen Schrader
Posts: 219
Location: Germany
Registered: 14 Jul 2006
|
Re: Nikkor 16 mm or 10,5
Posted: 6 Jan 2011 at 18:06 GMT
|
|
If you want to do action panoramas you would want to shave your 10,5 in order to get away with 4 around.
If your goal is best quality at higher resolution then you would want to get your hands on a 16 mm asap.
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Tactus 360
Posts: 1245
Location: Tynset, Norway
Registered: 2 Sep 2010
|
Re: Nikkor 16 mm or 10,5
Posted: 6 Jan 2011 at 18:11 GMT
|
|
So perhaps both?
I have looked also at the 14 mm, but it IS pricey - around double the cost here.
Jon
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Juergen Schrader
Posts: 219
Location: Germany
Registered: 14 Jul 2006
|
Re: Nikkor 16 mm or 10,5
Posted: 6 Jan 2011 at 19:07 GMT
|
|
Nah, unless you are an architectural photographer or supposed to sit with Bill and Kate in the same carriage in April, you don't want the 14mm.
14mm is rectlinear which is good for single shots but bad for panoramas (needs more images).
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
hindenhaag
Posts: 729
Location: Netherlands
Registered: 7 Mar 2010
|
Re: Nikkor 16 mm or 10,5
Posted: 6 Jan 2011 at 20:45 GMT
updated: 6 Jan 2011 at 20:54 GMT
|
|
Hi Jon,
as Juergen mentioned, the only choice is between shaved 10.5 or 16.
Busy place, with a little lower resolution but being better off with 4 shots around, this is shaved 10.5. Think of bracketing.
More quiet places, higher resolution, the standard lens would be the 16mm. Normally I use FX with the 16mm. In busy situations or on a pole, I use shaved 10.5.
The next step to get higher resolution in quiet places is the 50mm lens.
Being interested, IM and I will send you a link for D700 with shaved 10.5 and 16mm or 50mm.
Regards,
Heinz
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Tactus 360
Posts: 1245
Location: Tynset, Norway
Registered: 2 Sep 2010
|
Re: Nikkor 16 mm or 10,5
Posted: 6 Jan 2011 at 20:51 GMT
|
|
hindenhaag said: The next step to get higher resolution in quiet places is the 50mm lens.
Sounds terribly forlorn . . . A bit like living in Norway, perhaps.
Being serious, I have had a tip from a D700 user that I will get nothing more than I get from the D300, unless I want to do more than panos.
Comments?
J
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
hindenhaag
Posts: 729
Location: Netherlands
Registered: 7 Mar 2010
|
Re: Nikkor 16 mm or 10,5
Posted: 6 Jan 2011 at 21:06 GMT
updated: 6 Jan 2011 at 21:13 GMT
|
|
Jon,
beyond 10.5 and 16mm the 50mm results in higher resolution. But what are we talking about? D700 FX or D300 DX?
I can send you a link for D300s for 10.5, 16mm as well.
Sorry to say, but I do not understand your comment concerning the D300.
Cheers,
Heinz
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
No One
Posts: 501
Location: Sri Lanka
Registered: 14 May 2004
|
Re: Nikkor 16 mm or 10,5
Posted: 6 Jan 2011 at 21:46 GMT
|
|
Jon,
from nikon's view:
D300(s) with 10.5 = D700 with 16
Benefits of D700, 1-2 settings better higher ISO noise performance (i.e. D300 400 iso = D700 800 iso)
and normal lenses work at stated mm, no reduction in FOV. So, the best Nikon wide zoom, 14-24 works great on D700, not so wide on D300.
And is the 16mm a better lens than the 10.5, probably a bit. But if you have issues making a great shot with a D300, 10.5 the D700, 16 is NOT going to change anything really. the difference is quite small.
At this time (right now) better investment in Nikon might be a D7000. As good at low light as a D700, no, but a bit better than the D300, probably and you get a small uplift in pixels.
Anyway, D300, 10.5; D700, 16; D7000, 10.5 all great options, one over the others not much difference for 360's in general. Photography/Post skills much more important that difference among these choices.
Good Luck,
Robert
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Aaron Spence
Posts: 121
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Registered: 29 Sep 2005
|
Re: Nikkor 16 mm or 10,5
Posted: 6 Jan 2011 at 23:16 GMT
|
|
G'day Jon,
10.5mm (shaved) on D700
- 3 or 4 shots (4 = more overlap, easier to stitch)
- equirectangular image around 7000 x 3500
16mm on D700
- 6 shots around + 1 up
- equirect around 11,500 x 5,750
For interest:
10.5mm (shaved) on Canon 5DmkII (with adapter)
- 3 or 4 shots (4 = more overlap, easier to stitch)
- equirect image around 9500 x 4750
10.5mm on Nikon D7000
- 6 shots around + 1 up
- equirect image around 12,500 x 6250
Both the 10.5mm and 16mm are outstanding options depending on your shooting situation. I use the 16mm + D700 on a 360precision head for 98% of my shooting. The results are beautiful.
I use the 10.5mm + D700 or 5KmkII on a Nodal Ninja pole for crowds and event situations. The results are very good.
The D700 sensor is far superior to the D300. The dynamic range is at least 2 stops higher, enabling good detail to be pulled out of shadows that are noisy mush on a D300. I'm not recommending anyone with a D300 sells immediately, it depends on your situation and shooting style as to whether you would see the D700's advantages, for a lot of money spent.
Thanks, Aaron.
panedia.com
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Smooth
Posts: 3774
Location: Mount Panorama, Australia
Registered: 21 Jul 2004
|
Re: Nikkor 16 mm or 10,5
Posted: 7 Jan 2011 at 4:12 GMT
|
|
Jon,
I think you will like the 16mm on the D300s you will basically go close to doubling the output resolution. Much the same as using the Canon 15mm on a APS-C 7D body. With this Canon combination I yield an equirectangular image of over 22000x11000 pixels. The D300s and 16mm will be less than this because of the smaller sensor, but still a great improvement for your church work where speed and moving objects are not an issue, this combination will be perfect to gain greater detail via higher resolution.
As Aaron points out the 16mm on a D700 is like a 10.5mm on a D300s - same familiar work flow 6+2. Where as, the 16mm on the D300s will be more like 2x rows of 8 plus Zenith and Nadir. Or centre row of 8 and top and bottom row of 6.
Don't buy into the less shots are better for moving objects. More shots gives far wider options when masking out and you can be far more selective on what is worth having in the final composition. It does make sense to try and keep it all single row if possible. Action shots where anything other than single row and perhaps a zenith shot becomes a nightmare!
By all means shave the 10.5mm for use on the D700 if you are going to get one. But consider the 16mm for use on your D300s in static situations.
First stop would be the 16mm Fisheye. Play, experiment and then maybe the D700.
That said, I have never tried the 16mm on the APS-C/DX Nikon. I based this on using the 15mm Canon on my APS-C 7D.
Regards, Smooth 
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Thomas Krueger
Posts: 358
Location: Genoa, Italy
Registered: 3 Mar 2006
|
|
Jack Kutis
Posts: 30
Location:
Registered: 27 Feb 2011
|
Re: Nikkor 16 mm or 10,5
Posted: 27 Feb 2011 at 14:45 GMT
|
|
|
Are there any advantages of 16mm f/2.8 over 14-24 f/2.8 on FF other than half the amount of pictures that need to be taken for 360x180 pano?
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Asa Buchanan
Posts: 7
Location:
Registered: 2 Jan 2010
|
Re: Nikkor 16 mm or 10,5
Posted: 1 Mar 2011 at 3:01 GMT
|
|
|
You need to select a balance in what works for you. Shorter lenses mean fewer images but lower final panorama resolution.
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Hans Nyberg
Posts: 2791
Location: Denmark
Registered: 28 Aug 2005
|
Re: Nikkor 16 mm or 10,5
Posted: 1 Mar 2011 at 7:24 GMT
updated: 1 Mar 2011 at 7:25 GMT
|
|
Jack Kutis said: Are there any advantages of 16mm f/2.8 over 14-24 f/2.8 on FF other than half the amount of pictures that need to be taken for 360x180 pano?
Yes price for the 14-24 is hefty. Same for size and weight. Double up for all 3.
And you can not use all panoheads with it as the NPP setting is among the largest of all lenses 134 mm.
But you do not need to do twice as many images. 6+4 is the best with the 14mm. 6+1 or better 6+3 with the 16mm.
But of course the 14-24 has the advantage that you can also do multirow at 24mm
Hans
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
