Ruahrc wrote:
For those who say you need nodal rails, I disagree (to a point) . These two were taken without the use of a nodal rail. what I did instead was to tie a string with a weight onto the lens in roughly the position of the nodal point. Then I marked on the floor with a coin where the weight hung. That way, as I turned the camera I readjusted the position of the tripod to keep the weight over the coin. Not as fast, easy, or elegant as a nodal rail, but works in a pinch!
Norman
That is a great tip, Norman. Now, what type of string do you use, and which coins are best? Just kidding
Brenizer? He was a late-comer! Rather look at people like Daniel Buck, and he also claims to have seen someone else doing it before him. I think even in film days some were doing it.
carstenw wrote:
Brenizer? He was a late-comer! Rather look at people like Daniel Buck, and he also claims to have seen someone else doing it before him. I think even in film days some were doing it.
I know Brenizer wasn't the first, but the method is called after him.
April 3, 2012 -- Here's a update shot. 9-shot pano taken with Canon 50/2.5 Macro and 5D2. No attempt to match processing, just thought it would be interesting to see a different version of pano.
U.C. wrote:
I know Brenizer wasn't the first, but the method is called after him.
I think the only reason why people have picked up on that name is that he has been very succesful using the low DOF pano method for much of his wedding shooting and he posted many examples on his flickr account. He made it into his trademark as a wedding photographer, but he certainly didn't invent the concept.
At least 4-5 years ago I saw Daniel Buck's low DOF panos, so I might as well call it the Daniel Buck method.
It's actually simulating large format, not large aperture. People use large aperture lenses (often f/1.2-1.4) and then stitch to get a wide field of view combined with the wide aperture. Brenizer seems to use his Sigma 85/1.4 mostly for his panos (wide open).
You could also argue that you're simulating a very large aperture wide angle lens. Your pano with the 100/2 would approximately need a 26mm f/0.5 lens to get the same DOF in a single frame (on a FF camera). I used this to calculate: http://brettmaxwellphoto.com/Brenizer-Method-Calculation/
I think the idea of simulating large format makes more sense though. You could shift the Zeiss MP100/2 around a large sensor and get the result that you got with stitching, but a 26/0.5 lens on a FF sensor most likely would create a very different look.
Are there large format combinations that are equivalent too 26/0.5 on FF?
Why should a well corrected wide-angle look very different to my shot (apart from the extremely small DoF)?
U.C. wrote:
Are there large format combinations that are equivalent too 26/0.5 on FF?
Why should a well corrected wide-angle look very different to my shot (apart from the extremely small DoF)?With larger format you shoot with longer focal length. If you play around enough with formula to calculate CoC (or just shoot large format ) you will soon find that when you use larger format:
- you get maybe same DoF as smaller format shorter focal length and super large aperture...
- ...but the change from DoF to bokeh is steeper in larger format
Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZF @ f/5.6, 1/4s, ISO 100 - panorama made from 60 exposures:
(if there is no image above refresh the page and it should appear, happens about every 100th time, something wrong on my old php-scripts - apologies for the inconvenience)
. These two were taken without the use of a nodal rail. what I did instead was to tie a string with a weight onto the lens in roughly the position of the nodal point. Then I marked on the floor with a coin where the weight hung. That way, as I turned the camera I readjusted the position of the tripod to keep the weight over the coin. Not as fast, easy, or elegant as a nodal rail, but works in a pinch!
