Re: enabled twice over!
The point is there is no crazy weird fisheye effect why used on these cameras. Amita Guha wrote: What's your point? -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 3:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: enabled twice over! The large majority of photos in the sample were shot with digital cameras that produce between a 1.3 to 1.7 crop factor. When you take that into account the fisheye doesn't show much line bending at all since you've taken only the center portion of the image. The resulting image looks like it was produced with an approximately, (keeping in mind that you can't really do a crop factor calculation to the equivalent AOV comparisons between 35mm and smaller sensors due to the non linearity of the fisheye to begin with), 20mm lens with very bad barrel distortion as opposed to a real fisheye. Amita Guha wrote: Here you go! http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/15_28_ex There are 674 of them. Have fun. :) -Original Message- From: Tim Sherburne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:20 PM To: Pentax Discussion List Subject: Re: enabled twice over! Amita... What's the link to those pics? I just received the Zenitar and would also like to look at some other uses for the fisheye beyond the crazy/weird effect. Tim On 12/1/04 20:10, Amita Guha wrote: Oh, I love the distortion, and I've been wanting a fisheye for a while. The photos I saw on Pbase last night showed me the creative potential of using a fisheye beyond just showing off the fisheye effect. Plus, I can always de-fish the shots. :) -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: enabled twice over!
I'm not saying it's unacceptable, I'm just saying it's not a big deal. When using them with a smaller than full frame sensor you have a beast that's neither fish nor foul. My biggest objection is that it makes a very expensive special purpose lens into the equivalent of a cheap badly designed lens. I suppose I was a bit disappointed, I happen to like fisheyes and using them in a situation where you can minimize the fisheye effect on full frame is more what I expected. Shel Belinkoff wrote: Well, the observations are obvious, and the impression I get (at least from Peter's post) is that somehow this is unacceptable, or not a good use for the lens, or that another lens might be better suited to the photos. I only saw four or five pics, and while I do think some may have been better suited to a rectilinear lens, clearly Amita was experimenting a bit (674 pics seems to indicate that), and I'm sure that she'll soon find the ideal use for that particular optic. The idea of using only the central portion of the fisheye seems like a good way to go with a camera like the istd. Still, I'd like to see some pics comparing this lens (and the Zenitar) with similar focal length rectilinear lenses, like the Pentax 14mm, 15mm, and the 16mm side of that zoom (16~45?) that's available for the istd. Shel [Original Message] From: Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] He's saying that on the ist D you are only using the central portion of the fisheyes image circle where the effect is the least. This reduces the 'fisheye' effect and the results look more like a distorted WA shot than a true fisheye shot. I'm just now playing with the Zenitar 16/2.8. If I compose carefully the shot looks like a very WA shot with little fisheye effect. On a 35mm this would not be the case. Don -Original Message- From: Amita Guha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] What's your point? -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The large majority of photos in the sample were shot with digital cameras that produce between a 1.3 to 1.7 crop factor. When you take that into account the fisheye doesn't show much line bending at all since you've taken only the center portion of the image. http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/15_28_ex There are 674 of them. Have fun. :) -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
RE: enabled twice over!
Peter J. Alling wrote: My biggest objection is that it makes a very expensive special purpose lens into the equivalent of a cheap badly designed lens. I suppose it's just a matter of personal taste, although I did mention that I'm planning on using it on film bodies as well. And speaking of expensive, I now have a full-frame super wide angle lens for $250 less than the DA 14mm that I can use on all my bodies. I suppose I was a bit disappointed, I happen to like fisheyes and using them in a situation where you can minimize the fisheye effect on full frame is more what I expected. Ok, here are a few of the images that really sold me on this lens. These ones showed some distortion: Guitar: http://www.pbase.com/image/36692773 Museum: http://www.pbase.com/jlefcourt/image/28610905 Phone: http://www.pbase.com/image/33933780 Dog: http://www.pbase.com/image/26897289 Here are some where the distortion is minimized: Birthday: http://www.pbase.com/image/33014871 Fish: http://www.pbase.com/image/28988352 Mountains: http://www.pbase.com/image/34265101 Snow: http://www.pbase.com/image/26302807 Grave: http://www.pbase.com/image/33493063 And hey, if you don't like these, that's cool...that's what makes this list interesting. G Amita
Re: enabled twice over!
Amita, The pictures are just fantastic. Now, there're people who tolerate barrel (fisheye) distortion and those who don't. If you are OK with it -- just enjoy it. My wife actually preffers the look of fisheye to 15mm rectilinear lense. So do I. This is just a matter of taste. Check out some of the graphiscs of MC Escher -- the guy made a point to reproduce fisheye distortion to make things look more natural (as far as this is applicable to his works). Personally, I would take a fisheye over an ultrawide any time. It just looks better *to me*. Even a cropped fisheye. Best, Mishka On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:53:57 -0500, Amita Guha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter J. Alling wrote: My biggest objection is that it makes a very expensive special purpose lens into the equivalent of a cheap badly designed lens. I suppose it's just a matter of personal taste, although I did mention that I'm planning on using it on film bodies as well. And speaking of expensive, I now have a full-frame super wide angle lens for $250 less than the DA 14mm that I can use on all my bodies. I suppose I was a bit disappointed, I happen to like fisheyes and using them in a situation where you can minimize the fisheye effect on full frame is more what I expected. Ok, here are a few of the images that really sold me on this lens. These ones showed some distortion: Guitar: http://www.pbase.com/image/36692773 Museum: http://www.pbase.com/jlefcourt/image/28610905 Phone: http://www.pbase.com/image/33933780 Dog: http://www.pbase.com/image/26897289 Here are some where the distortion is minimized: Birthday: http://www.pbase.com/image/33014871 Fish: http://www.pbase.com/image/28988352 Mountains: http://www.pbase.com/image/34265101 Snow: http://www.pbase.com/image/26302807 Grave: http://www.pbase.com/image/33493063 And hey, if you don't like these, that's cool...that's what makes this list interesting. G Amita
RE: enabled twice over!
What's your point? -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 3:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: enabled twice over! The large majority of photos in the sample were shot with digital cameras that produce between a 1.3 to 1.7 crop factor. When you take that into account the fisheye doesn't show much line bending at all since you've taken only the center portion of the image. The resulting image looks like it was produced with an approximately, (keeping in mind that you can't really do a crop factor calculation to the equivalent AOV comparisons between 35mm and smaller sensors due to the non linearity of the fisheye to begin with), 20mm lens with very bad barrel distortion as opposed to a real fisheye. Amita Guha wrote: Here you go! http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/15_28_ex There are 674 of them. Have fun. :) -Original Message- From: Tim Sherburne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:20 PM To: Pentax Discussion List Subject: Re: enabled twice over! Amita... What's the link to those pics? I just received the Zenitar and would also like to look at some other uses for the fisheye beyond the crazy/weird effect. Tim On 12/1/04 20:10, Amita Guha wrote: Oh, I love the distortion, and I've been wanting a fisheye for a while. The photos I saw on Pbase last night showed me the creative potential of using a fisheye beyond just showing off the fisheye effect. Plus, I can always de-fish the shots. :) -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
RE: enabled twice over!
He's saying that on the ist D you are only using the central portion of the fisheyes image circle where the effect is the least. This reduces the 'fisheye' effect and the results look more like a distorted WA shot than a true fisheye shot. I'm just now playing with the Zenitar 16/2.8. If I compose carefully the shot looks like a very WA shot with little fisheye effect. On a 35mm this would not be the case. Don -Original Message- From: Amita Guha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 7:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: enabled twice over! What's your point? -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 3:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: enabled twice over! The large majority of photos in the sample were shot with digital cameras that produce between a 1.3 to 1.7 crop factor. When you take that into account the fisheye doesn't show much line bending at all since you've taken only the center portion of the image. The resulting image looks like it was produced with an approximately, (keeping in mind that you can't really do a crop factor calculation to the equivalent AOV comparisons between 35mm and smaller sensors due to the non linearity of the fisheye to begin with), 20mm lens with very bad barrel distortion as opposed to a real fisheye. Amita Guha wrote: Here you go! http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/15_28_ex There are 674 of them. Have fun. :) -Original Message- From: Tim Sherburne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:20 PM To: Pentax Discussion List Subject: Re: enabled twice over! Amita... What's the link to those pics? I just received the Zenitar and would also like to look at some other uses for the fisheye beyond the crazy/weird effect. Tim On 12/1/04 20:10, Amita Guha wrote: Oh, I love the distortion, and I've been wanting a fisheye for a while. The photos I saw on Pbase last night showed me the creative potential of using a fisheye beyond just showing off the fisheye effect. Plus, I can always de-fish the shots. :) -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
RE: enabled twice over!
Well, the observations are obvious, and the impression I get (at least from Peter's post) is that somehow this is unacceptable, or not a good use for the lens, or that another lens might be better suited to the photos. I only saw four or five pics, and while I do think some may have been better suited to a rectilinear lens, clearly Amita was experimenting a bit (674 pics seems to indicate that), and I'm sure that she'll soon find the ideal use for that particular optic. The idea of using only the central portion of the fisheye seems like a good way to go with a camera like the istd. Still, I'd like to see some pics comparing this lens (and the Zenitar) with similar focal length rectilinear lenses, like the Pentax 14mm, 15mm, and the 16mm side of that zoom (16~45?) that's available for the istd. Shel [Original Message] From: Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] He's saying that on the ist D you are only using the central portion of the fisheyes image circle where the effect is the least. This reduces the 'fisheye' effect and the results look more like a distorted WA shot than a true fisheye shot. I'm just now playing with the Zenitar 16/2.8. If I compose carefully the shot looks like a very WA shot with little fisheye effect. On a 35mm this would not be the case. Don -Original Message- From: Amita Guha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] What's your point? -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The large majority of photos in the sample were shot with digital cameras that produce between a 1.3 to 1.7 crop factor. When you take that into account the fisheye doesn't show much line bending at all since you've taken only the center portion of the image. http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/15_28_ex There are 674 of them. Have fun. :)
Re: enabled twice over!
It depends on your goal, but all-in-all you'll find that the cropped center of an FE can't compete with a good rectilinear lens. Looking through the gallery on Pbase, the digital shots are mildly distorted, enough to suggest a bad lens rather than a fish-eye effect. In my initial query to Amita I was looking for creative ways others have used the extreme FE effect (on film or FF digital) to really add to the image beyond the superficial goofiness. Not that the goofiness is bad, but I already have another 180° rectilinear wide-angle that I can use to get plain vanilla wide shots. For example, some of the shots here where made with the Zenitar: http://www.arinahnell.com/01-04-04/index.htm This was the point I made in a separate thread about choosing the MZ-S over the *istD: The crop factor is something I don't like, so I'm waiting for a FF digital solution, which, I admit, may be a ways off and will be expensive. But I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. Tim On 12/2/04 5:44, Shel Belinkoff wrote: The idea of using only the central portion of the fisheye seems like a good way to go with a camera like the istd. Still, I'd like to see some pics comparing this lens (and the Zenitar) with similar focal length rectilinear lenses, like the Pentax 14mm, 15mm, and the 16mm side of that zoom (16~45?) that's available for the istd. Shel [Original Message] From: Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] He's saying that on the ist D you are only using the central portion of the fisheyes image circle where the effect is the least. This reduces the 'fisheye' effect and the results look more like a distorted WA shot than a true fisheye shot. I'm just now playing with the Zenitar 16/2.8. If I compose carefully the shot looks like a very WA shot with little fisheye effect. On a 35mm this would not be the case. Don -Original Message- From: Amita Guha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] What's your point? -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The large majority of photos in the sample were shot with digital cameras that produce between a 1.3 to 1.7 crop factor. When you take that into account the fisheye doesn't show much line bending at all since you've taken only the center portion of the image. http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/15_28_ex There are 674 of them. Have fun. :)
Re: enabled twice over!
I asked about using an A-16mm and Peter Ailing wrote and I tended to agree: I have no experience with this lens on the *ist-d but the 17mm fisheye shows enough distortion to look like a 24mm lens with extremely bad barrel distortion. It's neither fish nor fowl. I wouldn't invest for that sole purpose. The lens itself has a great reputation for what it is and on a 35mm camera I'd love to have it, but not for the *ist-d. (Just my opinion but you may not mind barrel distortion). Mark Stringer wrote: What is known about the Pentax SMC-A 16/2.8? Any opinions? It is a fisheye. On an istD would the fisheye be as extreme as on film?- Original Message - From: Tim Sherburne [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 9:26 AM Subject: Re: enabled twice over! It depends on your goal, but all-in-all you'll find that the cropped center of an FE can't compete with a good rectilinear lens. Looking through the gallery on Pbase, the digital shots are mildly distorted, enough to suggest a bad lens rather than a fish-eye effect. In my initial query to Amita I was looking for creative ways others have used the extreme FE effect (on film or FF digital) to really add to the image beyond the superficial goofiness. Not that the goofiness is bad, but I already have another 180° rectilinear wide-angle that I can use to get plain vanilla wide shots. For example, some of the shots here where made with the Zenitar: http://www.arinahnell.com/01-04-04/index.htm This was the point I made in a separate thread about choosing the MZ-S over the *istD: The crop factor is something I don't like, so I'm waiting for a FF digital solution, which, I admit, may be a ways off and will be expensive. But I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. Tim On 12/2/04 5:44, Shel Belinkoff wrote: The idea of using only the central portion of the fisheye seems like a good way to go with a camera like the istd. Still, I'd like to see some pics comparing this lens (and the Zenitar) with similar focal length rectilinear lenses, like the Pentax 14mm, 15mm, and the 16mm side of that zoom (16~45?) that's available for the istd. Shel [Original Message] From: Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] He's saying that on the ist D you are only using the central portion of the fisheyes image circle where the effect is the least. This reduces the 'fisheye' effect and the results look more like a distorted WA shot than a true fisheye shot. I'm just now playing with the Zenitar 16/2.8. If I compose carefully the shot looks like a very WA shot with little fisheye effect. On a 35mm this would not be the case. Don -Original Message- From: Amita Guha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] What's your point? -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The large majority of photos in the sample were shot with digital cameras that produce between a 1.3 to 1.7 crop factor. When you take that into account the fisheye doesn't show much line bending at all since you've taken only the center portion of the image. http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/15_28_ex There are 674 of them. Have fun. :)
Re: enabled twice over!
On 2 Dec 2004 at 11:50, Mark Stringer wrote: I asked about using an A-16mm and Peter Ailing wrote and I tended to agree: I have no experience with this lens on the *ist-d but the 17mm fisheye shows enough distortion to look like a 24mm lens with extremely bad barrel distortion. It's neither fish nor fowl. I wouldn't invest for that sole purpose. The lens itself has a great reputation for what it is and on a 35mm camera I'd love to have it, but not for the *ist-d. (Just my opinion but you may not mind barrel distortion). For some reason I haven't seen the original message yet, it'll probably lob into my mail box next week some time. In any case I have the A16/2.8 and I'm on the disappointed side, I've owned this lens since the late eighties and it's definitely one of the best in its class, sharp great contrast, minimal CA. But on the *ist D it just looks like a really crap WA, one that I'd put on ebay really rapidly. Aside from the small advantage in absolute AOV when required I don't use it a great deal these days, its output just doesn't have the same appeal cropped. Following are two recent pics :-) both FF and shot hand held with the A16/2.8 at f2.8: http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/IMGP6170.jpg Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: enabled twice over!
-Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I only saw four or five pics, and while I do think some may have been better suited to a rectilinear lens, clearly Amita was experimenting a bit (674 pics seems to indicate that), No no no, those photos weren't mine, they were other people's photos. G And yes, I do intend to experiment a lot with it. I also want to use it as a plain wide angle lens; people online say that the photos are sharp even after de-fishing. And I am planning on using it on film bodies, not just the istD. I liked the DA 14mm a lot but I only want to buy full-frame lenses, so this lens solves a couple of issues for me.
Re: enabled twice over!
Pentax A 16/2.8 usually goes for similar $: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=4688item=3855394220rd=1 mine was from KEH LN-, for something pretty close to that too (a while ago). I hope you enjoy the really wide angle -- I know I do, and the distortion very rarely bothers me. Best, Mishka On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 21:06:52 -0500, Amita Guha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, last night, while surfing, I discovered the existence of the Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye. After reading reviews and seeing a bunch of samples, I was in love. I slept on it and I was still in love with it this morning, so Nate and I agreed to do away with pretense for Christmas and go for Mutually Assured Destruction (TM) instead. So I ran down to BH tonight and grabbed one. The build of this thing is incredible! And the case it comes with is actually useful.
RE: enabled twice over!
I'm truly glad I don't live near a place like B+H. I'd be living in a cardboard box under a bridge and eating rocks..whilst admiring my great lenses! ;-) Don -Original Message- From: Amita Guha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 8:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: enabled twice over! My new FA 50mm f/1.4 arrived in the mail yesterday. Woohoo! I took it for a spin around Rockefeller Center today for some test shots. So far, I'm very pleased. Also, last night, while surfing, I discovered the existence of the Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye. After reading reviews and seeing a bunch of samples, I was in love. I slept on it and I was still in love with it this morning, so Nate and I agreed to do away with pretense for Christmas and go for Mutually Assured Destruction (TM) instead. So I ran down to BH tonight and grabbed one. The build of this thing is incredible! And the case it comes with is actually useful. Meanwhile, Nate still can't settle on a wide angle solution. He's torn between the Tamron 17-35 and the Sigma 12-24, but that could change at any minute. At the rate he's going, at least I'll still be able to surprise him with the battery grip. :) Needless to say, I'll be out shooting this weekend. :) Amita
RE: enabled twice over!
Pentax A 16/2.8 usually goes for similar $: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=4688it em=3855394220rd=1 mine was from KEH LN-, for something pretty close to that too (a while ago). Looks like it's in great condition, too. I hope you enjoy the really wide angle -- I know I do, and the distortion very rarely bothers me. Oh, I love the distortion, and I've been wanting a fisheye for a while. The photos I saw on Pbase last night showed me the creative potential of using a fisheye beyond just showing off the fisheye effect. Plus, I can always de-fish the shots. :)
Re: enabled twice over!
Amita... What's the link to those pics? I just received the Zenitar and would also like to look at some other uses for the fisheye beyond the crazy/weird effect. Tim On 12/1/04 20:10, Amita Guha wrote: Oh, I love the distortion, and I've been wanting a fisheye for a while. The photos I saw on Pbase last night showed me the creative potential of using a fisheye beyond just showing off the fisheye effect. Plus, I can always de-fish the shots. :)
RE: enabled twice over!
Here you go! http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/15_28_ex There are 674 of them. Have fun. :) -Original Message- From: Tim Sherburne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:20 PM To: Pentax Discussion List Subject: Re: enabled twice over! Amita... What's the link to those pics? I just received the Zenitar and would also like to look at some other uses for the fisheye beyond the crazy/weird effect. Tim On 12/1/04 20:10, Amita Guha wrote: Oh, I love the distortion, and I've been wanting a fisheye for a while. The photos I saw on Pbase last night showed me the creative potential of using a fisheye beyond just showing off the fisheye effect. Plus, I can always de-fish the shots. :)
Re: enabled twice over!
On 1/12/04, Don Sanderson, discombobulated, unleashed: I'm truly glad I don't live near a place like B+H. I'd be living in a cardboard box under a bridge and eating rocks I'd be mining the rocks :-( Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: enabled twice over!
The large majority of photos in the sample were shot with digital cameras that produce between a 1.3 to 1.7 crop factor. When you take that into account the fisheye doesn't show much line bending at all since you've taken only the center portion of the image. The resulting image looks like it was produced with an approximately, (keeping in mind that you can't really do a crop factor calculation to the equivalent AOV comparisons between 35mm and smaller sensors due to the non linearity of the fisheye to begin with), 20mm lens with very bad barrel distortion as opposed to a real fisheye. Amita Guha wrote: Here you go! http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/15_28_ex There are 674 of them. Have fun. :) -Original Message- From: Tim Sherburne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:20 PM To: Pentax Discussion List Subject: Re: enabled twice over! Amita... What's the link to those pics? I just received the Zenitar and would also like to look at some other uses for the fisheye beyond the crazy/weird effect. Tim On 12/1/04 20:10, Amita Guha wrote: Oh, I love the distortion, and I've been wanting a fisheye for a while. The photos I saw on Pbase last night showed me the creative potential of using a fisheye beyond just showing off the fisheye effect. Plus, I can always de-fish the shots. :) -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
