What is your take?

[Georg R. Baumann]

Here I am, trying to improve my skills in Landscape photography and pondering about my next steps.

The world of Linhof and so on is new to me, and I would like to hear what you ahve to say to this question.

Am I correct to assume, using a camera like Linhof Mastertechnica with a good Schneider or Rodenstock glas, have it developed, scan it, bring it into photoshop, will give me a much higher resolution than from any digital back available these days. Would that be correct?

Then there is the advantage of near-far focus.

But what are the pitfalls for one who considers to make a step into this world? I guess there are many. Let aside the development of the picture, I probably would have to send Rollfilms to England. I would need a really good scanner as well.

All this appears to be a giant hurdle at a glance. Let aside the learning curve to use a view camera.

Then again, if I am to strive for the best technically possible quality in prints, is there any way around using a view camera these days?

Your input is much valued. Thanks!

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Am I correct to assume, using a camera like Linhof Mastertechnica with a good Schneider or Rodenstock glas, have it developed, scan it, bring it into photoshop, will give me a much higher resolution than from any digital back available these days. Would that be correct?

For the same 'sensor'surface, film will allow higher resolution although with lower dynamic range than a CCD/CMOS device for most of the spatial frequencies. Lenses designed for a smaller image circle are easier to correct for aberrations and good ones therefore have higher resolution. Scanning introduces losses, unless high-end equipment and a competent operator are used. All that suggests that system MTF performance may be more important than pure resolution alone.

And then there are the workflow differences.

Then there is the advantage of near-far focus.

Camera/lens movements can also be done with tilt/shift lenses, and focus blending or stitching can also be used to achieve that, although with some precautions to deal with subject movement.

But what are the pitfalls for one who considers to make a step into this world? I guess there are many. Let aside the development of the picture, I probably would have to send Rollfilms to England. I would need a really good scanner as well.

I'm very unsure about future film supplies, and it's becoming more difficult to find quality labs for processing, and quality scanning is something that takes time to master and good equipement, or a good operator.

All this appears to be a giant hurdle at a glance. Let aside the learning curve to use a view camera.

It may look like a challenge, but it is not that hard when you understand the basics (sensor/film plane defines perspective, lens plane angle in relation to backplane defines the subject focus plane).

Then again, if I am to strive for the best technically possible quality in prints, is there any way around using a view camera these days?

View cameras have their benefits, and drawbacks. It's a judgement call whether the drawbacks outweigh the benefits, or not,because it depends on the shooting conditions and output size requirements. I think that 'stitching' offers more benefits than many people think, and of course generating as many 'first generation' pixels as possible (MF) will suffer the least system losses.[/QUOTE]

These may be useful webpages to take into consideration:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics/index.html

Bart

 

[Michael Fontana]

George

having been one of these old fashionend 4/5' and 13 x 18 cm, I don't look back. Yes, LF has some merits too, but I personally - after carring for many years heavy package, incl. studio torches arround - don't miss it to much.

Another point is, that I feel much more flexible and free with a DSLR, during shooting and the post: since we lost here in town 3 of 4 E-6-labs, live isn't easier, especially as the remaining one is about a hour from my studio/home: refined developements as pull/push aren't possible anymore.

Off course, the goal of every shooting, the best possible photo, remains the same. With film, lot of the work has been done prior to shot, meanwhile with digi, its done in post.

As A-3/300 dpi covers to 95 % my clients need; I'm fine. For bigger output, stitching has become easy.

Bart's statement ".....All that suggests that system MTF performance may be more important than pure resolution alone......"

is true here, too. Just the other day, a artist told me, that my 1 Ds-2-files were superior to some from other's photographers 4/5', requiring very good definition in the blacks, meanwhile keeping the paper white.

And now, enjoy holding a sheet of 4/5' in your hand!

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Thanks!

Thank you in deed Bart and Michael!

You phrased what I could not but had a gut feeling about. I rather think there are too many obstacles to deal with, and while a good friend of mine, a pro photographer in Alaska, tries to convince me since long to go with a view camera, I always backed quickly away from this idea.

I think what I really need to get is a good T/S lense and of course a higher pixel count as I have available now.

The recent announcement of this http://press.nikonusa.com/2008/01/nikons_new_wideangle_pce_nikko.php caught my attention.

Let me ask you folks, as I never had the chance to use a T/S, can you stitch from that as well, say you would tilt the lense to the near-far focus and then use a pano head, would that work?

 

[Michael Fontana]

.......
Let me ask you folks, as I never had the chance to use a T/S, can you stitch from that as well, say you would tilt the lense to the near-far focus and then use a pano head, would that work?

For landscapes, this could fit, as long as you don't change the tilt, but not sure about tecnical photography, like architecture, where straight lines, or the lack of it, is more obvious..

One problem of stitching with tilts would be to figure out the correct NNP, when doing multi-row! Probably, it will change too, with different tilt-settings. Therefore you would need/figure out the NNP for each tilt....

Shiftstitching, or flatstitching is definatly usable with shiftlenses for landscapes; I avoid it for architecture, due to the distortions of the shifts bigger image circle, and prefer °normal° stitching.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The recent announcement of this http://press.nikonusa.com/2008/01/nikons_new_wideangle_pce_nikko.php caught my attention.

Looks interesting, but I have not seen any actual image crops yet. Canon's 24mm is considered relatively soft, compared to the 45mm and 90mm ones, so the Nikon 24mm might be interesting for wider angle single shot images. Nikon has produced some nice wide angle lenses.

Let me ask you folks, as I never had the chance to use a T/S, can you stitch from that as well, say you would tilt the lense to the near-far focus and then use a pano head, would that work?

Yes, although some intermittent adjustments between multiple stitching rows may be needed/preferred (depending on subject). For wide landscapes it's easier than for some interiors/architecture.

Of course, there are also different solutions, offering a best-of-both-worlds flexibility, like from Horseman:
http://www.horsemanusa.com/digital/LD.html
or
http://www.horsemanusa.com/digital/LDpro.html

Bart

 

[Michael Fontana]

Generally spoken, these shilt/tilts are less good, the wider it goes, unless you' re willing to pay a fortune for it. This is on FF; on a crop-cam, its less evident, but still within the same physical laws:

t/s have much bigger image circle's; a 24 mm t/s is in reality something like a 16 mm (?? - just a guess) - with the inherent problems of ultrawides.

George: The panorama shift adapter from Zörk might be intersting for you.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

For landscape photography, in my opinion, the view camera is the right tool for the job. The subject is relatively static, so there's no reason not to use a tripod. You get the benefit of camera movements with all lenses. You can be completely independent of batteries in the field if you want to, and there are large format cameras of all shapes and sizes and weights with various features for every budget. A decent second-hand 4x5" system can cost less than a single T/S lens for a small format SLR and will be a much more versatile tool.

It's not all about high resolution, either. It's about control. You can get very sharp results if you want, but you can also use historic lenses for classic effects, and you can decide what should be in focus and what is out of focus. You can make a perfectly rectilinear image or you can make a distorted image. You can use sheet film, rollfilm, or digital, and with sheet film you can control development independently for every exposure, if you want. Here's a short piece I've written on this topic--

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2007/12/large-format-re.html

BUT, LF might not suit your style of working, and in that case, it won't be the right choice for YOU. My suggestion would be to start off with something less expensive than a new Master Tech and new lens, and see if you like it. If you want a Linhof, a Tech 2000 or the new 3000 is a better choice for landscapes anyway, because they handle wide lenses better, and one doesn't often need the Master Tech's rangefinder for landscapes. There are some good articles about getting started in LF on the main page of lfphoto.info, and there is lots of information in the Q&A forum there. You might also look at Steve Simmons' book _Using the View Camera_ for a basic introduction.

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

http://www.horsemanusa.com/digital/LD.html

WOW that looks brilliant! I had not idea such exists.

Woops....sells for something like 2.000 here, but sure would be very very very interesting.

Now, ahem, you are going to laugh now, and I suppose it is like asking what a scot has under his Kilt, but I have NO IDEA.... LOL.... I mean, say I have my Nikon, there is my wideangle lense, and then there is that weired bellow, so the light enters the below through what? Another lense? I am feeling really stupid here. Hehehehe.

@Michael, merci! That Zoerk thing looks interesting in deed! Are you using one?

@David. Thank you! I just got a mail from my friend in Alaska, he is going back to analog completly, needless to say, he thinks it is the ultimate. He is going to buy a Microtek M1 Scanner etc.

I think for starters I am better at home with a DSLR and try to find a solutions like the above.

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

I just spoke with RobertWhite Cameras in London, they do not recommend the horesman LD for landscape=wideangle work, he mentioned it to be used and developed for product shots mainly.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Cambo makes a similar camera to the Horseman LD.

The problem with such a design is that short LF lenses are not designed to clear the mirror box in an SLR, so you can only use it with longer lenses. On the other hand, you could use the rear rise/fall and shift movements to stitch, so a 90mm lens can become a "wide" lens if you stitch enough panels together, which is okay as long as you don't have anything moving in the frame (like clouds, trees, grass, water, mountain goats, etc.). You could also use a combination of techniques like a DSLR with 24mm or 35mm T/S lens for wide (and really you only need rise/fall shift with a wide lens and 35mm-sized sensor, because you've already got plenty of DOF, unlike with LF), and the Horseman or Cambo setup for longer lenses and still life.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

WOW that looks brilliant! I had not idea such exists.

Woops....sells for something like 2.000 here, but sure would be very very very interesting.

Now, ahem, you are going to laugh now, and I suppose it is like asking what a scot has under his Kilt, but I have NO IDEA.... LOL.... I mean, say I have my Nikon, there is my wideangle lense, and then there is that weired bellow, so the light enters the below through what? Another lense? I am feeling really stupid here. Hehehehe.

Well, besides the money involved, you'd need a suitable large(r) format lens. You mount the DSLR on the back, and the lens is usually mounted on/through a lensboard on the other side of the bellows. The bellows is shaped like a typical wide-angle bellows, due to the short distance needed between the camera mount and the rear of the lens, while still allowing movement.

Bart

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Cambo makes a similar camera to the Horseman LD.

The problem with such a design is that short LF lenses are not designed to clear the mirror box in an SLR, so you can only use it with longer lenses.

That's correct, and Horseman mentions several suitable lenses on the webpage referenced.

On the other hand, you could use the rear rise/fall and shift movements to stitch, so a 90mm lens can become a "wide" lens if you stitch enough panels together, which is okay as long as you don't have anything moving in the frame (like clouds, trees, grass, water, mountain goats, etc.).

In theory that's correct, but in practice movement is hardly an issue, it just takes a bit of planning (50% overlap, and panning against the direction of movement usually does the trick, if necessary). Blending software has become quite good in automatically eliminating 'ghosts'. As long as the overlap between images has enough non-moving or similar detail, it is almost impossible to detect the seam. In very rare pathological cases one can use alpha masks to exclude certain features from one of the images.

Bart

 

[Michael Fontana]

George

can you explain a bit furter, in which direction you intent to go?
It will make it easier to think a bit further.

IMO you can use LF and film, if you know exactly, what lens you want to use, and you just want to shot one image from a dedicated place. A cambo wide could do the job, then.

I still have 2 shiftlenses, the Schneider PC-28 and the zuiko 35 plus the PSA from Zörk, with hassi 80 and 50-lenses.

For my needs, I ended up with stitching - having some 7 °normal° DSLR-lenses for it.
But your needs might be, different, so just tell.

For a while, I have been attracted by these LF/DSLR-combo's as well; but then, the largest lens was a 120 mm, not very wide for a 4/5'. In the studio, this might be ok, but for landscapes....

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Dear friends,

I am sorry if I am not specific enough as you would like me to be, then again, this just reflects the level of confusion I suppose. <smile>

See, what I would like to achieve is what you find on page 3 of this thread, such a picture is a good example:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=32556

Hey, I just realized that you are there as well David. )

Anyhow, my thoughts also deal with the economics of using LF, and to be honest, I have doubts as well as to how long film will stil be around. The hurdle of using a drum scanner is something that I find significant. To mount a 8x10 requires some skills I guess, let aside the costs of seriously good scanners.

I admit, I envy you guys who use MF and LF I can not even begin to imagine the pleasure to see a 60x40 coming out of an Epson LFP from such a shot.

My hope is that I can achieve some reasonable compromise investing into something on the 25MP scale, using T/S/ optics and software.

Landscape is my preferred object to shoot, and I will be able to invest (loan that is) some money into my future in terms of equipmment. If things work out, I might have access to 14.000 euro interest free loans over 3 years, as well as other money, and that is why I think so hard where I am going to invest.

My friend Soren in AK has a huge advantage, his background is that he ran a fullsized lab some years ago, for this reason I can understand his step, he can do everything himself, developing, scan etc. He needs no scanning operator mounting a 8x10, no Lab to work with.

But I can not do this, and as much as I admire LF, I think the compromise in using the tools as described above might be economically sensible.

Thanks for that hint towards Cambo, again something I never came across before.

You guys are really helpfull!

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Would such solution be sufficient for landscape? I understand, I would invest into Glas from Rodenstock or Schneider and use my Nikon exactly as you folks use your MF LF, but what I wonder, the chap at Robert White mentioned the Horesman LD to be not suitable for landscape, now would that Cambo be?

They list a Schneider WA-Digitar 2.8/28 mm to be compatible.

Small 100kb pdf:

http://www.cambo.com/Html/products_photo/Linkedfiles/english/download/Item381/Leaflet%20X2-Pro.pdf

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Would such solution be sufficient for landscape? I understand, I would invest into Glas from Rodenstock or Schneider and use my Nikon exactly as you folks use your MF LF, but what I wonder, the chap at Robert White mentioned the Horesman LD to be not suitable for landscape, now would that Cambo be?

Georg,

There are many ways of reaching your goal, each with their specific limitations. While LF is ideal for capturing a studied scene (if wheather conditons allow), the postprocessing is far from ideal (from a digital, and future obsolescence perspective). There are also practical issues such as exposure times which may result in (wind induced) motion blur.

Digital camera backs, provide great possibilities for single shot relatively high resolution images (especially the cropped MF backs), but may still be lacking a bit for very large output sizes. When combined with a viewcamera's adjustment capability (Cambo/Horseman/Sinar/others) they are very versatile, but require a solid (financial) commitment.

The intermediate solution is to use smaller sensor array equipment like DSLRs, and resort to stitching to boost resolution and field of view. This will shift more work towards postprocessing, but the flexibility and modest investments needed are considered a bonus by many. Mounting the DSLR as a back on a Cambo/Horseman like construction has, besides the obvious movement benefits, the drawback of a restrition to lenses that allow enough distance between the rear of the lens and the mirror chamber of the camera. To allow a wider angle of view, one doesn't need a wide angle lens, one can use stitching instead!

I'm in many (not all) scenarios a supporter of the (intermediate) stitching approach. It allows to tune the output resolution to a perfect match for the intended output size (output resolution becomes a non-issue if not for printer and file size restictions). It offers creative freedom as to the optimal aspect ratio, the scene can dictate a certain cropping and the only thing needed is shooting a few more frames. Perspective is still governed by shooting position, but can be adjusted in postprocessing just like a view camera allows, or in addition by using a non-planar projection.

What I'm basically saying is that you may want to first define you output needs. You may find that you can only achieve it through stitching anyway. What is the output size? From that you can work back to the needed number of 'perfect pixels' which will allow to produce that size at the printer's native resolution. That in turn will dictate (for a given sensor array dimension) the number of tiles needed. The angle of view is then reached with a certain focal length, although you can always adapt to a given situation by shooting more tiles and downsampling more.

You can use one of the following calculators for planning the focal length setup, in particular the "Mosaic calculator":
http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm

Bart

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

With your budget, you could easily try multiple solutions and use them as you wish.

Start with a 4x5" camera that handles wide lenses easily and has the movements you want for landscapes and add a sliding back for a DSLR or even a non-sliding back for a DSLR, if the camera has good rear rise/fall and shift movements. You can shoot film in it, or you can stitch with your DSLR in it and see what works for you. They're not mutually exclusive.

You might find film gives you some advantages in some situations and stitching is more convenient in other situations.

You could even look into a scanning back for more resolution than you'll ever need, but when you need a single instantaneous shot, shoot film.

 

[Michael Fontana]

George

after your further specification, with the link to the LFforum; it's clear, that you need resolution/definition.

you already know, that I'm a stitching avocat; after my experience, the most important things about it have been said by Bart already:
"it offers creative freedom as to the optimal aspect ratio, the scene can dictate a certain cropping and the only thing needed is shooting a few more frames. Perspective is still governed by shooting position, but can be adjusted in postprocessing just like a view camera allows, or in addition by using a non-planar projection."

That freedom of creating any desired hor and vert. FOV makes it very versatile and ultra adapatle for every situation: By just carring about 1.5 kg more of weight, I can decide on location, if it's going to be a singleshot, or a highrez stitch.
No other solutions gives me that freedom; therefore my proposal would be upgrading your cam to a FF plus a decent lens; you would benefit for the simgleshots as well.

Just a example

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you are deciding between stitching with a sliding back on a view camera or stitching with a pano head, be aware that these give different results, both of which can be interesting, depending on the scene. With a pano head, you get something more like the image from a swing lens camera, like a Widelux, Noblex, or Cirkut. With a sliding back on a view camera, you get the image of a stationary lens projected on a flat plane, as you would take with a view camera or in the case of a panorama, with a camera like a Fuji or Linhof 6x17 camera. Sometimes the wraparound view looks more natural, and sometimes the flat plane looks more natural, and sometimes the distortions that either process can produce are interesting and dramatic in their own way.

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Perspective is still governed by shooting position, but can be adjusted in postprocessing just like a view camera allows, or in addition by using a non-planar projection.

What does that mean Bart? I must have missed something essentially here. How can I adjust the "shooting position" in post processing? May be it is just a misunderstanding on my side, but once I took the shot, it is my understanding that I can not adjust the angle afterwards.

With your budget, you could easily try multiple solutions and use them as you wish.

No no David, it may sound a lot, but in Europe gear is so much more expensive David, 14.000 Euro in the US sure would give me a lot more bang for the buck, here it is a somewhat slim budget in deed.

Michael, I LOVE THAT zoomify shot!!! What a beauty! I think you are using some third party tool for stitching right? What was that again? Does it have a lot of advantage comared to PS CS3 stitching?

What I think to be a bit awkard, is to always have that heavy manfrotto Tripod/Pano Head with me.

You guys given me a lot of food for thought.

Currently I think, I might be best advised to get a camera that has something in the 20MP region, and stitch. See how business goes in the first year, and then I can always make a decision to have a try with LF.

 

[nicolas claris]

Michael, I LOVE THAT zoomify shot!!! What a beauty! I think you are using some third party tool for stitching right? What was that again? Does it have a lot of advantage comared to PS CS3 stitching?

Hi Georg
Michael Fontana and Bart are somewhat pretty good with stitching!

I recently have the pleasure to meet Bart in Duseldorf, and I can tell he knows what he's speaking about!

following their route maybe very interesting…

I got this link while following one of Bart's link upthere…

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/detail.htm

really impressive!

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

What does that mean Bart? I must have missed something essentially here. How can I adjust the "shooting position" in post processing?

No, not the shooting position but the viewing perspective, it must be due to my English. Just like with a view camera, one can change what I call the projection perspective. The lens' entry pupil will determine (depth) perspective and the vanishing point, but the projected image will be 'distorted' by the angle of incidence on the flat sensor plane. Tilting that plane will allow to correct for keystoning, and can also be done in software, although potentially (but avoidable by oversampling!) with resampling losses. Software will also allow to use a non-flat (planar or rectilinear) projection method, and tilt that.

You guys given me a lot of food for thought.

Currently I think, I might be best advised to get a camera that has something in the 20MP region, and stitch. See how business goes in the first year, and then I can always make a decision to have a try with LF.

What's best, you can already stitch with your current gear and lenses, you just need to take more images to cover the scene than with a larger sensor array. Using a decent 3D pano head will make postprocessing rather painless, and it helps to speed up the shooting sequence to begin with.

Especially when hiking, the (additional) weight of the setup can become important, although you can leave other stuff home as well. I do most of my pano/stitched shooting with a single fixed focus lens, a light carbon fibre tripod, and a light alumin(i)um pano-'head'. It can be transported in a compact size, and setup is quick. With some practice, some scenes can even be shot handheld successfully.

Bart

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

With a pano head, you get something more like the image from a swing lens camera, like a Widelux, Noblex, or Cirkut.

Hi David, with a panohead the result is not necessarily the same as with a swinghead (although one could achieve it if needed).
It all depends on the chosen projection perspective. Here is an overview of some popular ones:
http://www.panotools.info/mediawiki/index.php?title=Projections

The rectilinear one is identical to what a viewcamera produces.

Here is an example of the flexibility one has with a stitched approach, a wide angle view with a normal focal length lens:

The wide view was needed to show the entire 'fish stairs' layout, but a planar or rectilinear projection was used to give normal straight lines on a flat surface.
This fish stairs is used to allow fish migration up-stream and/or down-stream in this river which is blocked by a small hydro-power plant which is also used to regulate the waterlevels.

Bart

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Of course with software an image can be remapped by discarding or interpolating data, but a remapped image isn't the image that is projected on the sensor/film. For many purposes composited and remapped images are fine, but one might still ask whether it is important in any particular case to photograph a single moment in time and how much manipulation is acceptable.

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

@ Nicolas, oh yes, there is no doubt they know alot about it, this is why I am so grateful that they jumped in here!

@Bart, impressive!

Apart from stitching for that "single moment in time" as David calls it, I am having my eyes on this lense here:

http://www.europe-nikon.com/product/en_GB/products/broad/1430/overview.html

and I am wondering about the usability of super wideangles for stitching. The Manfrotto that I have is very precise, and if I magine I would use the smallest steps and shoot say 6 pictures with the current D3 I would have something like a 72MP RAW data equivalent. - Gulp...Not bad, not bad at all! -

I am getting more comfortable with the idea of a D3 with that new T/S glas and the ultra wideangle, and a few others. Then get practise in stitching, and this should provide enough resolution for my needs in deed!

Aluminium Pano head? Do you have a link Bart?

 

[Michael Fontana]

George
you' re welcome. FYI, he zoomify was done with a FF and the macro 50 mm.
As stitching app, PTGui was used; it takes abit more time to learn it than the °dummie-apps°, but there isn't anything you can't do with it. You might test its demo.

Another zoomify? Klick here.

BTW, this is in cylindrical projection, to avoid the border distortions that would appear in rectilinear projection, that means like a wide/ultrawide lens would show it. Its horizontal image angle is 106 degrees.....

For landscapes, that projecton works pretty well; image angles as to 180 degrees are possible, without having these fuzzy borders, unlike a fisheye on DSLR or a 47 mm on 4/5':

5 x distagon 28, on FF = 160 degrees! cylindrical, as well.

The last two example will be blown up in the laboratory next week; I 'm sure that they will look great.

I personally wouldn't be to keen for a LF/DSLR-combo, as I didn't found it enough versatile, so my decision would fall either towards a 4/5' -

my Sinar Handy - you might lok for a Cambo wide as well -



or to stitch. Did I told you, that my stitching setup includes 7 different lenses - from the fisheye 15 mm, for QTVRs to the 200 mm. It' true, it took me a moment to get this setup organised, but this gives me now a BIG freedom to choose on location the size of the final image, as the image angles, as well. If the scenery is amazing, its worth spending a bit more of time with stitching, if not, I just make a singleshot; easy.

ok, a last teaser: 3 x 4 multirow, resulting in a 150 cm/300dpi- image (!!)

The Nikon 14-24mm looks like to be a outstanding lens; look here

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

http://www.europe-nikon.com/product/en_GB/products/broad/1430/overview.html

and I am wondering about the usability of super wideangles for stitching.

That 14-24mm f/2.8 looks very promising from the results I've seen sofar. However, for stitching you'll want to use a fixed focal length setting (for repeatable setting of the entry pupil distance). Also, but that's my personal view, I prefer 'normal' focal lengths for stitching because they get you additional resolution due to their higher magnification, and it only takes additional tiles to cover a wide field.

Aluminium Pano head? Do you have a link Bart?

Yes, I nowadays use the RRS Ultimate-Pro Omni-Pivot Package on their BH-55 PCL Ballhead. I used a Manfrotto unit before, but I found that too bulky for transportation, heavy and inaccurate. With the RRS setup, which costs a small fortune, I use it much more often because it'so easy, light but sturdy, smooth, and well made.

Bart

 

[Michael Fontana]

......... However, for stitching you'll want to use a fixed focal length setting (for repeatable setting of the entry pupil distance). Also, but that's my personal view, I prefer 'normal' focal lengths for stitching because they get you additional resolution due to their higher magnification, and it only takes additional tiles to cover a wide field.
Bart

A agree with Bart- for the same reasons; my preferred are distagon 28 and 35, planar 50mm, and Canon's macro 100.

But if I want not to spend to much time, my zuiko 21 is fine as well. Clearly there's a jump between the 21 and 28!

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Pheww.... now there is more to consider of course, the optics.... so what you guy sare saying is that for stitching a fixed focal prime is more advisable, which means I have to find out what optics are most advisable for that purpose on a Nikon, the latter seems to become more and more my camera of choice at the moment.

I looked up that RRS stuff, and I like what I see. You are right Bart the Manfrotte, while it wasn't cheap, was not the best choice, I might be able to sell it.

What is the total weight of your UPOPP <smile> Did you order it in the states, I would have to find out import duty as well.

You guys convinced me in terms of stitching in deed! That calculator is most usefull Bart, thanks!

I am also convinced that the "really right" accessories like tripod and pano head make all the difference towards the pleasure of work, and I would be quite happy to allocate substantial money towards the "right stuff". <grins> I looked up Gitzo and boy they have a huge range of carbon fiber tripods to choose from.

Michael, the pano with the fence and the log cabin really is intruiging, a real beauty, what printsize did you choose from the Lab? My first thought when I saw it was that I would revisit that spot over and over again until I get a rainbow in the very distant of that landscape.

On the Skyscraper I see artefacts on teh edges of the building, I guess this is due to the small jpeg and the original does not show such, would that be right?

I suppose there are ways to adapt lenses like the Zeiss distagon onto the Nikon, without loss of any quality I hope.

Heck, you guys got me hooked. <smile> I already plan to do my first multirow stitch when I have all that gear and chose a location, the highest seacliffs in europe.

Now there is a challenge, I need to find a way to deal with the water movements, eventual clouds, and on top, I want to shoot this as a HDR with 5x exposure, which brings me to a point. Did you shoot HDR multirows as well?

I am somewhat certain that this first self inflicted assignement will take me more than one attempt, and I probably book a bed and breakfast for a few days, take a laptop and stay there until I think I got it soemwhat right.

Now there is a plan.... <smile>