Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 announced - looks good!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: The horror of the small sensor P&S image
Next: Scott Linstead's high-speed photographs capture creatures frozen in time
From: David Ruether on 23 Jul 2010 10:24 "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:i2a4mt12icv(a)news5.newsguy.com... > On 7/22/2010 12:36 PM, David J Taylor wrote: >> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:i29n22$b8j$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu... >>> [] >>> If "those huge add-on lenses" can get you to 18mm equivalent >>> (LX5) or 19mm (R1) well (but I don't know how good the images >>> are to the corners with the converters on...), and you want such >>> a wide angle of view (I do), who cares? I sure don't! ;-) >>> --DR >> I find that my pictures cover the equivalent range 24mm - 450mm, and I >> would often like a little more at the wide end. My feeling is that the >> fixed lens camera works well if you can live with the built-in zoom >> range. If not, then you might as well get an interchangeable lens >> camera. If you are a wide-angle enthusiast, you might get a more compact >> solution with one of the micro-4/3 cameras. > Not really. Remember the crop factor. While most add-on WA converters reduce lens performance (especially if zoomed much away from the widest zoom setting), a few do not on some camera lenses (a .8X Olympus is sharp on my Sony 707 to the corners at f2 through maybe a quarter of the zooming range away from WA, and the .66X Raynox is sharp on my Canon HV20 HD camcorder at f1.8 through about half the zoom range). These converters can be relatively compact and light, since much of the optics already are attached to the camera. Often, these attachments at least partly use light-weight plastic optics (as with a Sony ".6X" [actually about .5X]), and they can be quite thin. For these reasons, it is worth checking into the performance of specific converters with specific lenses since there can be advantages to using them... --DR
From: J. Clarke on 23 Jul 2010 14:06 On 7/23/2010 9:48 AM, Peter wrote: > "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in > message news:i2brsa$kjt$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:hmah46d44eql5al69cktajudm79givupd1(a)4ax.com... >> [] >>> Olympus offers an 8mm f/3.5 fisheye lens for Four Thirds. You can >>> remove the fisheye "distortion" in post processing, just as you can >>> with the AF Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G DX. >> >> True, but not what I was thinking of as a compact, rectilinear lens. >> > > > did you look at the Sigma 8-16. It is not compact, but is rectilinear. I > played with one last week and published my short review in one of the > groups. > Summary: I am seriously considering getting that lens However it gives a wider field on an APS-C than on 4/3.
From: Bruce on 23 Jul 2010 16:08 On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:45:29 +0100, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:hmah46d44eql5al69cktajudm79givupd1(a)4ax.com... >[] >> Olympus offers an 8mm f/3.5 fisheye lens for Four Thirds. You can >> remove the fisheye "distortion" in post processing, just as you can >> with the AF Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G DX. > >True, but not what I was thinking of as a compact, rectilinear lens. Not what you were thinking, perhaps. But Nikon actively markets the AF Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G DX as a lens for rectilinear results by including software to correct the fisheye "distortion". I say "distortion" because the results from a fisheye lens are actually *less distorted* than those from a rectilinear lens of the same focal length. But I'm sure you knew that anyway. ;-)
From: David Ruether on 23 Jul 2010 16:49 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:nvsj46l1fse9t8s1vo9fc8rhgnm88r9u4o(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:45:29 +0100, "David J Taylor" > <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >>"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:hmah46d44eql5al69cktajudm79givupd1(a)4ax.com... >>[] >>> Olympus offers an 8mm f/3.5 fisheye lens for Four Thirds. You can >>> remove the fisheye "distortion" in post processing, just as you can >>> with the AF Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G DX. >>True, but not what I was thinking of as a compact, rectilinear lens. > Not what you were thinking, perhaps. But Nikon actively markets the > AF Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G DX as a lens for rectilinear results by > including software to correct the fisheye "distortion". > > I say "distortion" because the results from a fisheye lens are > actually *less distorted* than those from a rectilinear lens of the > same focal length. But I'm sure you knew that anyway. ;-) Um, ah..., perhaps "equally undistorted" would be closer to the truth, provided that each followed closely the rules of its perspective type (complicated by there being three distinctly different ones for fisheyes...;-), although wide angle rectilinear lenses are more likely to suffer from true (linear) distortions in their images... But, if you meant, fisheye lenses make images that are more like the way we see", I think you are right! ;-) --DR
From: Bruce on 23 Jul 2010 17:39
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:49:57 -0400, "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: > >"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:nvsj46l1fse9t8s1vo9fc8rhgnm88r9u4o(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:45:29 +0100, "David J Taylor" >> <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >>>"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:hmah46d44eql5al69cktajudm79givupd1(a)4ax.com... > >>>[] > >>>> Olympus offers an 8mm f/3.5 fisheye lens for Four Thirds. You can >>>> remove the fisheye "distortion" in post processing, just as you can >>>> with the AF Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G DX. > >>>True, but not what I was thinking of as a compact, rectilinear lens. > >> Not what you were thinking, perhaps. But Nikon actively markets the >> AF Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G DX as a lens for rectilinear results by >> including software to correct the fisheye "distortion". >> >> I say "distortion" because the results from a fisheye lens are >> actually *less distorted* than those from a rectilinear lens of the >> same focal length. But I'm sure you knew that anyway. ;-) > >Um, ah..., perhaps "equally undistorted" would be closer to >the truth, provided that each followed closely the rules of >its perspective type (complicated by there being three distinctly >different ones for fisheyes...;-), although wide angle rectilinear >lenses are more likely to suffer from true (linear) distortions in >their images... But, if you meant, fisheye lenses make images >that are more like the way we see", I think you are right! ;-) In order to avoid getting into one of those never-ending discussions about fisheye versus rectilinear distortion, I will simply agree. ;-) However, I will say that one major advantage of the fisheye is its remarkably even illumination across the frame. It is not unusual for a rectilinear wide angle lens to have light fall-off from the centre to the corners in excess of three and a half stops! |