Single Row Panos - Are there advantages of using a T/S Lens?

[Panopeeper]

This is patently false

There is absolutely nothing false on that; your problem must be rather the understanding.

1. Ball-heads are totally useless for pano shooting; every three-way head is better. However, I wrote the exception in the very same post: if there is a swiweling platform on top of the ball-head. Your gear does include just this.

2. The fact that you shoot all your panos without a pano bracket means nothing. Perhaps the majority of my panos (several hundred) was shot hand held, and most of those shot on tripod was without my self-made pano bracket.

However, there are situations, when a bracket is necessary, and this discussion is just about that case.

I stand by my prior assertion that a pano head is entirely unnecessary for panos without foregrounds objects

No-one stated in this thread, that a pano head is always a required accessory; the issue is, what is better in situations, which require higher accuracy. You may never shoot indoor or architectural, but that does not make the discussion worthless.

[feppe]

There is absolutely nothing false on that; your problem must be rather the understanding.

1. Ball-heads are totally useless for pano shooting; every three-way head is better. However, I wrote the exception in the very same post: if there is a swiweling platform on top of the ball-head. Your gear does include just this.

2. The fact that you shoot all your panos without a pano bracket means nothing. Perhaps the majority of my panos (several hundred) was shot hand held, and most of those shot on tripod was without my self-made pano bracket.

However, there are situations, when a bracket is necessary, and this discussion is just about that case.


No-one stated in this thread, that a pano head is always a required accessory; the issue is, what is better in situations, which require higher accuracy. You may never shoot indoor or architectural, but that does not make the discussion worthless.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but all ball heads include a "swiveling platform" (although I'm not sure what you mean by that)?

I also didn't say someone claimed that pano head is a required accessory. I was merely pointing out that ball heads are perfectly adequate for many, if not most, pano shooting - but fully acknowledged there are plenty of situations where such a head is a must.

Finally, when I posted my original post, the OP had not specified whether there was foreground objects or if he was shooting interiors.

Anyway, back to regular programming.

[Panopeeper]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but all ball heads include a "swiveling platform" (although I'm not sure what you mean by that)?

Yesterday Stever mentioned Arca-Swiss, as a ball-head including a swiweling platform on the top. I went through the two-hundred some ball heads of B&W and found nothing else but that one.

Later Francois posted the picture of an RRS pano head WITH a pano clamp, i.e. the clamp is an addition, not part of the ball-head.  If your ball-head does include a swiweling platform (name it as you prefer to), then you have one of the very few such ball-heads (is there any other but Arca-Swiss?).

Do you mind posting what gear you use for pano shooting? (In my former post I mistakenly thought you had the RRS ball-head and pano clamp combination.)

[feppe]

Yesterday Stever mentioned Arca-Swiss, as a ball-head including a swiweling platform on the top. I went through the two-hundred some ball heads of B&W and found nothing else but that one.

Later Francois posted the picture of an RRS pano head WITH a pano clamp, i.e. the clamp is an addition, not part of the ball-head.  If your ball-head does include a swiweling platform (name it as you prefer to), then you have one of the very few such ball-heads (is there any other but Arca-Swiss?).

Do you mind posting what gear you use for pano shooting? (In my former post I mistakenly thought you had the RRS ball-head and pano clamp combination.)

Ok, then I have no idea what swiveling platform you're talking about.

My tripod is a very beat-up 11-year-old but fully functional Manfrotto 055C with 352RC ballhead with a quick-release plate, so nothing specifically designed for pano use.

[kers]

Hello everyone,

I'd like to start shooting some pano images and I am curious to know if there are advantages in using T/S lenses to shoot panos with today's advanced stitching software.  Specifically, If I shoot around the nodal point with a regular lens vs shifting with a T/S lens and stiching together my photographs would I notice a significant difference?

Thanks in advance,

Dave

coming back to where it all started,

Hello Dave,

I can do both and think there is no difference.

Using the shift lenses ( PCE Nikkor) I have to shift the nodal point back- left right or up down. and your total view is limited to the shift lens capabilities.
The good thing with the shift lenses is that when you work with them a lot - like i do- you can decide directly to make a "bigger picture'.( higher quality)
For 360 degrees pano's - There is no advantage only you could shift up and down ( but have to compensate) at each frame to get a higher quality and larger view.

Using non shift lenses - You have to have a precise nodal point. Only when the subject is close -  say less than 10 meters - it has to be precise at ca 1mm.
I use Really Right stuff pano equipment - also because of the unique centered L-plate they make for each body and the very good PCL-1 panning plate you put on top of your ballhead. Then you can make very high quality pano's with 6 photo's made with the 14-24mm lens at 14mm. ( or  I used to make this equipment myself but now i have a more vesatile tool that i can use with each lens i have.
For landscape pano's  starting from 10 m or so- you do not have to have any equipment but your finger that you hold upright and use to turn the lens - and your finger has to be at- about- your nodal point. Your pano's will be perfect.
PK

[Panopeeper]

Ok, then I have no idea what swiveling platform you're talking about.

My tripod is a very beat-up 11-year-old but fully functional Manfrotto 055C with 352RC ballhead with a quick-release plate

Well, pls explain, how you rotate/swiwel/position the camera from one frame to the next? What makes sure, that the next shot lines up with the previous one on a horizontal line?

In cleartext: what is the difference between shooting with your gear and shooting hand-held, except for the longer shutter time on the tripod?

Pls take a look at the Arca-Swiss ball-head with integrieted swiweling plate on the top of the ball-head.

[seangirard]

I use the Canon 45 and find it very easy to use in the field. Simple to make a composition (look through the viewfinder and turn the dial), quick to make movements/exposures, nice tight results that require little stretching of pixels to my eye. I like the field of view of a stitched 45 on the full 35mm frame. I shoot single rows, typically in portrait orientation to achieve a landscape or landscape orientation to achieve a portrait (4x5 or 2x3), but also sometimes a 2:1 pano. It is a sharp lens and also nice to be able to dial in a bit of tilt.

-sean

oh... how 'bout a pic?
[attachment=13517:boundary_mtns.jpg]

[feppe]

In cleartext: what is the difference between shooting with your gear and shooting hand-held, except for the longer shutter time on the tripod?

None. I just eyeball the overlap and horizontal/vertical alignment. Pano software takes care of the rest.

Still don't see a point for the Arca-Swiss head you linked to for the kind of shooting I do.

[Ben Rubinstein]

The only point I can see to needing a pano head on top of the ballhead is to facilitate nodal stitching should you believe that it's needed. As the need for stitching in a straight line will only actually give a 'straight' pano if the panning head is completely untilted there would be no difference between that and making sure the ballhead and QR are completely straight and panning from the base. Admittedly it would be more hassle. However given that the vast majority of pano's do not want to be exactly straight, levelling the camera in two planes does not make for interesting photos usually (horizon in the middle, etc), whether you have the pan from the base or the top doesn't actually make a straighter picture, you've introduced curvature in the motion of the panning by definition of the fact that you don't have the camera level in two planes. You will still need to either crop loose or shoot frames to cover the parts of the image lost by the curvature on the panning motion.

[Panopeeper]

None. I just eyeball the overlap and horizontal/vertical alignment

That's what I meant with the uselessness of the ball-head. You could do the same w/o tripod, except for the longer shutter time.

Pano software takes care of the rest

Pano software can not take care of missing parts due to "rugged" frames. If you are shooting a single-row pano and you are not rotating/panning/swiweling on a level plane, large cropping will be unavoidable.

Here is a demonstration of this aspect.

Still don't see a point for the Arca-Swiss head you linked to for the kind of shooting I do

It allows for panning on a level platform. This is easier than with my three-way head; I have to level the entire tripod, because the panning base is under the head - just like with the ball-heads. Life is much easier with that Acra-Swiss ball-head (or with a panning platform on top of another ballhead), for the tripod's position is irrelevant, leveling occurs by the ball-head, and the camera (or pano bracket) can be panned on that level surface.

[Panopeeper]

As the need for stitching in a straight line will only actually give a 'straight' pano if the panning head is completely untilted there would be no difference between that and making sure the ballhead and QR are completely straight and panning from the base

This is completely off-base. The orientation of the finished pano has nothing to do with the orientation of the camera.

The point is just that: rotating the camera on a level base, even though the camera itself may not be level. This is a must in many if not most situations; typical, when shooting from higher elevation downwards, like the following examples (some of those were shot hand-held, but the principle is the same, I try to do it hand-held as if I would do it from tripod):

Example downwards 1
Example downwards 2
Example downwards 3
Example downwards 4

or the opposite way, shooting upwards directed:

Example upwards 1
Example upwards 2

[feppe]

Pano software can not take care of missing parts due to "rugged" frames. If you are shooting a single-row pano and you are not rotating/panning/swiweling on a level plane, large cropping will be unavoidable.

Yeah, I learned this the hard way...

BTW, your website is down.

[Panopeeper]

your website is down

My pano website is crappy (very irregular); not down, but sometimes it takes a while to response (or it drops the request). However, it offers terrabytes of storage. I have another site, that is always up and fast, but I have only a few megabytes of storage, costing more than the pano site.

[Anders_HK]

Following is a good book on classical panoramic photography:

     Panoramic Photography
     by Lee Frost

     http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5605..._Panoramic.html

Not much in it at all about digital stitching, but excellent examples of well composed images and cameras specifically for panoramic photography.

Regards
Anders

[Ben Rubinstein]

The point is just that: rotating the camera on a level base, even though the camera itself may not be level. This is a must in many if not most situations;

Why? The only reason I can see as mentioned above is so as not to miss parts of what will end up being the finished frame. As such the rotating base of a ballhead will be as problematic/useful as a pano head on top. If you rotate using a pano head on top while the camera is pointed up or down then you will be panning in an arc. That is why unless the camera is level in two planes - you will need to shoot and extra row to make up for those parts of the images lost to the arc.

[Panopeeper]

Why? The only reason I can see as mentioned above is so as not to miss parts of what will end up being the finished frame

And is that not enough reason? Of course you don't have to shoot panos properly, you are allowed to create crap instead of panos, or to throw away the shots.

You could say you don't have to shoot even on tripod; you can simply discard those shots, which are blurry. Panning on a level plane guarantees, that this problem does not occur. That's all.

As such the rotating base of a ballhead will be as problematic/useful as a pano head on top. If you rotate using a pano head on top while the camera is pointed up or down then you will be panning in an arc

That's why I posted, that the rotating platform has to be on top of the ball-head. Look at this one (the only one I found with integrated panning on the top, but there are panning bases, which can be mounted on all or most normal ball-heads).



Its description says

The first noticeable difference is the "upside-down" design of this ballhead. Instead of having a ball that rests inside a ball-housing, the entire P1's ball-housing sits on top of the ball ... The panning system is unconventionally located above the ball, just below the camera mount. This allows the 360° panoramic rotation to be kept in line with the vertical axis

Unfortunately, this toy costs US$500 and weights 580gr. RRS's BH-55 PCL (a combination of a ball-head and a rotating clamp) comes at $575, a smaller one, the BH-40 PCL costs $515; I don't find the weight specs at RRS.

[DarkPenguin]

I have an acratech leveling base under my Kirk BH3.  So you level that.  The BH3 swivels at its base but that base is level and so long as the camera above it is also level everything should be golden.

[Panopeeper]

I found the weight specs for RRS: the larger one weights 955gr, but that's far too strong (up to 23kg), the next size weights 660gr, load up to 8kg.

These come with built-in spirit level. I don't know how the Arca-Swiss is supposed to be levelled.

[Panopeeper]

I have an acratech leveling base under my Kirk BH3.  So you level that.  The BH3 swivels at its base but that base is level and so long as the camera above it is also level everything should be golden.

The camera does no need to be level; in fact, in many cases it can not be level.

Anyway, that combination works, but the BH3 plays no role; shooting with a pano bracket is even easier without that.

[Luis Argerich]

Very nice thread, I'm still not settled on the best combo in pracicity/precision for my panos. I made a panohead that is good but not a joy to use, the ballhead is very much useless as panopeeper said except for leveling the panohead.
Of course my biggest problem is that living in Argentina I can't get and/or afford many of the gear mentioned here so what is the best from my limited options is still a mistery.
I have to keep thinking.