Thank you for your interest!
>The IQ difference between #1 and #2 depends strongly on what kind of scene is being shot. If there are only distant objects in the shot, #1 is fine. As closer objects are included, switching to #2 becomes more important.
Yes I understand that
>What kind of scenes do you plan to shoot?
The closer ones of your gorgeous! "white-bristlecone" images would be typical for the distance range (and for the choice of subject as well).
>The weight difference between a normal tripod and a good CF tripod is more than the weight of the Nodal Ninja.
The "problem" here is that I have that CF tripod on beforehand ;-) so I can't save more on that. But if there is anything lighter than this 700 grams Gitzo GT 0530, I'm all ears...
> You say "no weight - almost". Try taking a look at the Nodal Ninja pano head. It's only a few ounces. I have gotten that head up to 17K (feet) and I'm in my eighth decade.
I have never been strong. And now, at 68, I'm weakened by Lyme disease on top of old age. Every up-hilling is HARD - even WITHOUT ANY luggage. -
I have on this occasion re-visited the NodalNinja site: "NN3 MKII weighs only 1lb 1oz (475 grams)" That is without QR plates, leveller, ...
Of course, the advantage is that it would work with ALL focal lengths.
A question is also: Have I gotten this right: Even pano stitches obtained by method 2 have to be treated by software, transformed from barrel to rectangular (apart from the blending). A form of software perspective correction including interpolation, right? In principle much like the treatment necessary with method 1, correct? In other words like what we try to avoid with hardware shifting. How good is this compared to method 4? In other words: panning around the entrance pupil avoids parallax, but not converging verticals - correct?
And I still would not have hardware shifting for perspective correction (without stitching).
Method 4, "shift stitching", OTOH, implies extolling the image circle. - Uff, it's difficult to look through!
BR - Hening.