GKPE 7 - And Still Going! Still Friendly and Still The BEST!

Apparently the 63mm is for both eyes (IIRC) and according to one Leica nerd I used to work with, they once made a lens at that focal length to kinda prove a point. I have however drawn a blank after 30sec of Googling. Couldn't be bothered looking for longer than that...

FOR SALE

http://www.trademe.co.​nz …aspx?ed=true&id​=277703544

also available

70 - 200 f2.8 IS
24 - 70 f2.8
50 mm f1.4

if anyone interested email me chrisjbennett@xtra.co.​nz

momentz wrote in post #9792058
meh, any tips for focal length for panos?

use whatever focal for framing up what you're shooting.

e.g. 16mm on 1.3x crop (excuse the hotspot blobbies at regular intervals)

http://joeseph101.serv​ebbs.com …titled_Panorama​1-1200.jpg

e.g. 100mm on 1.6x crop

http://joeseph101.serv​ebbs.com …0pano%20wanaka%​20x800.jpg

manipula wrote in post #9792089
IMO the banding once you've got WB and exposure manually set, is largely the fault of the software.

^what he said. I'd add that it is possible to "flatten image" in PS3 instead of "merge layers" that results in banding.

weka2000 wrote in post #9792559
Bloody computers

I'd start with the theory that the fire wall is broken, either in or out, or both. You're looking to add TCP 3389 or whatever Bill chooses to call the application to the list of allowed stuff...

CS4 is pretty good at panos.

manipula wrote in post #9792089
They reckon 63mm is the same field of view as the natural eye

weka2000 wrote in post #9792535
Now is that 63 with both eyes open or just 1

The 63 mm thing relates to perpective, or the apparent separation between foreground and background objects, not to field of view.

We have approximately 140 degrees of binocular vision. This is a wider field of view than even the Sigma 12-24mm on full frame....

weka2000 wrote in post #9792535
Now is that 63 with both eyes open or just 1 and yes it is a serious question. Close 1 eye and thas what the camera sees 2D not 3D.
I always find before I take a shot esp landscapes close 1 eye and then see what it looks like

Ive done panos from 17mm - 500mm

In years gone by it was the 50 mm lens (on 35 mm format slr, or full frame) that was said to be closest to human eye view, which is why the film cameras came with 50 mm as standard equipment. The compacts of course had shorter lens, to compensate for being closer to the film plane.

One eye is correct as far as I am concerned, there were also stereo twin lens cameras which gave the three d effect of two eyes, they took 2 image at once and were viewed through special viewers, with two eye pieces. Cumbersome but they did work.

A kiwi wedding photog takes top prize

http://tvnz.co.nz …ding-photographer-3415191

manipula wrote in post #9780417
= tits up.

The only way to sunbathe.

Nzshrimper wrote in post #9792843
FOR SALE

If I don't find something to get my interest back, I'll be doing the same.

Potisdad wrote in post #9792889
The 63 mm thing relates to perpective, or the apparent separation between foreground and background objects, not to field of view.

We have approximately 140 degrees of binocular vision. This is a wider field of view than even the Sigma 12-24mm on full frame....

Yeah full peripheral vision is waaay wide, but the central section where you accurately focus etc is what the 50/63 relates to isn't it? The 50mm being I guess the field of view which is approximate to that central vision, and the 63mm being the equivalent perspective?

Dunno...

All I know is after much messing about, the software could get the same results whether I shot at 24 or 100mm. It only really made a difference when things were close to the camera axis. Also where the panoramic head came in handy, not su much for all this nodal point stuff, but for the ability to accurately relate one shot to the next time after time.

Hi Tag btw!

Nzshrimper wrote in post #9792843
FOR SALE

tag141 wrote in post #9793132
If I don't find something to get my interest back, I'll be doing the same.

I feel the same but wont sell cause took me to long to get what I wanted.
Funny how changes in our lives can have such a profound effect on our photography.
I guess we put a lot of our "feelings" into our work, when they get messed up it follows through.

Chris e-mail sent

joeseph wrote in post #9792847
I'd start with the theory that the fire wall is broken, either in or out, or both. You're looking to add TCP 3389 or whatever Bill chooses to call the application to the list of allowed stuff...

I know what the problem is and the fix but on TMG they have moved a few things and cant find it.

http://forums.isaserve​r.org …_1/key_/tm.htm#​2002098632
step 4 dosnt exist on TMG

manipula wrote in post #9793229
Yeah full peripheral vision is waaay wide, but the central section where you accurately focus etc is what the 50/63 relates to isn't it? The 50mm being I guess the field of view which is approximate to that central vision, and the 63mm being the equivalent perspective?

True, that is probably what the 50/63mm refers to. It is all a bit silly really since the capabilities of our eyes are so much greater than any lens. All of the questions like "What is the maximum aperture/ ISO/effective resolution/dymnamic range of our eyes?"

manipula wrote in post #9793229
All I know is after much messing about, the software could get the same results whether I shot at 24 or 100mm. It only really made a difference when things were close to the camera axis. Also where the panoramic head came in handy, not su much for all this nodal point stuff, but for the ability to accurately relate one shot to the next time after time.

I find using a wider lens just means I crop off a lot more foreground and sky. The 50mm lens orientated vertically has about vertical 40 degrees angle of view - which is plenty for most scenes I find.

I use about 28mm (28-70) and Hugin to do the donkey work.