wfrank wrote:
Awesome sebboh, makes you wanna grab the screen! Couldnt you have done this with far less than 50?
yeah, I'm sure I coulda done it with 20 or less if I used a pano tripod. shooting that close handheld I figured better safe than sorry. I threw out the top row of the 50 too.
I'm not setting up anything. Every thread I've started has been alt--scanography, pinholes, film sample requests, Makro Planar tests, etc. I post non-alt photos (almost all taken with the 24L II TSE) only where specifically welcome: namely the two avowedly gear-neutral threads going in Alt right now, this thread and the Twilight thread.
Yes, this is the alt forum. It is full of alt postings about alt lenses and cameras by alt people, of which you are one, and I am one, and Gunzorro is one. This particular thread is ten months old, has had significant non-alt content from post #1, and no one has complained about it. In fact, you were post #5 in this thread, and didn't find the non-alt content so offensive then, nor did you find it offensive enough to comment on at any point in the intervening ten months. The alt forum has--somehow--managed to survive with this (quite popular) thread for ten months.
If you think there are posts here that don't belong in the alt forum report it to the moderator. Seriously. This isn't your forum, and this isn't my forum, and this isn't Gunzorro's forum.
And now I've hidden you. This discussion is over on my end.
obik wrote:
If you think there are posts here that don't belong in the alt forum report it to the moderator. Seriously. This isn't your forum, and this isn't my forum, and this isn't Gunzorro's forum.
That's right, it is the alt forum. I don't see how specifically saying in a thread that you are breaking the rules gets anyone off the hook. I have complained before, maybe not in this thread (I tend to avoid this thread, because I find the wildly varying image widths frustrating to view). I am not going to report anyone here, but I really don't like seeing non-alt stuff here, except in very limited circumstances, such as direct comparisons (which this is not).
Okay ... but I still don't get what was so compelling to state that it wasn't alt, as the poster was clear as to which lens he used, non-alt as it may / may not be. (I'm assuming you were referring to the Nikon 24-70) ... but when someone uses a Nikon 105/2.5 AIS or 28/2.8 AIS or 24/2.0 AIS, they get heralded as "alt" ... yet are still Nikon brand?
Conventionally, one would use a wider angle lens to get the AOV of a pano. Unconventionally, one uses a lens of a more narrow focal length, takes multiple images and stitches them together ... as an alternative (read as "unconventional") lens solution, regardless of brand. I don't see how that is violation of the rules of the forum ... at least not to the degree it requires a callout ... particularly in this thread.
RustyBug wrote:
Okay ... but I still don't get what was so compelling to state that it wasn't alt, as the poster was clear as to which lens he used, non-alt as it may / may not be. (I'm assuming you were referring to the Nikon 24-70) ... but when someone uses a Nikon 105/2.5 AIS or 28/2.8 AIS or 24/2.0 AIS, they get heralded as "alt" ... yet are still Nikon brand?
You make two separate points here.
The discussion as to what lenses are alt has come up a few times, and I don't recall any fundamental disagreement with calling lenses alt which are either not Canon or Nikon, or not modern AF lenses. This is IMO the best way to resolve this issue since otherwise AI-S lenses, for example, would be alt on Canon but not on Nikon. It is almost as if Nikon was punished for remaining backwards compatible rather than shafting their user base like Canon did, a ridiculous situation at best. The line was drawn at AF, AF-D and AF-S lenses. A Canon user could conceivably use a Nikon AF-D lens as a manual lens, since there is an aperture ring, but a Nikon user could no longer really call it alt. Some of Nikon's lenses are still AF-D today.
As to why I called it out, I don't like seeing more and more non-alt photos here. The whole point, as the name "Alternative Gear & Lenses" makes clear, is to get away from the Canon and Nikon dominant photography scenes and see what else is out there. When people start creating threads where anything goes we are already slipping. I mean, what do you think the reaction would be like if I went to the Canon forum and started a Nikon thread? It wouldn't be pretty. My "but it isn't alt" comment was quite inside the lines of the reasonable, I think, obik's over-reaction notwithstanding.
Conventionally, one would use a wider angle lens to get the AOV of a pano. Unconventionally, one uses a lens of a more narrow focal length, takes multiple images and stitches them together ... as an alternative (read as "unconventional") lens solution, regardless of brand. I don't see how that is violation of the rules of the forum ... at least not to the degree it requires a callout ... particularly in this thread.
There is nothing magical about this thread, other than Jim, bless his heart, made a special comment calling for neutrality from anti Canon-Canon post biases, and let Nikon-Nikon in at the same time. All techniques are available to all systems, and no technique is more alt than any other. Whenever anyone is in doubt why this forum exists, they should just look at the name: "Alternative Gear & Lenses", and all becomes clear. It is not about technique.
carstenw wrote:
Whenever anyone is in doubt why this forum exists, they should just look at the name: "Alternative Gear & Lenses", and all becomes clear. It is not about technique.
I get your point, I just see a bit more lattitude provided by the subtext to the name, which includes:
"alt lens solutions" ... I get from that, using a lens in a manner that it was not originally designed for ... whether that be literal or in spirit/intent.
Anyway, I see what you're saying ... I'm just a bit more "no blood, no foul" on this one.
I suppose we should return to our regular programming ... i.e. "bring on the pics".
@John Korduner: great pano! How did you avoid ghosting?
@mcbroomf: looks nice with lots and lots of details. It invites you to look closer.
@sebboh: beautiful sunset colours and of course the depth.
@edgately: HDR? If not, you captured some great dynamic range in "one" shot. That black obstacle on the left is a pity.
@ken.vs.ryu: what lens did you use? Has this been made using the in-camera panorama function?
5D2 with the Zeiss MP 100/2 (6 photo's used for stitching):
