10.5 f2.8 & correcting software

Anyone using Nikon's 10.5 f2.8 lens with the correcting software?
Everything I've seen on the lense is based around a composition closeup
of a building, motorcycle etc. which is then corrected with the
software. What you're left with is a shot you could've taken with a 50
MM lense if you stepped back a few few. What I'm more interested in is
how does it do with background and side correction in a tight
situation. More specifically I'm thinking of boat interiors where you
want to give a proper sense of space by shooting from one end of cabin,
from inside an open doorway etc. Fisheyes of course, always give the
noticable distortion and anyone in the boating industry automatically
discounts the shot as a distortion. A corrected shot could work
extremely well with cabin proportions easily fleshed out from porthole
sizes, stairways, etc. An example might be a salon 15 feet by 15 feet
or cabin 6 feet by 8 feet. Another problem is that there will rarely
be any true straight lines to reference on if the software depends on
that to correct the shot. If you can imagine a narrowing bow with
cabins on either side that are sort of triangular in shape witht the
hypotenuese being a curve. Anyway real interesting lense but I'm a
little hesitant to drop 600 bucks and find out it's a one trick pony.

On 28 Aug 2005 08:34:42 -0700, wrote:

Anyone using Nikon's 10.5 f2.8 lens with the correcting software?
Everything I've seen on the lense is based around a composition closeup
of a building, motorcycle etc. which is then corrected with the
software.

I have used it to shoot interiors of cars from the outside, drivers
side window, at car shows. Uncorrected, it looks like a normal
fisheye, corrected it looks awesome. It straightens out the window
posts and all of the distortion.
It did tend to make the straightened out areas slightly soft because
the pixels were being stretched. You can see the same thing yourself
if you correct a fisheye in Photoshop.
Now, I believe Nikon has addressed this softening of the edges in the
latest version of Capture. It is much more convenient that Photoshop
for this purpose because it's a one click operation.

wrote:

Anyone using Nikon's 10.5 f2.8 lens with the correcting software?

I have the lens, but not the software.

Everything I've seen on the lense is based around a composition closeup
of a building, motorcycle etc. which is then corrected with the
software. What you're left with is a shot you could've taken with a 50
MM lense if you stepped back a few few.

Not sure what you're expecting; it's converting the image to a rectilinear
projection, so it ends up being the same as you'd get with a regular lens,
just with softer corners due to the interpolation.

What I'm more interested in is how does it do with background and side
correction in a tight situation.

The conversion just gives you what you would get from a super-wide lens
that isn't a fisheye. Obviously you lose a lot of the angle of view;
you end up with probably the equivalent of 12 or 13mm rectilinear, but
that's just a guess.

Another problem is that there will rarely be any true straight lines
to reference on if the software depends on that to correct the shot.

It doesn't depend on anything; it converts the fisheye projection to a
rectilinear one based on the known mathematical properties.

Anyway real interesting lense but I'm a little hesitant to drop 600
bucks and find out it's a one trick pony.

Don't buy it just to use it with the conversion software; go for the
12-24mm instead. You'll get the same field of view (maybe even wider),
and better quality. The fisheye is best used as a fisheye.

--
Jeremy |

wrote in message
oups.com...
Anyone using Nikon's 10.5 f2.8 lens with the correcting software?
Everything I've seen on the lense is based around a composition closeup
of a building, motorcycle etc. which is then corrected with the
software. What you're left with is a shot you could've taken with a 50
MM lense if you stepped back a few few. What I'm more interested in is
how does it do with background and side correction in a tight
situation. More specifically I'm thinking of boat interiors where you
want to give a proper sense of space by shooting from one end of cabin,
from inside an open doorway etc. Fisheyes of course, always give the
noticable distortion and anyone in the boating industry automatically
discounts the shot as a distortion. A corrected shot could work
extremely well with cabin proportions easily fleshed out from porthole
sizes, stairways, etc. An example might be a salon 15 feet by 15 feet
or cabin 6 feet by 8 feet. Another problem is that there will rarely
be any true straight lines to reference on if the software depends on
that to correct the shot. If you can imagine a narrowing bow with
cabins on either side that are sort of triangular in shape witht the
hypotenuese being a curve. Anyway real interesting lense but I'm a
little hesitant to drop 600 bucks and find out it's a one trick pony.

Well, I like it.

Nikon f/2.8 10.5 fisheye, defished with Nikon Capture 4.03:

http://66.51.108.232/photogallery/20...0Tower%207.jpg
http://66.51.108.232/photogallery/20...%20Columns.jpg
http://66.51.108.232/photogallery/20...iomphe%204.jpg

Greg

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 21:17:33 -0000, Jeremy Nixon
wrote:

Don't buy it just to use it with the conversion software; go for the
12-24mm instead. You'll get the same field of view (maybe even wider),
and better quality. The fisheye is best used as a fisheye.


If you have used it you must know that there is a huge difference
between the FOV of the 10.5mm and 12-24mm. I just took a couple of
shots to verify it. According to Nikon the FOV with the 10.5 is 180
degrees, the FOV with the 12mm setting on the 12-24 is 99 degrees.
Almost double. So if you lose a little correcting the verticals it's
still well worth it.

McLeod wrote:

If you have used it you must know that there is a huge difference
between the FOV of the 10.5mm and 12-24mm. I just took a couple of
shots to verify it. According to Nikon the FOV with the 10.5 is 180
degrees, the FOV with the 12mm setting on the 12-24 is 99 degrees.
Almost double. So if you lose a little correcting the verticals it's
still well worth it.

If you convert the fisheye to rectilinear you lose the edges of the
picture and the result is about the same field of view as a 12-13mm
lens. You will only get the 180 degree field of view if you *don't*
perform the "correction".

--
Jeremy |

We're at the core of the issue and much better put than my original.
The promo type shots i've seen all emphasize the correcting ability and
use big buildings etc. Does anyone know anywhere online where there
might be some comparison photos targeting a tighter, busier interior
space. The softening has me concerned as boat interiors are usually
composed of brightly varnished woods. wood carving, accents etc., The
f2.8 allows for lesser lighting on a static shot eliminating some of
the need for dealing with glare with all of the varnished woods,
polished brass and nickel etc. I'm also new to digital and have almost
never shot with less than a 35mm lense so superwides and the 35mm
format factor have me flustered a bit. I borrowed a friend's 28mm PC
lense with some film many years ago and that's as close as I got to
really wide angles. The boat interior thing is new but I work in that
field already in other capacities. Thanks for the input.