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 J Taylor on 24 Jul 2010 04:06 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:nvsj46l1fse9t8s1vo9fc8rhgnm88r9u4o(a)4ax.com... [] > 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. ;-) I hadn't appreciated that was how that lens was marketed. An interesting approach. Agreed on the illumination evenness you mention later. Thanks, David
From: Chris Malcolm on 24 Jul 2010 18:12 David Ruether <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: > "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> > wrote in message news:i28otj$5uu$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:mdqe46l3c6ffjt514ae042sgh1bp023vff(a)4ax.com... >>> The LX5 has a 24-90mm (equivalent) Leica f/2.0-2.3 lens, 10.1 MP plus >>> better sensitivity and more dynamic range than the current LX3. >> [] >> Good, yes, but those huge add-on lenses remind me rather of the ill-fated Sony DSC-R1 - large and ugly. Why spoil an otherwise >> interesting 2/3-inch camera? >> >> David > If "those huge add-on lenses" can get you to 18mm equivalent > (LX5) or 19mm (R1) well (but I don't know how good the images > are to the corners with the converters on...), and you want such > a wide angle of view (I do), who cares? I sure don't! ;-) If you knew you'd be needing a few wide angle shots you could leave the lens cradle on the camera, which made switching back and forth between wide and normal much faster than changing lenses on a DSRL, with no worry about exposing the sensor to dust. I still miss that rapid lens switching. -- Chris Malcolm Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.
From: Chris Malcolm on 24 Jul 2010 18:35 Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message > news:i2brsa$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 Got one, like it very much! Here's an "all four walls" interior shot, plus some other examples. http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_malcolm/4815223713/in/set-72157624398875799/ -- Chris Malcolm Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.
From: Chris Malcolm on 24 Jul 2010 18:41 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! ;-) > --DR Not the way I see. I can't detect any barrel distortion of straight lines in my eyesight, although there might be a little. -- Chris Malcolm Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.
From: Peter on 24 Jul 2010 20:03
"Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:8b1863FeeuU2(a)mid.individual.net... > Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> 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 > > Got one, like it very much! Here's an "all four walls" interior shot, > plus some other examples. > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_malcolm/4815223713/in/set-72157624398875799/ > I found some minor CA in the one I tried. I have been using the Nikon 12-24 and the 10.5 semi fisheye and correcting the linear distortion in CaptureNX2. The additional 2 makes a world of difference. What vices have you found in the lens, besides some CA and the expected barrel distortion? -- Peter |