35mm digital options for stitching?

[parasko]

Hi all,

As an extension to my previous post on landscape photography, I have decided to buy a digital 35mm camera and need advice on the best setup for stitching. I will be stitching images for greater resolution/pixels rather than to produce panoramics.

Camera options: 1ds MkII or III or a Nikon D3.

For financial reasons, I was considering a MkII or a D3 but I'm not sure how either would perform for stitching. How large could I print with either?

Re: lens choice, is a 50mm focal length better than using a wider angle for stitching (less edge distortion and softness, flare etc)? What about stitching with a 35mm or 70mm?

Can I realistically achieve a 21mm perspective by stitching images with a 50mm lens? (Please note I am still reading up on stitching?).

So that I don't have to try every lens on the planet, are there any obvious Zeiss or Leica lens choices which work particularly well at f8-f11 for stitching purposes on these cameras? I was thinking about the new Zeiss 35mm f2. Which option at 50mm?

Any other advice you can give is much appreciated.

Thanks.

[GerardK]

"For financial reasons" - if you're going to stitch anyway, why not consider a 40D with good glass, e.g. EF-S 17-55 IS. To take advantage of full frame, you need to buy the best lenses. It will be much more expensive. And in my view, if you'll be stitching anyway, why bother going full frame? Just zoom in slightly more with an APS-C system, it'll give you the same resolution at significantly lower cost.

By the way, taking more images at 55 mm usually gives me better results than taking fewer images at 21 mm.


Gerard Kingma
www.kingma.nu

[scrinch]

Any of those camera should give you great results.  I have stitched with everything from a 24mm TS to a 200 mm lens and what lens you use depends somewhat on the image you are trying to capture.  I most often work in portrait mode to maximize pixels and cut out excess sky or foreground after shooting.  Light fall off at the lens edge can be a problem and will result in slight banding in the finished pano.  I use a old Kaidan pano head for my tripod and Arcsoft Pano software.  Works for me.

[Geoff Wittig]

It's like the old saying about automobile racing. Speed costs money; how fast do you want to go?

If you're stitching, you can get fantastic results from any digital SLR with a decent lens. Perfect technique matters more than the specific camera. The difference between a Canon Eos-1Ds mk III and a 40D will merely be the number of frames you need to capture to get the same final file size. A single row of 3 or 4 portrait-format frames from the Eos-1Ds III will provide about the same final quality as two rows of frames from the 40D; the less expensive camera just requires more work to get there.

I tend to stitch using either the Canon 70-200 f:2.8 IS (preferred) or the 24-70 f:2.8 zooms. Both are pretty sharp even on a full frame camera, though the shorter lens can get a little soft in the corners. Stitching gets around the image quality shortcomings of the wider Canon lenses because you can get a similar perspective from a longer (and sharper) focal length. Wider focal lengths also have much bigger distortion issues, which can make stitching problematic.

Nikon's current pro-level wide angle zooms appear to be superior to Canon's. On the other hand, Canon's 70-200 f:2.8 is clearly better on a full frame sensor than Nikon's equivalent, and this is my most used lens by far. You pays your money and takes your chances.

[parasko]

Thanks for your comments.

Viewfinders on non FF bodies are so dim that I would not enjoy the expierience of landscape photography.

What about 3rd party lenses?

[Geoff Wittig]

Thanks for your comments.

Viewfinders on non FF bodies are so dim that I would not enjoy the expierience of landscape photography.

What about 3rd party lenses?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200344\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The full-frame cameras do indeed have much nicer viewfinders; this is increasingly important as I get older. I can see the need for live view to focus as my eyes get worse down the road.
It makes no sense to cheap out on third-party lenses if you're going to splurge on an expensive full frame camera and image quality is your main concern. At least for the Canon 1Ds III image quality is already lens limited. Yes, Sigma/Tokina/Tamron all make a few pretty decent lenses (Tokina's 90 mm macro comes to mind) but their bread & butter lenses are thoroughly ordinary affordable consumer-grade zooms. For landscapes zooms are almost mandatory for the precise framing they permit, and optical quality matters. I'm pretty happy with Canon's L zooms, though I'm aware of their shortcomings in the corners at the wide end. Some folks have gone so far as to use Zeiss or Leica glass (with an adapter) on their Eos-1Ds III to eek out a bit more image quality.

[parasko]

It makes no sense to cheap out on third-party lenses if you're going to splurge on an expensive full frame camera and image quality is your main concern. At least for the Canon 1Ds III image quality is already lens limited.

Apologies. By 3rd party lenses, I was actually referring to Zeiss and Leica, not Tokina and Sigma. I am seeking advice on primes from Zeiss or Leica in 4 FL ranges: 20-24mm, 28-35mm, 50mm, 70-80mm.

Would the new Zeiss lenses be suitable for the Canon 1Ds MkII? Is there a Zeiss-Canon adaptor or only a Zeiss-Nikon adaptor?

Is Leica R glass as good as Leica M glass (I currently still use an M7 with 35mm Summicron....very sharp!!)

To learn about stitching and for financial reasons, the plan was to commence with a 50mm lens only.

Does anyone have experience with Leica R or Zeiss lenses, shooting at f8-f11 and stitching?

[NikoJorj]

To learn about stitching and for financial reasons, the plan was to commence with a 50mm lens only.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200389\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My 2c's : you can only simulate a quite wide field of view this way... Say 28mm if you stitch 2x2.
If you may need something longer, you'll have to get a longer lens of course (the 70-200/4L or 200/2.8L come to my mind - and then, the 70-200/4 would be a good allrounder...).

Otherwise, if you look for a tighter budget you may also consider a 1DsII or a 5D, or maybe even a plain 1Ds?

[JeffKohn]

I think if one is buying primarily for stitching the benefits of full-frame become questionable. In fact I would argue you're likely to get better stitches by using a cropped-sensor camera with one or more full-frame lenses, as you'll be using the sweet spot of the lens and have less to worry about with regards to light falloff, corner sharpness, etc.  I guess you can achieve the same thing by using full-frame with much more overlap between shots, but you're not really gaining anything.

[Geoff Wittig]

I think if one is buying primarily for stitching the benefits of full-frame become questionable. In fact I would argue you're likely to get better stitches by using a cropped-sensor camera with one or more full-frame lenses, as you'll be using the sweet spot of the lens and have less to worry about with regards to light falloff, corner sharpness, etc.  I guess you can achieve the same thing by using full-frame with much more overlap between shots, but you're not really gaining anything.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think it's a matter of convenience or ease of use in the field. With an Eos-1Ds III I can stitch three or four portrait-format frames side by side, and get image quality high enough to print a 24 x 50" or bigger panoramic that looks perfect. Using an APS-C sized sensor, to get the same image quality you'd need to stitch two rows of 5 or 6 frames each. This hugely increases the workload, both at the time of capture and later in front of the computer. If you're not going to print so big, you can set your sights a little lower. A 12 megapixel APS-C sensor camera taking a single row of Portrait images stitched should be able to tolerate printing at 17" width by whatever length you want with quite acceptable quality.

[seangirard]

Have you considered a 1DsII + 45mm ts-e?

[Plekto]

It sounds to me like you really need a MF camera.

But the real question, then, is what's your budget?

[sojournerphoto]

Hi all,

As an extension to my previous post on landscape photography, I have decided to buy a digital 35mm camera and need advice on the best setup for stitching. I will be stitching images for greater resolution/pixels rather than to produce panoramics.

Camera options: 1ds MkII or III or a Nikon D3.

For financial reasons, I was considering a MkII or a D3 but I'm not sure how either would perform for stitching. How large could I print with either?

Re: lens choice, is a 50mm focal length better than using a wider angle for stitching (less edge distortion and softness, flare etc)? What about stitching with a 35mm or 70mm?

Can I realistically achieve a 21mm perspective by stitching images with a 50mm lens? (Please note I am still reading up on stitching?).

So that I don't have to try every lens on the planet, are there any obvious Zeiss or Leica lens choices which work particularly well at f8-f11 for stitching purposes on these cameras? I was thinking about the new Zeiss 35mm f2. Which option at 50mm?

Any other advice you can give is much appreciated.

Thanks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200228\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Lots of bits to this...

I agree (and I have two full frame cameras) that an APS-c body will be fine for stitching as they have tighter pixel spaing than the FF bodies. But as Geoff pointed out it may require more work. You refer to a 1Ds2 (not a 3) in comparison to a D3. You might also consider a 5D if you're considering the D3 - much less expensive and virtually identical resolution.  I usually stitch with my 70-200 f4IS or 100 macro (handheld:))

I've also got a zeiss zf 35 f2, with a nikon canon adaptor, and it's a lovely lens, provided you can live with manual focus and stop down - i.e. not even auto aperture on the canons.

Finally, depth of field can be an issue when stitching as opposed to using a wider angle lens. What you're really doing is moving up to a larger format with reduced dof at the same field of view. Stopping down will eventually lead to diffraction limiting at about f11 on the 5D/D3 or f8 on a 1Ds3 - somewhere in between for the 1Ds2 - although the early onset is quite gentle.

Enjoy

Mike

[Panopeeper]

If money and weight were not the primary considerations, I would buy the 1DMkIII. Larger pixels than the 1DsMkIII and the 40D; apparently it has the best pixel quality, and that is what counts.

Cropping is very important; even the very best lenses are softer at the edges. DoF is larger with the 1DMkII than with the 40D or 1DsMkIII.. The image height would be the same as that of the 40D.

Curvilinear distrtion (pincussion, barrel) plays no role in pano stitching; however, vignetting is a pain - again the cropping camera scores.

Talking about focal lengths at this point is nonsense. The considerations for lenses are sharpness, sharpness, sharpness (corner to corner), flaring, CA, and vignetting. There is no universal focal length for panos. My panos (hundreds) have been shot with focal length between 17mm and 350mm, FF equivalents. I often shoot the same scenery with different focal lengths.

It is important to start out with a decent stitcher (neither Photoshop, not Autopano belong to that group). There is a lot to learn, but it pays.

One of the three decent stitchers is Panorama Tools Assembler (only $39), and it has an excellent forum dedicated to pano creation: http://www.tawbaware.com/forum2
That is the starting point.

[parasko]

Finally, depth of field can be an issue when stitching as opposed to using a wider angle lens. What you're really doing is moving up to a larger format with reduced dof at the same field of view. Stopping down will eventually lead to diffraction limiting at about f11 on the 5D/D3 or f8 on a 1Ds3 - somewhere in between for the 1Ds2 - although the early onset is quite gentle.

Can somebody explain this a bit further re: the relationship between stitching, focal length and dof?
 
If I want to stitch to achieve a fov equivalent to a one-shot 21mm perspective, what will be the difference in the dof if I use a 50mm lens for example, in comparison to a 28mm lens?

I suppose I am asking...
How can I maximise dof whilst stitching, so that foreground and background are in sharp focus, without using an extreme wide angle lens (where corner softness and light fall off are more prevalent)?

[Panopeeper]

If I want to stitch to achieve a fov equivalent to a one-shot 21mm perspective, what will be the difference in the dof if I use a 50mm lens for example, in comparison to a 28mm lens?

One of the factors of the DoF is the focal length. The longer the lens, the smaller the DoF.

How can I maximise dof whilst stitching, so that foreground and background are in sharp focus, without using an extreme wide angle lens (where corner softness and light fall off are more prevalent)?

On the forum I linked above you find explanation for multifocus blending, just like multiexposure (HDR).

Other options:

- small aperture (depending on the lens and focal length),

- framing so, that closer objects are mostly separated in frames and refocusing between frames. It is a common misconception, that one has to fix the exposure and focus for the frames of a pano. In fact neither the focus, nor the exposure needs to be fixed.

[parasko]

It is a common misconception, that one has to fix the exposure and focus for the frames of a pano. In fact neither the focus, nor the exposure needs to be fixed.

The point of focus influences the size of subjects/objects within an image. For example, if you take a landscape shot where the focus is on a rock in the foreground, that same rock will appear slightly smaller if you take a second shot of the same image and focused instead on a midway point or infinity.

How do you work around this problem using your method? Can stitching software rectify this?

[Panopeeper]

I mentioned above, that you need a decent stitcher. Actually, there is only one: Panorama Tools, the father of the stitchers. PTGui, PT Assembler and Hugin are front-ends to Panorama Tools (PTGui have partly re-coded it).

PT starts out with creating a projection of each frame on the surface of a sphere. This projection is based on the field of view covered by the image, which, of course, depends on the actual focal length, which, in turn, depends on the focusing distance.

When stitching, you have to specify the angular field of view (you don't need to calculate that, the front-ends are doing it). There is a firm correlation between the angle of view of the frames and the matching points between the frames. If you have good (accurate) matching points, you can tell the optimizer (a pre-processor for the stitching) to calculate the actual angle of view from the specified values (which are approximations) and the correlations.

After having projected all frames on the surface of a unity sphere, all frames aligned, a second pass projects the sphere surface on another surface, which depends on the projection method: on a plane (in case of rectilinear projection), on the surface of a cylinder (in case of cylindrical projection), etc.

Consequently, you can make even several shots of the same frame with different focusing; the frames will be slightly different, as the closer focusing yields a larger field of view. All these will be projected together, and you can mask their blendings, as the blending is a separate program step. Alternatively, you can use the relatively new feature of PTA, focus blending.

[BernardLanguillier]

I mentioned above, that you need a decent stitcher. Actually, there is only one: Panorama Tools, the father of the stitchers. PTGui, PT Assembler and Hugin are front-ends to Panorama Tools (PTGui have partly re-coded it).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200859\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

PTgui and Autopano Pro both fit the definition of excellent stitcher per my extended experience.

As far as body and lens goes, I believe that the best option on the market today for stitching is the Nikon D300 with a micro nikkor 60 mm AF-S.

I have been using a D2x and D3 with excellent results, but I indeed believe that AP-S sensors are probably a better option for stitching, and the D300 is clearly the best APS camera on the market today.

Regards,
Bernard

[parasko]

Thanks for the explanation Panopeeper! Much appreciated!

This is exactly what I am hoping to achieve with a wide fov.

So fixed focus or fixed exposure isn't important! Not even a tripod is really necessary based on your explanation, though I'm assuming that using one makes alignment of images in postprocessing much easier.

Looks like I may end up with a less expensive camera as the stitching software sounds like it will help me achieve my goals w/out an uber-camera setup, now that I have a better understanding of the process.

Cheers.

I mentioned above, that you need a decent stitcher. Actually, there is only one: Panorama Tools, the father of the stitchers. PTGui, PT Assembler and Hugin are front-ends to Panorama Tools (PTGui have partly re-coded it).

PT starts out with creating a projection of each frame on the surface of a sphere. This projection is based on the field of view covered by the image, which, of course, depends on the actual focal length, which, in turn, depends on the focusing distance.

When stitching, you have to specify the angular field of view (you don't need to calculate that, the front-ends are doing it). There is a firm correlation between the angle of view of the frames and the matching points between the frames. If you have good (accurate) matching points, you can tell the optimizer (a pre-processor for the stitching) to calculate the actual angle of view from the specified values (which are approximations) and the correlations.

After having projected all frames on the surface of a unity sphere, all frames aligned, a second pass projects the sphere surface on another surface, which depends on the projection method: on a plane (in case of rectilinear projection), on the surface of a cylinder (in case of cylindrical projection), etc.

Consequently, you can make even several shots of the same frame with different focusing; the frames will be slightly different, as the closer focusing yields a larger field of view. All these will be projected together, and you can mask their blendings, as the blending is a separate program step. Alternatively, you can use the relatively new feature of PTA, focus blending.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200859\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]