Does anybody have any experience with using the Panoscan for landscape photography? My current setup is a DSLR shooting bracketed stills on a nodal rig, stitching the images later in post to create the panoramic HDR image. The Panoscan seems to offer all the benefits in resolution of stitching multiple frames, but takes out the need to stitch the results which will be a huge time saver for me...
Any thoughts would be great.
Elliot.
The only experience I have had which is not what you are after, is a friend bought one intending to do virtual tours for tourist attractions Hotels etc. After 18 months he did not get one job, worse than that he even tried doing some for free to boost his portfolio the only reply he got was they wanted to charge him for allowing him to take the pictures. He could not compete on price with the Dslr and stitching rigs.
I don't know if you are looking to do 180's or 360's if so the Panoscan could be the best route, if it's something less extreme a shift lens will be easier quicker and cheaper or there is the Seitz 617.
If money is not a problem an Alpa with a Phaseone and a couple of lenses would be my choice, I think stitching a few images at a computer would be easier than handling a Panoscan in the field, especially if you intend to carry it for any distance. Better quality to I would wager from the Phaseone.
Kevin.
