Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Panoramic shooting
Page 1 of 2 next>
Sep 6, 2011 21:05:58   #
Kcrowell
 
I have a Canon EOS 50D, I'm looking for a wide angle lens for panoramic scenes. Any recomendations?

Sunset in Florida
Sunset in Florida...

Reply
Sep 7, 2011 09:03:25   #
Merle Loc: Ormond Beach, FL
 
Put your camera in Aperture Priority and shoot overlapping images, then stitch together in software for Panorama. Less expensive than buying a new lens and you can go much wider.

Reply
Sep 7, 2011 09:11:09   #
JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA
 
Two things - a true "panorama" is shot with multiple images that are stitched together by software. If you just want a "wide angle" lens, that's another thing entirely.

Canon's 10-22mm EF-S lens is very good as a wide angle lens. But I wouldn't use it for panoramas - too much overall distortion. Around $600.

To shoot pano's , you generally want a prime lens - 35mm, 50mm or at most 85mm. This gives you a fixed field of view and your stitching software will be able to get a much more precise match.

Many people shoot panos in "portrait" mode - so the image is TALLER than WIDE - not sure why, but they do.

Reply
 
 
Sep 7, 2011 09:35:29   #
Yooper Loc: U.P. Michigan
 
JimH wrote:


Many people shoot panos in "portrait" mode - so the image is TALLER than WIDE - not sure why, but they do.


By shooting images for a pano in portrait mode, the resulting panoramic image will be much larger and can make a larger print, and will likely contain more detail. Just for comparison purposes, say your camera creates an image that is 2000 x 3000 pixels. If you captured an image in landscape orientation, you would end up with an image that is 3000 pixels wide by 2000 pixels high. If you were to create the same image using pano software with the camera in portrait orientation, it would take a little over three images to cover the same scene since you need to overlap a minimum of 20%, which would give an image that is approximately 4500 pixels wide and 3000 pixels high, or 1.5 times bigger. I hope this helps.

Reply
Sep 7, 2011 09:57:25   #
Robert Loc: Round Rock, TX
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you will also lose some height in a horizontal panorama during the stitching process

Reply
Sep 7, 2011 09:58:39   #
Robert Loc: Round Rock, TX
 
I forgot to mention what a stunning shot that was. Beautiful

Reply
Sep 7, 2011 10:13:09   #
Yooper Loc: U.P. Michigan
 
Yes, you are correct. And I agree that it is a beautiful image.

Reply
 
 
Sep 7, 2011 13:20:53   #
ddeufemia
 
The Casio ex-zr100 does fun 360 panoramas.

Reply
Sep 7, 2011 21:21:52   #
JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA
 
Yooper wrote:
JimH wrote:


Many people shoot panos in "portrait" mode - so the image is TALLER than WIDE - not sure why, but they do.


By shooting images for a pano in portrait mode, the resulting panoramic image will be much larger and can make a larger print, and will likely contain more detail. Just for comparison purposes, say your camera creates an image that is 2000 x 3000 pixels. If you captured an image in landscape orientation, you would end up with an image that is 3000 pixels wide by 2000 pixels high. If you were to create the same image using pano software with the camera in portrait orientation, it would take a little over three images to cover the same scene since you need to overlap a minimum of 20%, which would give an image that is approximately 4500 pixels wide and 3000 pixels high, or 1.5 times bigger. I hope this helps.
quote=JimH br br Many people shoot panos in &qu... (show quote)



That makes a great deal of sense. No wonder it didn't occur to me :)

Actually, I kinda knew that already. But last year I got in a hissy fit internet forum argument with a photog who called one of his panos a 'vertical panorama'. I disagreed with his choice of words, suggested 'portrait mode', and we were off and runnin'...

Ever since then, I've had a blind spot about them. LOL

Reply
Sep 7, 2011 21:40:00   #
Yooper Loc: U.P. Michigan
 
I'm glad that helped. Just to confuse the issue, there are vertical panoramas, but it would be best to shoot them in landscape mode and move the camera vertically instead of horizontally.

Reply
Sep 7, 2011 21:42:34   #
JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA
 
Yooper wrote:
I'm glad that helped. Just to confuse the issue, there are vertical panoramas, but it would be best to shoot them in landscape mode and move the camera vertically instead of horizontally.


I agree - standing at the base of a sequoia, for example, and shooting UP.. I just thought it was dumb when he moved the camera from side to side, horizontally, to call it a "vertical" panorama.

Reply
 
 
Sep 7, 2011 22:06:38   #
Yooper Loc: U.P. Michigan
 
We all get confused at times.

Reply
Sep 7, 2011 23:43:07   #
JimKing Loc: Salisbury, Maryland USA
 
I usually recommend Manual mode for panoramas. I want the same exposure for each section to make a matching more accurate. Establish your exposure at a spot that is not the brightest or the darkest, or is the most important.

Reply
Sep 7, 2011 23:50:23   #
Yooper Loc: U.P. Michigan
 
Good idea to mention that. I do the same thing, but it isn't something that everyone thinks about.

Reply
Sep 8, 2011 09:07:05   #
Robert Loc: Round Rock, TX
 
Anyone try angular panorama? I wonder if it would work. lol

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.