This topic is in the 2011 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2011Pano-mania
p.7 #1Pano-mania
Nice panoramas! My favorites are the thin ones, except the last one, where I don't find the subject 
Probably it just needs to be large on a wall.
Probably it just needs to be large on a wall.Jun 08, 2011 at 12:57 AM
p.7 #2Pano-mania
How did I miss this thread!?! Here's a 4 shot panorama of Chicago taken with Zeiss 35/2 ZE on my 5D Mark II. No special equipment, just my usual tripod/ball head and photoshop!
Chicago by RJIPhotography, on Flickr
Chicago by RJIPhotography, on Flickr
Jun 08, 2011 at 03:59 AM
p.7 #3Pano-mania
carstenw wrote:
Nice panoramas! My favorites are the thin ones, except the last one, where I don't find the subject Probably it just needs to be large on a wall.
It's a bench shot you fool!
Nice panoramas! My favorites are the thin ones, except the last one, where I don't find the subject
Probably it just needs to be large on a wall.It's a bench shot you fool!
Jun 08, 2011 at 07:01 AM
p.7 #4Pano-mania
Excellent pics ... too many to single out really.
A few questions ...
1. I understand there is a correlation between FL and number of shots to achieve a given angle of view, and even a 360 AOV is possible. What AOV do you find to be the "sweet spot" for a good pano ... and similarly what AOV do you find to start generating "issues" such that you prefer to not go THAT wide.
2. Many of the pano's are @ infinity focus and people claim the ability to achieve handheld (which I accept) with various FL's. At what foreground distance (relative to a FL being used I realize) do you find that stitching errors begin to occur without making "nodal point" refinements?
3. What is your favorite lens for making pano's with? Which lenses (FL) causes you the most issues with stitching?
A few questions ...
1. I understand there is a correlation between FL and number of shots to achieve a given angle of view, and even a 360 AOV is possible. What AOV do you find to be the "sweet spot" for a good pano ... and similarly what AOV do you find to start generating "issues" such that you prefer to not go THAT wide.
2. Many of the pano's are @ infinity focus and people claim the ability to achieve handheld (which I accept) with various FL's. At what foreground distance (relative to a FL being used I realize) do you find that stitching errors begin to occur without making "nodal point" refinements?
3. What is your favorite lens for making pano's with? Which lenses (FL) causes you the most issues with stitching?
Jun 08, 2011 at 07:52 AM
p.7 #5Pano-mania
This is a 28 photo panorama of the Kibera slum in Nairobi, Kenya. If you wish to see the full version, visit FortyDaysofStories.com
Shot handheld (vertical) with a 70-200 f2.8 on a Nikon D300s.
http://www.fortydaysofstories.com/Kibera400.jpg
Shot handheld (vertical) with a 70-200 f2.8 on a Nikon D300s.
http://www.fortydaysofstories.com/Kibera400.jpg
Jun 08, 2011 at 08:32 AM
p.7 #6Pano-mania
RustyBug wrote:
1. what AOV do you find to start generating "issues" such that you prefer to not go THAT wide.
Depends on the distance to objects in the foreground. With very wide panos they can get distorted a lot (also depending on the projection you use).
2. Many of the pano's are @ infinity focus and people claim the ability to achieve handheld (which I accept) with various FL's. At what foreground distance (relative to a FL being used I realize) do you find that stitching errors begin to occur without making "nodal point" refinements?
See HerbChong's remarks about his panos a few pages back. For most things you don't need a nodal slide, because stitching software is simply that good. For multi-row panos it helps to have at least a panning base to keep the rows straight. Multi-row panos are challenging to do hand held because it's difficult to do straight panning by hand. If your rows aren't straight you'll have to crop after stitching, which means you lose of AOV.
3. What is your favorite lens for making pano's with? Which lenses (FL) causes you the most issues with stitching?
I guess wide angle lenses with a lot of distortion need to be corrected before you try stitching the shots. Longer FL's will be easier to stitch in general.
Wich FL you choose depends on the distance to the subject, the amount of DOF and the coverage that you want.
1. what AOV do you find to start generating "issues" such that you prefer to not go THAT wide.
Depends on the distance to objects in the foreground. With very wide panos they can get distorted a lot (also depending on the projection you use).
2. Many of the pano's are @ infinity focus and people claim the ability to achieve handheld (which I accept) with various FL's. At what foreground distance (relative to a FL being used I realize) do you find that stitching errors begin to occur without making "nodal point" refinements?
See HerbChong's remarks about his panos a few pages back. For most things you don't need a nodal slide, because stitching software is simply that good. For multi-row panos it helps to have at least a panning base to keep the rows straight. Multi-row panos are challenging to do hand held because it's difficult to do straight panning by hand. If your rows aren't straight you'll have to crop after stitching, which means you lose of AOV.
3. What is your favorite lens for making pano's with? Which lenses (FL) causes you the most issues with stitching?
I guess wide angle lenses with a lot of distortion need to be corrected before you try stitching the shots. Longer FL's will be easier to stitch in general.
Wich FL you choose depends on the distance to the subject, the amount of DOF and the coverage that you want.
Jun 08, 2011 at 08:44 AM
p.7 #7Pano-mania
Excellent photos guys!
mirkoc wrote:
Denoir, would you share some overall impressions of Gigapan Epic Pro (beside nice pics)? How sturdy it is as a tripod head for longer exposures/focal lengths? It does look very tempting.
Well, it's big and not very portable. They could have made the design a bit better and made it foldable. You're not going to carry it around. If you go by car there's no problem, but you won't be tempted to take it on hikes.
As far as function goes, it works really great. If you have a sturdy tripod, stability is no problem. I think they officially support lenses up to the size & weight of the Canon 300/2.8L, but you could probably mount something even bigger.
Here are a couple of variations on the same scene shot a couple of days ago with the gigapan:
55 images:
http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-340.jpg
I should have of course used a smaller aperture for the shot above and perhaps used a hyperfocal focusing distance, but I did not have the patience to wait for the long exposures.
24 images, 360 degree panorama:
http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss21-315.jpg
The same as above, but using a "small world" projection (resize into a square format, flip vertical and then apply a spherical coordinates filter):
http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss21-314.jpg
And this to everyone: it seems that a great rendering lens is hard to bypass no matter the achieved resolution. What do you think?
Definitely - resolution is only one aspect. You can however also make an interesting lens uninteresting after increasing the resolution as you, given enough images, nuke the difference between coarse and fine detail. Apparent edge contrast can suffer as you suddenly increase the contrast of the fine detail - in short you cram too much information in a limited area and the rendering becomes "cluttered".
mirkoc wrote:
Denoir, would you share some overall impressions of Gigapan Epic Pro (beside nice pics)? How sturdy it is as a tripod head for longer exposures/focal lengths? It does look very tempting.
Well, it's big and not very portable. They could have made the design a bit better and made it foldable. You're not going to carry it around. If you go by car there's no problem, but you won't be tempted to take it on hikes.
As far as function goes, it works really great. If you have a sturdy tripod, stability is no problem. I think they officially support lenses up to the size & weight of the Canon 300/2.8L, but you could probably mount something even bigger.
Here are a couple of variations on the same scene shot a couple of days ago with the gigapan:
55 images:
http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-340.jpg
I should have of course used a smaller aperture for the shot above and perhaps used a hyperfocal focusing distance, but I did not have the patience to wait for the long exposures.
24 images, 360 degree panorama:
http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss21-315.jpg
The same as above, but using a "small world" projection (resize into a square format, flip vertical and then apply a spherical coordinates filter):
http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss21-314.jpg
And this to everyone: it seems that a great rendering lens is hard to bypass no matter the achieved resolution. What do you think?
Definitely - resolution is only one aspect. You can however also make an interesting lens uninteresting after increasing the resolution as you, given enough images, nuke the difference between coarse and fine detail. Apparent edge contrast can suffer as you suddenly increase the contrast of the fine detail - in short you cram too much information in a limited area and the rendering becomes "cluttered".
Jun 08, 2011 at 09:23 AM
p.7 #8Pano-mania
i didn't take a panorama there but i got the same color water running below it.
Herb...
thrice wrote:
I took that last September (early spring) after tremendous snow/rainfalls.
Herb...
thrice wrote:
I took that last September (early spring) after tremendous snow/rainfalls.
Jun 08, 2011 at 11:12 AM
p.7 #9Pano-mania
i don't set out in advance to choose an AOV but i find that most of my best panoramas are about 100-120 degrees horizontal. this is the number that Autopano Pro tells me.
unless you do focus stacking, DOF will blur the foreground well before parallax error becomes important if you are doing hyperfocal to infinity. as i have said many times in the past, there are times when you absolutely need a nodal slide but they are far less often than the hardware manufacturers tell you. traditional landscape photography is one where they are mostly a waste of time. if you are focused close then it all depends. hand-held is a matter of efficiency to me. i find i have to shoot about 50% more images to be completely sure i have sufficient overlap compared to on a tripod. the rest of the time is because of long exposures being impossible to hand hold.
if i am doing single rows, i use my Zeiss 25. if i am doing multirow, i use my Zeiss 50 MP. any longer and i don't get enough DOF. stitching programs handle barrel or pincushion distortion without problems. complex distortions and CA are hard to handle with today's programs. correcting them before stitching is the way to go today. falloff doesn't matter with today's programs as they can correct that too. focal length shouldn't have any issues at all except for the number of images you need to take to cover a particular AOV horizontally and vertically at a given resolution and the DOF.
Herb...
RustyBug wrote:
1. I understand there is a correlation between FL and number of shots to achieve a given angle of view, and even a 360 AOV is possible. What AOV do you find to be the "sweet spot" for a good pano ... and similarly what AOV do you find to start generating "issues" such that you prefer to not go THAT wide.
2. Many of the pano's are @ infinity focus and people claim the ability to achieve handheld (which I accept) with various FL's. At what foreground distance (relative to a FL being used I realize) do you find that...Show more →
unless you do focus stacking, DOF will blur the foreground well before parallax error becomes important if you are doing hyperfocal to infinity. as i have said many times in the past, there are times when you absolutely need a nodal slide but they are far less often than the hardware manufacturers tell you. traditional landscape photography is one where they are mostly a waste of time. if you are focused close then it all depends. hand-held is a matter of efficiency to me. i find i have to shoot about 50% more images to be completely sure i have sufficient overlap compared to on a tripod. the rest of the time is because of long exposures being impossible to hand hold.
if i am doing single rows, i use my Zeiss 25. if i am doing multirow, i use my Zeiss 50 MP. any longer and i don't get enough DOF. stitching programs handle barrel or pincushion distortion without problems. complex distortions and CA are hard to handle with today's programs. correcting them before stitching is the way to go today. falloff doesn't matter with today's programs as they can correct that too. focal length shouldn't have any issues at all except for the number of images you need to take to cover a particular AOV horizontally and vertically at a given resolution and the DOF.
Herb...
RustyBug wrote:
1. I understand there is a correlation between FL and number of shots to achieve a given angle of view, and even a 360 AOV is possible. What AOV do you find to be the "sweet spot" for a good pano ... and similarly what AOV do you find to start generating "issues" such that you prefer to not go THAT wide.
2. Many of the pano's are @ infinity focus and people claim the ability to achieve handheld (which I accept) with various FL's. At what foreground distance (relative to a FL being used I realize) do you find that...Show more →
Jun 08, 2011 at 11:23 AM
p.7 #10Pano-mania
RustyBug wrote:
Excellent pics ... too many to single out really.
A few questions ...
1. I understand there is a correlation between FL and number of shots to achieve a given angle of view, and even a 360 AOV is possible. What AOV do you find to be the "sweet spot" for a good pano ... and similarly what AOV do you find to start generating "issues" such that you prefer to not go THAT wide.
2. Many of the pano's are @ infinity focus and people claim the ability to achieve handheld (which I accept) with various FL's. At what foreground distance...Show more →
1.) I don't necessarily have a AOV I aim for, but tend to find I like certain aspect ratios: 3:1 being my favorite. It's not necessarily about going wide all the time. I like cylindrical projections as well.
2.) I tend to use panoramas to minimize extraneous foreground elements so I tend to use longer lenses. My concern with near focus is negligible.
3.) Weapon of choice is my 70-200 on a 5D, but my former C/Y 35-70 did great on a 20D. Again, I'm generally not one to like foreground-centric landscape images or even really wide angle images, I feel they're pretty tacky.
Excellent pics ... too many to single out really.
A few questions ...
1. I understand there is a correlation between FL and number of shots to achieve a given angle of view, and even a 360 AOV is possible. What AOV do you find to be the "sweet spot" for a good pano ... and similarly what AOV do you find to start generating "issues" such that you prefer to not go THAT wide.
2. Many of the pano's are @ infinity focus and people claim the ability to achieve handheld (which I accept) with various FL's. At what foreground distance...Show more →
1.) I don't necessarily have a AOV I aim for, but tend to find I like certain aspect ratios: 3:1 being my favorite. It's not necessarily about going wide all the time. I like cylindrical projections as well.
2.) I tend to use panoramas to minimize extraneous foreground elements so I tend to use longer lenses. My concern with near focus is negligible.
3.) Weapon of choice is my 70-200 on a 5D, but my former C/Y 35-70 did great on a 20D. Again, I'm generally not one to like foreground-centric landscape images or even really wide angle images, I feel they're pretty tacky.
Jun 08, 2011 at 12:44 PM
p.7 #11Pano-mania
rji2goleez -- Great shot! Glad you found the thread. Looking forward to more of your work.
denoir -- Another terrific example and explanation!
AhamB wrote:
Depends on the distance to objects in the foreground. With very wide panos they can get distorted a lot (also depending on the projection you use).
See HerbChong's remarks about his panos a few pages back. For most things you don't need a nodal slide, because stitching software is simply that good. For multi-row panos it helps to have at least a panning base to keep the rows straight. Multi-row panos are challenging to do hand held because it's difficult to do straight panning by hand. If your rows aren't straight you'll have to crop after stitching, which means you lose...Show more →
AhamB and Herb -- Great replies! I just wanted to pitch in my views to Rusty.
1) It is always better to take in too wide of an AOV than too little. You can always exclude and crop, but you can never add what you didn't record. As you can see from my latest examples, I used lenses on full frame from 50mm down to 16mm, but most at 35mm and 50mm. Most of my single and double row panos are 4-6 shots wide with the 50mm, and in general between 80-120 degrees. As mentioned, lenses beyond 80mm start to have DOF issues, unless the subject is all near infinity.
Choose the lens with a its "native" horizontal AOV high enough when in the vertical position to cover the tallest subjects without tilting the lens, or figure how many rows you will need and use a slightly narrower lens (you do tilt the lens up and down in multi-rows, but there is one row you keep level as a standard for alignment).
All focal lengths in my examples are shot vertical, so it makes the lens a narrower AOV -- with overlap, a 50mm becomes like an 80-90mm. Let's say it's 85mm and a 16 degree horizontal AOV with the overlap included -- shoot five shots, and you have 5x16 = 80 degrees, equal to the horizontal angle of around a 22mm lens on FF. Shoot 10 shots with the same set-up, and you get 160 degrees horizontal. For my shots with 3 rows of 6 with the 50mm, I get a nearly square image with AOV of a 17mm lens -- but taller! That's pretty impressive! And as denoir demonstrated the other day, you are pushing the IQ of 6x7 film, or larger.
2) I don't shoot strict infinity-stop focus, except very rarely. I focus on the main range of subject wide open, then stop down to my estimated hyperfocal distance on a manual lens -- simpler on an auto lens, then switch off AF. You don't really want much that is close to the camera as it will dominate and obscure the distant view, so it is a self-correcting matter. For 'flat" or angled away landscapes, you can still use your Tilt/Shift lense to obtain near to far focus at reasonable apertures (shifts work great too for urban landscapes!).
3) At the moment, I'm really liking that Zeiss Contax 50mm/1.4 T* (but it is my newest addition) -- nice AOV for pano and nice IQ. You can simply keep adding shots to achieve a wider angle, and keep adding rows! But the 16-35L is really indispensible for this work -- you don't want to be changing lenses all the time. Favorite lenses -- 16 to 85. For hand held, I would favor wider lenses, as the alignment effort is too much to keep six images straight for one row, let alone multi-row shots. Probably the best place to start with FF is the 35mm, and 24 in crop frames.
And I agree with the other posters -- correct major lens aberrations (including CA) in PP before stitching. I use LR, and love that it has a quality profile for the 16-35LII -- it not only straightens, but fixes light fall-off. I don't fix anything with the 50mm Zeiss -- it is pretty clean, with only slight barrel distortion. My usual workflow is LR for initial exposure, distortion, and sharpening on individual images. Then to PSE8 for stitching and cropping. Then back to LR for final exposure, perspective, and cropping the composite image.
Hopes this helps with your planning.
denoir -- Another terrific example and explanation!
AhamB wrote:
RustyBug wrote
1. what AOV do you find to start generating "issues" such that you prefer to not go THAT wide.Earlier quote
2. Many of the pano's are @ infinity focus and people claim the ability to achieve handheld (which I accept) with various FL's. At what foreground distance (relative to a FL being used I realize) do you find that stitching errors begin to occur without making "nodal point" refinements?Earlier quote
3. What is your favorite lens for making pano's with? Which lenses (FL) causes you the most issues with stitching?AhamB and Herb -- Great replies! I just wanted to pitch in my views to Rusty.
1) It is always better to take in too wide of an AOV than too little. You can always exclude and crop, but you can never add what you didn't record. As you can see from my latest examples, I used lenses on full frame from 50mm down to 16mm, but most at 35mm and 50mm. Most of my single and double row panos are 4-6 shots wide with the 50mm, and in general between 80-120 degrees. As mentioned, lenses beyond 80mm start to have DOF issues, unless the subject is all near infinity.
Choose the lens with a its "native" horizontal AOV high enough when in the vertical position to cover the tallest subjects without tilting the lens, or figure how many rows you will need and use a slightly narrower lens (you do tilt the lens up and down in multi-rows, but there is one row you keep level as a standard for alignment).
All focal lengths in my examples are shot vertical, so it makes the lens a narrower AOV -- with overlap, a 50mm becomes like an 80-90mm. Let's say it's 85mm and a 16 degree horizontal AOV with the overlap included -- shoot five shots, and you have 5x16 = 80 degrees, equal to the horizontal angle of around a 22mm lens on FF. Shoot 10 shots with the same set-up, and you get 160 degrees horizontal. For my shots with 3 rows of 6 with the 50mm, I get a nearly square image with AOV of a 17mm lens -- but taller! That's pretty impressive!
And as denoir demonstrated the other day, you are pushing the IQ of 6x7 film, or larger. 2) I don't shoot strict infinity-stop focus, except very rarely. I focus on the main range of subject wide open, then stop down to my estimated hyperfocal distance on a manual lens -- simpler on an auto lens, then switch off AF. You don't really want much that is close to the camera as it will dominate and obscure the distant view, so it is a self-correcting matter. For 'flat" or angled away landscapes, you can still use your Tilt/Shift lense to obtain near to far focus at reasonable apertures (shifts work great too for urban landscapes!).
3) At the moment, I'm really liking that Zeiss Contax 50mm/1.4 T* (but it is my newest addition) -- nice AOV for pano and nice IQ. You can simply keep adding shots to achieve a wider angle, and keep adding rows! But the 16-35L is really indispensible for this work -- you don't want to be changing lenses all the time. Favorite lenses -- 16 to 85. For hand held, I would favor wider lenses, as the alignment effort is too much to keep six images straight for one row, let alone multi-row shots. Probably the best place to start with FF is the 35mm, and 24 in crop frames.
And I agree with the other posters -- correct major lens aberrations (including CA) in PP before stitching. I use LR, and love that it has a quality profile for the 16-35LII -- it not only straightens, but fixes light fall-off. I don't fix anything with the 50mm Zeiss -- it is pretty clean, with only slight barrel distortion. My usual workflow is LR for initial exposure, distortion, and sharpening on individual images. Then to PSE8 for stitching and cropping. Then back to LR for final exposure, perspective, and cropping the composite image.
Hopes this helps with your planning.
Jun 08, 2011 at 01:40 PM
p.7 #12Pano-mania
mirkoc wrote:
Probably it just needs to be large on a wall.It's a bench shot you fool!
Doh! So obvious, yet I missed it!
carstenw wrote
Nice panoramas! My favorites are the thin ones, except the last one, where I don't find the subject Probably it just needs to be large on a wall.Doh! So obvious, yet I missed it!
Jun 08, 2011 at 03:45 PM
p.7 #13Pano-mania
Thanks for the input.
As to the DOF issues, I'm actually looking to have some selective DOF with the foreground subject.
I've shot from ranges of about 15-25 feet, with FL's ranging from 90-150. I'll probably try some 70-80 FL's next (10-15 feet) and see how that goes ... but as I get closer, I'm more concerned about the issues involved.
As to the DOF issues, I'm actually looking to have some selective DOF with the foreground subject.
I've shot from ranges of about 15-25 feet, with FL's ranging from 90-150. I'll probably try some 70-80 FL's next (10-15 feet) and see how that goes ... but as I get closer, I'm more concerned about the issues involved.
Jun 08, 2011 at 03:59 PM
p.7 #14Pano-mania
I prefer panoramas with a distance of 10-30m with my 200/2 VR wide open The 100 MP is also good, in a pinch, then preferably a little closer.
The 100 MP is also good, in a pinch, then preferably a little closer.Jun 08, 2011 at 04:04 PM
p.7 #15Pano-mania
Cross-posted from the ZE/ZF thread. 50 MP 6-shot stitch:
http://throughthelensdarkly.com/forums/CW_20110605_NikonD3_39723.jpg
http://throughthelensdarkly.com/forums/CW_20110605_NikonD3_39723.jpg
Jun 08, 2011 at 04:35 PM
p.7 #16Pano-mania
jeremywilburn wrote:
This is a 28 photo panorama of the Kibera slum in Nairobi, Kenya. If you wish to see the full version, visit FortyDaysofStories.com
Shot handheld (vertical) with a 70-200 f2.8 on a Nikon D300s.
http://www.fortydaysofstories.com/Kibera400.jpg
Nice. Looks just like here in Manila...
This is a 28 photo panorama of the Kibera slum in Nairobi, Kenya. If you wish to see the full version, visit FortyDaysofStories.com
Shot handheld (vertical) with a 70-200 f2.8 on a Nikon D300s.
http://www.fortydaysofstories.com/Kibera400.jpg
Nice. Looks just like here in Manila...
Jun 08, 2011 at 05:49 PM
p.7 #17Pano-mania
This is a cool thread! Glad I stumbled upon it because the knowledge, tips and tricks dispensed is AWESOME. Here are a few I have been playing with recently (before I found this forum). Hopefully they look okay in here! Old manual focus glass on a 7D.
25'ish shots. Tripod. Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm F2.8 Biometar.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2238/5820332864_f2a05f72bf_o.jpg
10 shots. Tripod. Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm F2.8 Biometar.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2361/5819770183_8191b93fac_o.jpg
16 shots? Handheld. Yashica 35-70mm F3.5-4.8
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2706/5819769307_e740670bed_o.jpg
25'ish shots. Tripod. Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm F2.8 Biometar.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2238/5820332864_f2a05f72bf_o.jpg
10 shots. Tripod. Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm F2.8 Biometar.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2361/5819770183_8191b93fac_o.jpg
16 shots? Handheld. Yashica 35-70mm F3.5-4.8
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2706/5819769307_e740670bed_o.jpg
Jun 10, 2011 at 11:15 PM
p.7 #18Pano-mania
CampX -- Nice shots -- welcome to the thread! Looks like you are well on your way to some detailed panos. I like the color and contrast on the Yashica lens -- kind of surprised, really -- is it really pretty good?
Jun 11, 2011 at 12:05 AM
p.7 #19Pano-mania
Gunzorro wrote:
CampX -- Nice shots -- welcome to the thread! Looks like you are well on your way to some detailed panos. I like the color and contrast on the Yashica lens -- kind of surprised, really -- is it really pretty good?
Funny story.
I had been scouring the reviews of the C/Y 35-70mm and decided I wanted one. So off 'Ebaying' I went. Couldn't find the C/Y version (at least for the price I wanted to pay!) but found the Yashica........figured it had the 'Y' part of the C/Y label, so hey, lets giver' a try. At 35 dollars, what the heck. Bought the 9 dollar adapter while I was at it, and off testing I went when they showed up in the mail.
Surprised? HELL YA. This little sucker is effing sharp. Plastic build, nothing fancy, but fun to use. Throw a 36mm extension tube on it and I have a pretty wicked little macro. Slightly yellowish cast to it, easy to fix with WB tool in RAW.
I like it, I'm keeping it!
CampX -- Nice shots -- welcome to the thread! Looks like you are well on your way to some detailed panos. I like the color and contrast on the Yashica lens -- kind of surprised, really -- is it really pretty good?
Funny story.
I had been scouring the reviews of the C/Y 35-70mm and decided I wanted one. So off 'Ebaying' I went. Couldn't find the C/Y version (at least for the price I wanted to pay!) but found the Yashica........figured it had the 'Y' part of the C/Y label, so hey, lets giver' a try. At 35 dollars, what the heck. Bought the 9 dollar adapter while I was at it, and off testing I went when they showed up in the mail.
Surprised? HELL YA. This little sucker is effing sharp. Plastic build, nothing fancy, but fun to use. Throw a 36mm extension tube on it and I have a pretty wicked little macro. Slightly yellowish cast to it, easy to fix with WB tool in RAW.
I like it, I'm keeping it!
Jun 11, 2011 at 10:57 AM
p.7 #20Pano-mania
One from a couple weeks ago, 3x2 shots with S5 Pro and Contax 35-70/3.4 at 35mm and ~f11, OOC JPGs, Hoya HD polarizer.
Jun 11, 2011 at 05:22 PM