Panoramic photography questions

[jools230575]

Afternoon all!

I have some questions in my head which I know someone out there knows the answers to.

At the moment, one thing I like doing when I'm out and about is panoramics. However, I don't go overboard and do the 360° ones that you see out there.

Now, in the past there were things like the Fuji 6x17 as well as 2x1 cameras. Now to my questions.

Firstly, does anyone know the angle of view on the Fuji 180mm and 300mm lenses? I've found the 90mm and 105mm.

Secondly, does anyone know what the equivilent 35mm lens is to the 90mm, 105mm, 180mm and 300mm?

Lastly, how far around my tripod would the camera have to go in order to recreate the view as seen by the traditional Fuji 6x17 setup? For example, I use the equivilent of the 90mm lens and then look down at my tripod at the degrees markings, how much?

Anyone able to help???

THANKS!!!

Jools

[NikoJorj]

Evening Sir,

It's as simple as

Focal length vs. Horizontal AoV on 6x17
180mm             56°
300mm             33°

For the 35mm eq., do you need it to be horizontally (to englobe the whole framing and then crop) or vertically (the lens to use for stitching) equivalent?

[Anders_HK]

Lastly, how far around my tripod would the camera have to go in order to recreate the view as seen by the traditional Fuji 6x17 setup?

I would argue that to recreate that view you will have to use flat stitching, e.g. on an Alpa camera. Thus use a flat stitch that gives same/similar proportions and a lens that is equivalent in focal to the 617 lens in view height and width.

Else it will not look same.

Regards
Anders

[jools230575]

I'd use either the camera in a vertical or horizontal position. And thanks for the maths

Anders, I know it won't be the same but if I can get close to it then I'll be happy

[NikoJorj]

Else it will not look same.

Not the same, but very close if one chooses a rectilinear projection while stitching (don't forget to put the reference point vertically on horizon / center of image).
One of the beauties of stitching is that you can make the same shoot look like a Noblex one if you want, just choose a cylindrical projection (and adjust vertical shift as wanted).

[Anders_HK]

Not the same, but very close if one chooses a rectilinear projection while stitching

A 90mm is one of most classical focal lengths on 617 (while some prefer 72mm or 105mm). A 90 is on 35mm sensor terms equal to a 38mm lens vertical and 19mm lens on horizontal (72 would be 31 and 15, 105 would be 45 and 22). That I maintain is much too crude (wide) to get very close to using dslr techniques by rotating camera. Instead a tech camera with digital back is best tool; http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/does_equipment_affect_creativity_some_new_jewels_from_alpa.shtml, and also the lenses for such are large format lenses with a different character, but lets not touch on that...

Best I have seen with a dslr is http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2789&highlight=jerusalem . I recall asking him at one point of how he composed, because unlike most stitches his seem very well composed. Per what I recall he replied he used a zoom and used one setting for composition, assuming image split in two at horizontal, then zoom out to half that focal or similar. That begs the issue of how to accurate compose a panoramic image. It appears that many using both dslr and tech camera appear to be of a faith to compose without any viewing tool simply by looking at a scene, and which per my eye tend to result in not so well composed images... A quality panoramic viewfinder would be ideal.

I have shot some 617 the last two years and now use only digital back, thus clearly heading towards a tech camera and a question of time. There is also always the possibility to make one shot and crop.

Regards
Anders

[KevinA]

I would argue that to recreate that view you will have to use flat stitching, e.g. on an Alpa camera. Thus use a flat stitch that gives same/similar proportions and a lens that is equivalent in focal to the 617 lens in view height and width.

Else it will not look same.

Regards
Anders

You are right, spinning a camera on a tripod is a different effect to shooting one projection.

Kevin.

www.treewithoutabird.com

[jools230575]

Interesting stuff. I've so far stayed away from doing vertical panos because of the converging verticals. I wonder exactly how he did them.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

That begs the issue of how to accurate compose a panoramic image. It appears that many using both dslr and tech camera appear to be of a faith to compose without any viewing tool simply by looking at a scene, and which per my eye tend to result in not so well composed images... A quality panoramic viewfinder would be ideal.

Hi Anders,

I suppose it differs from person to person. I compose without the viewfinder, in fact I rarely raise the camera to my eye (or set up the tripod) unless I already know it's worthwhile. What's more, the best scenes do not fit a fixed aspect ratio. Some are best with a bit with a more square aspect ratio, others more stretched.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

You are right, spinning a camera on a tripod is a different effect to shooting one projection.

Hi Kevin,

While the shooting activity is different, the (rectilinear) projection can be exactly the same.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Interesting stuff. I've so far stayed away from doing vertical panos because of the converging verticals. I wonder exactly how he did them.

It's up to the user of the software to decide whether the verticals converge or not. It's quite simple, and if the verticals are really vertical then the software can do it automatically and more accurate than we can.

Cheers,
Bart

[Anders_HK]

What's more, the best scenes do not fit a fixed aspect ratio. Some are best with a bit with a more square aspect ratio, others more stretched.

Disagree completely. The magic of 617 is precisely its fixed aspect ratio, and to see and compose within that ratio. This enables us to command it! I like 617 with a 90mm, it lends a certain magic to the images, and coincidentally the 90 on 617 actually combines two of my favorite focals (which I did not realize until I after I had shot 617 with 90...), one in the horizontal, the other in the vertical.   In my opinion that is precisely what gives the magic character on 617 to me. 72mm is tad wider, at times more impressive and striking if composed very carefully but not as versatile as 90, and for my taste 105mm is not suffice wide. 612 gives a complete different impact due to its aspect ratio, it gives a much stronger impact to me and to my taste too strong, but the images that strike me most in 612 are the ones with a 58mm. With an Alpa STC and a FF 645 sensor the aspect ratio when stitching becomes a little wider than 612 aspect ratio, to my eye that too is very, very interesting, feeling like you can step into an image if imagining it as if it was a large print. So, in essence I do not agree that a scene not fit a fixed aspect ratio. I am of opinion that it is complete the opposite. It instead depends on our experience to visualize with a specific aspect ratio and lens, for those are the tools we as photographers choose. That is also why we need a viewfinder (a tool) in order to very precisely be able to visualize and compose the image. Each focal and lens becomes like a personality with which we can see and visualize the image. Thus in essence I actually see it complete opposite and that just 2-3 focals or even one can do when I am out shooting. If the scene do not "fit" I merely move until it does and I capture it with the vision that I seek.  

Speaking of more aspect ratios, I do not like 3:2 looks too wide without being suffice wide, I do like 4:5 and 4:3, it is all about vision...  

[Anders_HK]

Something to consider is perhaps to buy a used 617 or 612 camera for film. With such it takes just one shot to capture a panoramic image. Fuji Velvia 50 is legendary film for landscape. 

Alternatively there is the Hasselblad X-pan or Fuji equivalent that takes 35mm film...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My view is that the choice of cropping is an artistic tool. One can use a fixed aspect ration and adjust the subject to fit the aspect ratio, or fit the aspect ration to subject.

My experience is that choice of viewpoint is seldom free. Obviously, if you stand on the top of a mountain you cannot just move back 500 m, unless you are levitated. I often adjust position perhaps 15 cm not meter!

Of course, mostly we don't stand on mountain tops, but moving around changes the proportions between subjects. So moving means that you will have a different perspective. In these situations a zoom lens is a blessing.

Using any equipment is of course an artistic choice. No choice is better than any other. Some photographers make great pictures on film, some make great images on digital using rotational panos and software. Both approaches are fine and valid, at least in my view.

Best regards
Erik

Disagree completely. The magic of 617 is precisely its fixed aspect ratio, and to see and compose within that ratio. This enables us to command it! I like 617 with a 90mm, it lends a certain magic to the images, and coincidentally the 90 on 617 actually combines two of my favorite focals (which I did not realize until I after I had shot 617 with 90...), one in the horizontal, the other in the vertical.   In my opinion that is precisely what gives the magic character on 617 to me. 72mm is tad wider, at times more impressive and striking if composed very carefully but not as versatile as 90, and for my taste 105mm is not suffice wide. 612 gives a complete different impact due to its aspect ratio, it gives a much stronger impact to me and to my taste too strong, but the images that strike me most in 612 are the ones with a 58mm. With an Alpa STC and a FF 645 sensor the aspect ratio when stitching becomes a little wider than 612 aspect ratio, to my eye that too is very, very interesting, feeling like you can step into an image if imagining it as if it was a large print. So, in essence I do not agree that a scene not fit a fixed aspect ratio. I am of opinion that it is complete the opposite. It instead depends on our experience to visualize with a specific aspect ratio and lens, for those are the tools we as photographers choose. That is also why we need a viewfinder (a tool) in order to very precisely be able to visualize and compose the image. Each focal and lens becomes like a personality with which we can see and visualize the image. Thus in essence I actually see it complete opposite and that just 2-3 focals or even one can do when I am out shooting. If the scene do not "fit" I merely move until it does and I capture it with the vision that I seek.  

Speaking of more aspect ratios, I do not like 3:2 looks too wide without being suffice wide, I do like 4:5 and 4:3, it is all about vision...  

[KevinA]

Never looks that way to me. I had a Linhof 612 for a time, I preferred that look to what I get when stitching, then again I do stitch much wider than the 65mm on the Linhof gave me. http://kevinallen.photodeck.com/-/galleries/panoramic-london


Kevin.
www.treewithoutabird.com