Jack Kutis
Posts: 30
Location:
Registered: 27 Feb 2011
|
nikon 14-24 vs 16 fisheye for 360x180 panos
Posted: 27 Feb 2011 at 14:50 GMT
|
|
|
Are there any advantages of 16mm f/2.8 fish 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
|
|
Mark Houston
Posts: 138
Location: Ferndale, Michigan, United States
Registered: 23 Aug 2005
|
Re: nikon 14-24 vs 16 fisheye for 360x180 panos
Posted: 27 Feb 2011 at 15:05 GMT
|
|
IMHO I find the 14-24 f/2.8 to be a sharper lens then the 16mm especially at the corners. The 14-24 does a wonderful job on panoramas.
You do however take the same amount of images to create a 360x180 with either the 14-24 or the 16mm usually 6+1.
The 16mm is not a "true" fisheye lens like a sigma 8mm or the nikon 8mm. these only require only 4 images to create a 360x180.
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
mediavets
Posts: 1980
Location: Isleham, Cambs., United Kingdom
Registered: 8 Feb 2008
|
Re: nikon 14-24 vs 16 fisheye for 360x180 panos
Posted: 27 Feb 2011 at 15:35 GMT
|
|
Jack Kutis said: Are there any advantages of 16mm f/2.8 fish over 14-24 f/2.8 on FF other than half the amount of pictures that need to be taken for 360x180 pano?
With which Nikon camera body are you planning to use these lenses?
Andrew
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Morten Boe
Posts: 257
Location: Perth, Australia
Registered: 8 Aug 2005
|
Re: nikon 14-24 vs 16 fisheye for 360x180 panos
Posted: 27 Feb 2011 at 15:47 GMT
|
|
G'day guys,
Mark I think you will find that the @ 14mm the 14-24mm requires 12 shots (6 around @ +/- 30 degrees). www.vrwave.com/
I would be interested to hear peoples experience with this lens on full frame (D3 or D700) as I have this combo but am yet to be set up to use it. I gather the NN5 is a marginal solution to hold this massive combo.
Regards,
Morten
www.trueview.com.au
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Hans Nyberg
Posts: 2791
Location: Denmark
Registered: 28 Aug 2005
|
Re: nikon 14-24 vs 16 fisheye for 360x180 panos
Posted: 27 Feb 2011 at 15:49 GMT
|
|
Mark Houston said: IMHO I find the 14-24 f/2.8 to be a sharper lens then the 16mm especially at the corners. The 14-24 does a wonderful job on panoramas.
You do however take the same amount of images to create a 360x180 with either the 14-24 or the 16mm usually 6+1.
The 16mm is not a "true" fisheye lens like a sigma 8mm or the nikon 8mm. these only require only 4 images to create a 360x180.
Sorry Mark
May I see a full project with the 14mm that uses just 6+1.
The least you can do is 6 +2+2 +1 nadir for the tripod.
And of course the 16mm is a true fisheye. That you crop it to a fullframe or even smaller does not change that
Hans
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Jack Kutis
Posts: 30
Location:
Registered: 27 Feb 2011
|
Re: nikon 14-24 vs 16 fisheye for 360x180 panos
Posted: 27 Feb 2011 at 16:37 GMT
|
|
mediavets said: Jack Kutis said: Are there any advantages of 16mm f/2.8 fish over 14-24 f/2.8 on FF other than half the amount of pictures that need to be taken for 360x180 pano?
With which Nikon camera body are you planning to use these lenses?
Andrew
D700
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Jack Kutis
Posts: 30
Location:
Registered: 27 Feb 2011
|
Re: nikon 14-24 vs 16 fisheye for 360x180 panos
Posted: 27 Feb 2011 at 16:50 GMT
|
|
Hans Nyberg said: Mark Houston said: IMHO I find the 14-24 f/2.8 to be a sharper lens then the 16mm especially at the corners. The 14-24 does a wonderful job on panoramas.
You do however take the same amount of images to create a 360x180 with either the 14-24 or the 16mm usually 6+1.
The 16mm is not a "true" fisheye lens like a sigma 8mm or the nikon 8mm. these only require only 4 images to create a 360x180.
Sorry Mark
May I see a full project with the 14mm that uses just 6+1.
The least you can do is 6 +2+2 +1 nadir for the tripod.
And of course the 16mm is a true fisheye. That you crop it to a fullframe or even smaller does not change that
Hans
Hans, could you please explain the two "2" in 6+2+2+1. I know that 6 is for around and 1 for nadir but the middle puzzles me. And, in regards to the thread question - what do you think?
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Hans Nyberg
Posts: 2791
Location: Denmark
Registered: 28 Aug 2005
|
Re: nikon 14-24 vs 16 fisheye for 360x180 panos
Posted: 27 Feb 2011 at 18:17 GMT
updated: 27 Feb 2011 at 18:23 GMT
|
|
Jack Kutis said: Hans Nyberg said: Mark Houston said: IMHO I find the 14-24 f/2.8 to be a sharper lens then the 16mm especially at the corners. The 14-24 does a wonderful job on panoramas.
You do however take the same amount of images to create a 360x180 with either the 14-24 or the 16mm usually 6+1.
The 16mm is not a "true" fisheye lens like a sigma 8mm or the nikon 8mm. these only require only 4 images to create a 360x180.
Sorry Mark
May I see a full project with the 14mm that uses just 6+1.
The least you can do is 6 +2+2 +1 nadir for the tripod.
And of course the 16mm is a true fisheye. That you crop it to a fullframe or even smaller does not change that
Hans
Hans, could you please explain the two "2" in 6+2+2+1. I know that 6 is for around and 1 for nadir but the middle puzzles me. And, in regards to the thread question - what do you think?
With 2 zenith at 0 and rotated to 90 degrees
You can get coverage
Here you can see it.
As you can see you get a hole with just one zenith.
The problem is that on the 2 down shots you have to edit with masks for the panoheads.
I always prefer not to have anything from the panohead in the images.
So what I would do is shoot 6+4 like this.
The nadir hole is not larger than you can shoot with one shot down using my method just leaning the tripod.
However I am not sure I would choose the 14-24mm at all despite its quality. Its really big and heavy. For best quality I would choose 6 at -10 and 3 at +45 with the 16mm fisheye.
I do not have a Nikon but as far as I know the 16mm has the same quality as the Canon 15mm.
BTW 360 Precision has test images shot with the D3 here.
www.360precision.com/360/index.cfm?precision=prod....camlenssamples&uuid=EC66FF63-3048-2B9C-F4551A31B26E827E
Hans
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
zakato
Posts: 10
Location: Elche, Spain
Registered: 20 May 2010
|
Re: nikon 14-24 vs 16 fisheye for 360x180 panos
Posted: 27 Feb 2011 at 19:51 GMT
|
|
Not sure if this completely fits in here, but there is this recent paper from Michel Thoby at
michel.thoby.free.fr/Web_Gallery_&_Tests/Samyang%...
that I think has some nice ideas that could be somehow related to this post too.
regards,
Antonio
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
PanView
Posts: 54
Location: Sweden
Registered: 30 Jan 2005
|
Re: nikon 14-24 vs 16 fisheye for 360x180 panos
Posted: 27 Feb 2011 at 19:58 GMT
updated: 27 Feb 2011 at 20:10 GMT
|
|
I agree with Hans on 14-24 for sperical panos, size and weight are its disadvantages. I shoot with D3s and Nikon 16 mm fisheye and the panos come out superb in every aspect. I mostly shoot 6 around plus 1 up in 9 brackets.
however, for those who are not absolutely in need of sperical panos and like/prefer/need cylinrical (by this I mean restricted up and down tilting) with more reach and detail at zoomed ranges, esp if other still shots are to be done with the 14-24 at a location like a real-estate shoot, then the 14-24 shows its advantages: no need to switch lenses or carry the fisheye at all, no need for spherical panohead, a simpler/lighter one-axis panohead will do, shots can be stitched easier (less prone to stitch faults), individual frames can be rendered as stills and be used with natural (undistorted) perspective ... etc.
by the way Hans, which of the following combinations do you suggest give better results in terms of maximum stitching accuracy/minimum errors and highest quality (PTgui is the stitcher):
FX+16mm: 6 shots at -10 degrees plus 3 shots at 45 degrees as you suggest;
or
FX+16mm: 6 shots at -10 degrees plus 4 shots at 45 degrees ? I know this is cumbersome for rotator click-stop repositioning though. maybe totally overkill?
and in terms of the sequence/start-shot for the zenith with 3 shots at 45 desgrees as you suggest, does it matter at which of the positions you shoot the 3 shots? say you have 6 around at A,B,C,D,E,F positions, then do you shoot your zeniths at A,C,E or B,D,F?
just to add, I always patch the nadir with company logo (a marketing policy) so no need to worry about the tripod hole size 
Appreciate your input on this.
cheers
Reza
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Jack Kutis
Posts: 30
Location:
Registered: 27 Feb 2011
|
Re: nikon 14-24 vs 16 fisheye for 360x180 panos
Posted: 27 Feb 2011 at 22:27 GMT
|
|
zakato said: Not sure if this completely fits in here, but there is this recent paper from Michel Thoby at
michel.thoby.free.fr/Web_Gallery_&_Tests/Samyang%...
that I think has some nice ideas that could be somehow related to this post too.
regards,
Antonio
Thank you for the link Antonio - an interesting article. I'm not sure if his method is also applicable to 14-24 because samyang's max angle of view is 1.7 degrees greater(nikon 114 vs sam 115.7) But I'm not sure if this is significant enough to make a difference in this case.
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Jack Kutis
Posts: 30
Location:
Registered: 27 Feb 2011
|
Re: nikon 14-24 vs 16 fisheye for 360x180 panos
Posted: 27 Feb 2011 at 22:54 GMT
|
|
Hans, thank you for a very comprehensive explanation and illustrations! The bad news is you got my ignorant brain even more confused  It is still not clear to me if you shoot 2 or 4 zeniths total according to the 6 +2+2 +1 formula? My limited mathematical abilities tell me that 2+2 equals 4 but then you write "With 2 zenith at 0 and rotated to 90 degrees" So, is it 1 at 0 and 1 at 90 or 2 at 0 and 2 at 90? And then "As you can see you get a hole with just one zenith" - got that part, 1 zenih is not enough so again 2 or 4? I have to admit I don't understand the first illustration  The 6+4 formula and the accompanying illustration are clear - thank you. Thank you for your voicing your preference on the lens.
Jack
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Hans Nyberg
Posts: 2791
Location: Denmark
Registered: 28 Aug 2005
|
Re: nikon 14-24 vs 16 fisheye for 360x180 panos
Posted: 27 Feb 2011 at 23:33 GMT
|
|
Jack Kutis said: Hans, thank you for a very comprehensive explanation and illustrations! The bad news is you got my ignorant brain even more confused It is still not clear to me if you shoot 2 or 4 zeniths total according to the 6 +2+2 +1 formula? My limited mathematical abilities tell me that 2+2 equals 4 but then you write "With 2 zenith at 0 and rotated to 90 degrees" So, is it 1 at 0 and 1 at 90 or 2 at 0 and 2 at 90? And then "As you can see you get a hole with just one zenith" - got that part, 1 zenih is not enough so again 2 or 4? I have to admit I don't understand the first illustration The 6+4 formula and the accompanying illustration are clear - thank you. Thank you for your voicing your preference on the lens.
Jack
Sorry, I did not show the nadir part as it of course is exactly the same as the zenith except for the fact that you will need to make masks for the panohead.
So it is 6 around and 2 up + 2 down. + one without the tripod
Hans
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Mark Houston
Posts: 138
Location: Ferndale, Michigan, United States
Registered: 23 Aug 2005
|
Re: nikon 14-24 vs 16 fisheye for 360x180 panos
Posted: 28 Feb 2011 at 16:50 GMT
|
|
Dear Panogiude.
I would like to offer my apology for the mis-information posted in my name on this board. I assure you I do not have any problems with the Nikkor 16mm lens and I do know how to shoot panoramas with the 14to24 and have create many pans with this lens.
It seems, that a certain over-zealous young "assistant" in my employ, felt he knew enough about panorama photography to post to this board, (in my name ) he does not.
As soon as the aforementioned "assistant" fingers have healed, they will be broken again.
The post just came to my attention today.
Thank You for your time.
Mark Houston
www.360michigan.net
ps..don't hire family...
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Doug Aurand
Posts: 3282
Location: Albuquerque, NM, United States
Registered: 2 Jan 2008
|
Re: nikon 14-24 vs 16 fisheye for 360x180 panos
Posted: 28 Feb 2011 at 16:56 GMT
updated: 28 Feb 2011 at 16:57 GMT
|
|
ps..don't hire family...
Mark
If you don't hire family, you can't beat them til they're bloody 
Doug Aurand
Albuquerque, NM
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
back to threads list |
this thread is closed
Prev
