qualtalk

I've been watching some of the threads about selecting a wide-angle lens to use with an APS-C camera.

One suggestion I've seen is to take several overlapping images and then stitch them together in post.

I'm shooting with a Nikon D3300 which has a built-in Panorama mode, and my question is whether capturing the image in this mode would produce a better image than stitching together several images in post.

Thanks in advance for your suggestions!

pdsdville Loc: Midlothian, Tx

I shoot a Sony A77 that has the panorama mode too. I've found that it provides an excellent image and is much easier than stitching together in post processing.

insman1132 Loc: Southwest Florida

I believe the D3300, and other similar camera's Panorama mode, is designed to save you the work of stitching later. As such I would feel secure that I am getting results as good as, or better than, the pic I would have stitched! I would use your camera's mode with confidence. But --- it shouldn't be hard to run an experiment taking the same scene using both approaches and then you can make your own determination that works for you.

BlackRipleyDog

What are you doing with these pano's? Are you printing them or leaving them on the card to post to Facebook?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

If I am not mistaken, the D3300 records panoramas as jpegs, and offers some crude automatic merging/blending. Also, if you have to do a complex pano that involves HDR and/or focus stacking, and multiple rows, you are out of luck. The in camera pano mode is pretty specific about the speed at which you capture the pano.

You have more control over the results when you shoot overlapping images. It is now possible to stitch panoramas (Lightroom and PHotoshop) and still have a raw (dng) file after stitching, which allows for better adjustments to exposure, color contrast, black and white clipping etc.

When out in the field without a tripod and I find myself wanting to take a pano, I will often take it not paying particular attention to alignment or whether the camera is level. All that is necessary is that there is sufficient overlap between the shots so the images can be stitched and blended in post processing.

So to answer your question, in some situations in camera panos (with camera in portrait orientation) may suffice, but you will almost always get better results if you stitch later, especially if you shoot raw.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Depends on how much work you want to do.
Photoshop has a panorama stitching function called Photomerge that works great for me 99% of the time.
Evens out exposure and you can control the size and it's really not that hard.
I tried the in-camera route a few times and much prefer Photoshop if quality matters.
I rarely use a tripod, I find it only really necessary when you have objects close to you that can give you parallax issues.
I've had several large prints made.

stonecherub Loc: Tucson, AZ

Part of my post field trip workflow is to throw all my panoramas at Photoshop's photomerge. My practice in the field is to setup and level my tripod, mount my Nikon D5000 on it, and overlap images by picking an object on the right side and moving the camera to put it on the left for the next shot. Probably two thirds of my daily work is images that are parts of panoramas.

In throwing these at PS, I use geometric distortion correction and content aware fill to blend the sky. Some results are squiffy, to say the least. Appended are three "raw jpegs," two of them shot from inside a volcano's crater so there is no horizon and the third acquired a floating volcano.

This field is complex enough geologically that I would not be surprised to find one of the volcanoes floating.

My points are: shoot your panoramas carefully by eye on a tripod, don't trust your camera's fancy-schmancy "panorama settings," and Photomerge doesn't always work. I plan to use Hugin for the shots inside the volcano, when I get time.

(Download)




(Download)

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I love panorama mode. Click, rotate, you're done. Taking individual shots and stitching them can probably give you a better result with more control. When I shoot several shots to stitch together, I shoot in portrait mode. There are several good programs for making panoramas.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pnoto+stitching+programs&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS716US717&oq=pnoto+stitching+programs&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l4.6991j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

qualtalk

Mostly digital, with an occasional print.

qualtalk

Thanks so much for all your suggestions - I really appreciate your knowledge and expertise!

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

My iPhone has a built in Panorama mode that is super easy as well - BUT when compared to the images I get from manually shooting overlapped pictures in raw format on my Nikon D7100 - it's not even close.

Once you start to "see" panoramic shots where ever you look, it becomes second nature to get 3-4 or more to stitch easily in post processing - the technique is easy to master.

Shooting with a 17-50 zoom plus making use of overlapping and stitching in post also gives me not only a good wide angle lens, but it easily becomes an ultra wide angle, and if I am quick enough with groups of people, an ultra-ultra wide angle almost fish eye lens.

As you move on to shooting a grid of shots with perhaps a 50mm lens and stitch multiple rows and columns together to obtain really hi resolution shots you quickly surpass what the in camera stitching can manage.

skingfong Loc: Sacramento

I just shot this one two days ago. I used PS photomerge with raw files. The PSD file is 762mg. That's the only drawback I don't have a pano mode in my camera but I'm willing to bet there's not as much flexibility in working you're pano in the camera itself. I used 9 vertical images to stitch together wondering how well my PC could handle them. It obviously took longer to merge, approximately 2 minutes.

One of the 9 frames

(Download)

Final product

(Download)

BlackRipleyDog

The obvious question you need to ask on whether to do it in-camera or on your computer, is what device really has the computing horsepower to pull it off? How much ram does your camera have and is the on-board signal processing better at merging than a i7 computer with terabytes of disk space and powering Photoshop?

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Stitching allows greater reach than most pans. Depending on the lens used.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Well, this is a loaded question - as are most "better" questions ...........Most computer geeks will say computer based merging RAW files is "better" than all else - and technically speaking they are probably "right" in some way.

As for me. I shoot SONY and do the in camera based JPEG panos - simple and quick - and that makes it "better" for ME - because I do not need powerful computers with costly software .....and allows spending more time in the field.