Well, I suppose that those of you who are very perceptive would have realised that the above stitched image in the previous post is a TS-E 90mm + 1.4x extender. The file size of 147MB (16 bit of course) is too big.
My L bracket, from "Really Right Stuff' is, unfortunately, designed only for the 20D. I can't use it with the 5D.
Nevertheless, the 20D with specialised fixed primes gives one a versatility of focal lengths which would be of less interest with conventional fixed primes.
I've got 2 TS-E lenses, the 24mm and 90mm, 2 different formats of DSLRs, the 5D and 20D, and a 1.4x extender which fits both TS-E lenses.
The possible combinations give me the use of the following TS-E focal lengths (if my maths is correct); 24mm, 34mm, 38mm, 54mm, 90mm, 126mm, 144mm, 202mm.
So how does this L bracket help me make better stitches? I'm not sure it does, in any significant way, when using a dedicated stitching program. I've no doubt that it is of great benefit using layers in PS where perfect alignment should be possible. But a stitching application like Panavue is programmed to make corrections.
Even though the images using the L bracket (net effect, moving the body instead of the lens) are (perhaps) perfect with regard to parallax, Panavue's automatic stitching mode produces an abomination.
I still have to use flags to get a good result. Is the result better, moving the body instead of the lens? Certainly in Photoshop, but not necessarily with a good stitching program. Even when using the same exposure for each shot, with the L bracket, there is a slight shift in color cast. Don't know why. Panavue corrects for that as you can see in the manual stitch below, compared with the automatic stitch which has failed to correct for a color shift, which did actually exist in the individual images.
The main PITA regarding stitching, is the time it takes and the stuffing around. I'm not sure that the L bracket reduces this factor, but I'll have to take more shots to be sure.
[attachment=872:attachment]