can a fisheye+photoshop replace a non-fisheye wide angle?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by peter, Jul 11, 2003.

  1. peter

    peter Guest

    A 15mm fisheye lens is much cheaper than a 14mm wide angle lens (non
    fisheye).
    (e.g. $400 versus $800 for Sigma EOS mount)
    Since I can use photoshop (with a free plug-in) to correct the fisheye
    distortion, could a 15mm fisheye be used instead of the 14mm wide angle
    satisfactorily?

    I'm thinking of using such lens with the EOS 10D to shoot interior of houses
    for sale. The photo would be posted on web site or printed on flyers.
     
    peter, Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. peter

    Paul Worden Guest

    I've done a bit of housing photography commercially and I'm not sure the
    Fisheye is the best choice. There's a huge amount of distortion (naturally!)
    and it wouldn't present the interior in it's best light.

    You'll see a lot of 360 degree panoramas for that type of display and they
    seem very effective to me. Photovista software has a '3D' plugin viewer and
    will create 360s easily. There are several programs that do the same thing.

    In fact I don't like 'plugins' and will never download them onto my PC. I
    have an extreme dislike of web pages that take more than a few seconds to
    load. If the message can't be presented quickly then I'm off to somewhere
    that understands how to build a fast loading page.

    Most rooms have one 'best' angle and prospective buyers need to see a bit of
    sizzle - not the whole steak.

    --
    Paul Worden
    remove NOSPAM from email address to reply
     
    Paul Worden, Jul 11, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. peter

    Paul Worden Guest

    Yeah...Sorry...There are Photoshop 'plugins' for correcting distortion and
    web 'plugins' for displaying proprietary image formats.
    .....good point about the pixels being stretched in correcting software -
    although for a web page end-use I doubt if you'd see it (depending on how
    many megapixels in the original image.

    As they say "You can't beat the real thing." And that applies to lenses too
    :))

    I found for housing work, a 24mm (35mm) was very useful. Minimal curvature
    (well, it was a Nikon A lens!), but good coverage.

    Paul W
     
    Paul Worden, Jul 11, 2003
    #3
  4. "David Eppstein" <> wrote:
    >
    > I use this technique regularly myself. A couple architectural examples
    > (since that's what the original poster asked about):
    >
    > <http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/bbb/InterpCtr.html>


    Eeeeeeeeeeeeeyow! That's lovely.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 11, 2003
    #4
  5. peter

    peter Guest

    That's definitely satisfactory for my intended use!

    > "David Eppstein" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > I use this technique regularly myself. A couple architectural examples
    > > (since that's what the original poster asked about):
    > >
    > > <http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/bbb/InterpCtr.html>
     
    peter, Jul 11, 2003
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    15
    Views:
    1,578
    Guest
    Oct 19, 2005
  2. Steve

    How can I tell what lens 'spec' is 'wide angle'?

    Steve, Jun 5, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    300
    Gisle Hannemyr
    Jun 6, 2005
  3. David J. Littleboy

    Full-frame sensors can't do wide angle - NOT!

    David J. Littleboy, Sep 22, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    63
    Views:
    1,223
    David Littlewood
    Sep 28, 2005
  4. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    736
    Paul Rubin
    Jan 9, 2006
  5. Dauphin de Viennois

    Re: DSLR lenses not good wide open at wide angle?

    Dauphin de Viennois, Jul 16, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    527
    Roy Smith
    Jul 16, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page