04-10-2018, 06:05 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2018, 06:15 AM by JJ_SO.
Edit Reason: additional thoughts
)
I'm sorry, I've a hard time to follow this logic, obican. But maybe I think the wrong path along?
Each FF also can do APS-C size shots at roughly the same pixel density, meaning, can perform the same stitching - which on the other hand is something for static objects. Exclusively static objects... with preferably no light change during the whole shot collection for the Gigapixel panorama. Btw. which printer can do these?
Not to mention the contradictionary relation of camera weight an size plus tripod, nodal-point device and probably motorized tripod head, because moving the cameras in two or three horizontal rows is a rather dull thing to do. Not to mention PC time to collect and compute a nice stitch. With transformations needed, so interpolation comes into play as well and gone are the rectangular clean resolutions.
Also, I know a Canon shooter using a 100 Sonnar for his Gigapixel panos - in architecture. Now you try to tell me, using a teleconverter on a ultra wide is the thing to do? No metabone reducer, a teleconverter? Don't know about the Canon types, but Nikon and Fuji would crash the rear element of an ultra wide angle, such as a 17mm is.
Edit: Alright, on second thought I got the idea you're shifting the PC lens from right to left, so no nodal-ado. And so what? The PC lenses are made for FF, so I take a 19 or 24 mm and do the same trick to even more ridiculously high res numbers - but for what?
Each FF also can do APS-C size shots at roughly the same pixel density, meaning, can perform the same stitching - which on the other hand is something for static objects. Exclusively static objects... with preferably no light change during the whole shot collection for the Gigapixel panorama. Btw. which printer can do these?
Not to mention the contradictionary relation of camera weight an size plus tripod, nodal-point device and probably motorized tripod head, because moving the cameras in two or three horizontal rows is a rather dull thing to do. Not to mention PC time to collect and compute a nice stitch. With transformations needed, so interpolation comes into play as well and gone are the rectangular clean resolutions.
Also, I know a Canon shooter using a 100 Sonnar for his Gigapixel panos - in architecture. Now you try to tell me, using a teleconverter on a ultra wide is the thing to do? No metabone reducer, a teleconverter? Don't know about the Canon types, but Nikon and Fuji would crash the rear element of an ultra wide angle, such as a 17mm is.
Edit: Alright, on second thought I got the idea you're shifting the PC lens from right to left, so no nodal-ado. And so what? The PC lenses are made for FF, so I take a 19 or 24 mm and do the same trick to even more ridiculously high res numbers - but for what?