«

"John Falstaff" <> wrote:
>I understand Nikon Capture can convert the fisheye image from the 10.5mm
>lens into a rectilinear one, but what focal length rectilinear lens does
>that become equal to?

Basically, any FOV you want.

When you defish, the image quality at the edges becomes increasingly bad the
further from the center you are (since you are magnifying an increasingly
reduced image).

So it depends on your image quality requirements. The more willing you are
to put up mush, the wider you can go.

If you haven't spent money on the lens yet, you should think about the
12-24, since the image quality will be a lot better over most of the frame.
Fisheyes are a special effect that can be a lot of fun. In small
quantities. Of course, that can also be said about superwide rectilinear
imaging, but most people find superwide rectilinear more useful than
fisheye.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
> Of course, that can also be said about superwide rectilinear
> imaging, but most people find superwide rectilinear more useful than
> fisheye.
>

Many subjects, at least to my eye, look less distorted with a fisheye than
with a superwide, especially nature type subjects. Most buildings and
manmade stuff do look whacked with a fisheye though.
--

Stacey

"Scott Chapin" <> wrote in message
news:ioadnTzeTrb7KtPZRVn-...
>
> "John Falstaff" <> wrote in message
> news. ..
>> I understand Nikon Capture can convert the fisheye image from the 10.5mm
>> lens into a rectilinear one, but what focal length rectilinear lens does
>> that become equal to?
>>
>>
>
>
> NC gives an option to keep the parabolic areas on the top and bottom of
> the
> corrected image. If you crop at greater than a 1.5:1 aspect ration, you
> can
> get a 180deg panorama, so to speak.

Ah, that's interesting.


> it's very hard for me to visualize what
> I will get when I'm shooting, but the lens is great fun! I had to wipe dog
> spit of my lens, I was able to get so close.

You mean dog snot, or "nose juice" as I used to call it? My dog used
to get that all over his side of the windshield, as he liked to get as close
as possible to what was in front of the car, and kept finding fresh places
when the existing deposits of nose juice obscured his vision.

I agree, fisheyes are a lot of fun. Used them for years on my Minoltas. I'm
looking forward to getting a Nikon 10.5mm, and being able to do that
different stuff with NC just adds to the appeal.

Jack

"David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
news:e2mh5q$9vj$...
>
> "John Falstaff" <> wrote:
>>I understand Nikon Capture can convert the fisheye image from the 10.5mm
>>lens into a rectilinear one, but what focal length rectilinear lens does
>>that become equal to?
>
> Basically, any FOV you want.
>
> When you defish, the image quality at the edges becomes increasingly bad
> the
> further from the center you are (since you are magnifying an increasingly
> reduced image).

Yes, I figured that.


>
> So it depends on your image quality requirements. The more willing you are
> to put up mush, the wider you can go.
>
> If you haven't spent money on the lens yet, you should think about the
> 12-24, since the image quality will be a lot better over most of the
> frame.

I'm sure you're right, but that's substantially more expensive, bigger and
heavier, and at the short end (which is really the main thing I'd be
interested in) only covers the FOV of an 18mm lens on a 35. Not that that's
so shabby, but the 10.5mm Nikon should "defish" to the 35 rectilinear
equivalent of just shorter than 16mm -- and still be able to work as a real
fisheye too, and on the same frame. I really like that idea. I don't think
I'd mind some degradation of definition when defished, which should be
mostly in the corners. Another thing that's slightly off-putting about the
12-24 is that half its f.l. range is already covered by the 18-70mm kit
lens, which seems something of a waste. Sigma's 10-20 looks somewhat more
useful, and a heck of a lot less pricey. We'll see.


> Fisheyes are a special effect that can be a lot of fun. In small
> quantities. Of course, that can also be said about superwide rectilinear
> imaging, but most people find superwide rectilinear more useful than
> fisheye.

Well, each has its own kind of apparent distortion, of course. I like the
fisheye's ability to shoot up the street and down the street at the same
time, for example. The curvature doesn't bother me. Once when a friend of
mine was building a new house, and most of the flooring and walls weren't
in, I was able to stand on the second floor with my Minolta fisheye and get
from the basement to the chimney top in one shot. That was an interesting
shot, if I say so myself.

I agree, the fisheye is a pretty limited-use tool. But it's still a lot of
fun.

Jack

"John Falstaff" <> writes:
> I'm sure you're right, but that's substantially more expensive, bigger and
> heavier, and at the short end (which is really the main thing I'd be
> interested in) only covers the FOV of an 18mm lens on a 35. Not that that's
> so shabby, but the 10.5mm Nikon should "defish" to the 35 rectilinear
> equivalent of just shorter than 16mm

I don't think the above is correct. The calculation works for
rectilinear lenses, not fisheyes.

http://www.photo.net/learn/fisheye/ might interest you.

<SNIP>

> You mean dog snot, or "nose juice" as I used to call it? My dog used
> to get that all over his side of the windshield, as he liked to get as
close
> as possible to what was in front of the car, and kept finding fresh places
> when the existing deposits of nose juice obscured his vision.
>

LOL, no it's a tongue licking from the Chihuahau. Guess he thought he needed
to kiss the lens.
My wife's car has all the "nose juice" from our Lab mix.


Scott

"John Falstaff" <> wrote:
>>
>> If you haven't spent money on the lens yet, you should think about the
>> 12-24, since the image quality will be a lot better over most of the
>> frame.
>
> I'm sure you're right, but that's substantially more expensive, bigger and
> heavier, and at the short end (which is really the main thing I'd be
> interested in) only covers the FOV of an 18mm lens on a 35. Not that
> that's so shabby, but the 10.5mm Nikon should "defish" to the 35
> rectilinear equivalent of just shorter than 16mm -- and still be able to
> work as a real fisheye too, and on the same frame. I really like that
> idea. I don't think I'd mind some degradation of definition when defished,
> which should be mostly in the corners.

There used to be an article on defishing on photo.net. That has examples of
what the quality is like.

> Another thing that's slightly off-putting about the 12-24 is that half its
> f.l. range is already covered by the 18-70mm kit lens, which seems
> something of a waste.

It means you have to change lenses less often. Not a waste at all. I find I
use the whole range of the 17-40 on the 5D.

> Sigma's 10-20 looks somewhat more useful, and a heck of a lot less pricey.
> We'll see.

Oops. I keep forgetting about the third party lenses. Sorry.

I suspect that between the 15mm FOV and the price, that's probably the right
choice for the Nikon dSLRs for a lot of people.

>> Fisheyes are a special effect that can be a lot of fun. In small
>> quantities. Of course, that can also be said about superwide rectilinear
>> imaging, but most people find superwide rectilinear more useful than
>> fisheye.
>
> Well, each has its own kind of apparent distortion, of course. I like the
> fisheye's ability to shoot up the street and down the street at the same
> time, for example. The curvature doesn't bother me. Once when a friend of
> mine was building a new house, and most of the flooring and walls weren't
> in, I was able to stand on the second floor with my Minolta fisheye and
> get from the basement to the chimney top in one shot. That was an
> interesting shot, if I say so myself.

If you think and work at it, it can be effective. I saw a shot of a large
bowling alley taken from the just behind the foul line, and the 180 degree
FOV really jumped at one; it captured all the lanes in both directions.

I was looking into defishing before the Canon 10-22 came out, and wasn't
happy with the quality. Sounds like you want the fisheye for the fisheye and
should just shut up and buy it<g>. (Also, defished to extreme wide can be a
neat effect (that you can't get with even the Sigma 12-24 on FF) even with
the lousy quality in the corners.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote in message
news:...
> "John Falstaff" <> writes:
>> I'm sure you're right, but that's substantially more expensive, bigger
>> and
>> heavier, and at the short end (which is really the main thing I'd be
>> interested in) only covers the FOV of an 18mm lens on a 35. Not that
>> that's
>> so shabby, but the 10.5mm Nikon should "defish" to the 35 rectilinear
>> equivalent of just shorter than 16mm
>
> I don't think the above is correct. The calculation works for
> rectilinear lenses, not fisheyes.

After image conversion to rectilinear, I don't see why it wouldn't be
correct. As Hans S pointed out earlier (and I finally got through my head),
a 10.5mm fisheye when "defished" would be effectively a 10.5mm rectilinear
as far as the final image is concerned, so with the 1.5x focal length factor
that should be equivalent to a 15.75mm rectilinear on a 35.

I'd agree that it wouldn't work for the original *fisheye* image, not at
all.


>
> http://www.photo.net/learn/fisheye/ might interest you.

Yes indeed, and thanks a lot for the link. I've just glanced at it but I'll
go over it thoroughly.

Jack

"David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
news:e2ot60$ukn$...
>
> "John Falstaff" <> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you haven't spent money on the lens yet, you should think about the
>>> 12-24, since the image quality will be a lot better over most of the
>>> frame.
>>
>> I'm sure you're right, but that's substantially more expensive, bigger
>> and heavier, and at the short end (which is really the main thing I'd be
>> interested in) only covers the FOV of an 18mm lens on a 35. Not that
>> that's so shabby, but the 10.5mm Nikon should "defish" to the 35
>> rectilinear equivalent of just shorter than 16mm -- and still be able to
>> work as a real fisheye too, and on the same frame. I really like that
>> idea. I don't think I'd mind some degradation of definition when
>> defished, which should be mostly in the corners.
>
> There used to be an article on defishing on photo.net. That has examples
> of what the quality is like.
>
>> Another thing that's slightly off-putting about the 12-24 is that half
>> its f.l. range is already covered by the 18-70mm kit lens, which seems
>> something of a waste.
>
> It means you have to change lenses less often. Not a waste at all. I find
> I use the whole range of the 17-40 on the 5D.
>
>> Sigma's 10-20 looks somewhat more useful, and a heck of a lot less
>> pricey. We'll see.
>
> Oops. I keep forgetting about the third party lenses. Sorry.
>
> I suspect that between the 15mm FOV and the price, that's probably the
> right choice for the Nikon dSLRs for a lot of people.

I've about decided that, as far as ultrawide zooms are concerned. I've spent
some time reading various reviews of that and comparable ultrawide zooms by
Nikon, Tamron and Tokina, and the Sigma really does look pretty good
especially at the price. I think I'll get the Nikon fisheye first, though.


>
>>> Fisheyes are a special effect that can be a lot of fun. In small
>>> quantities. Of course, that can also be said about superwide rectilinear
>>> imaging, but most people find superwide rectilinear more useful than
>>> fisheye.
>>
>> Well, each has its own kind of apparent distortion, of course. I like the
>> fisheye's ability to shoot up the street and down the street at the same
>> time, for example. The curvature doesn't bother me. Once when a friend of
>> mine was building a new house, and most of the flooring and walls weren't
>> in, I was able to stand on the second floor with my Minolta fisheye and
>> get from the basement to the chimney top in one shot. That was an
>> interesting shot, if I say so myself.
>
> If you think and work at it, it can be effective. I saw a shot of a large
> bowling alley taken from the just behind the foul line, and the 180 degree
> FOV really jumped at one; it captured all the lanes in both directions.
>
> I was looking into defishing before the Canon 10-22 came out, and wasn't
> happy with the quality. Sounds like you want the fisheye for the fisheye
> and should just shut up and buy it<g>.

That's largely it, but it's the prospect of defishing as well that gives it
really a lot of extra appeal. But you're right, I'll just shut up and buy
it.

Jack


(Also, defished to extreme wide can be a
> neat effect (that you can't get with even the Sigma 12-24 on FF) even with
> the lousy quality in the corners.)
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>