These are amazing but I would never try it for typical landscapes/architecture. On occasion I have created pano stitched images of the horizon using an FD 55/1.2 Aspherical, EF 70-200/4 L and EF 300/2.8 L. I always shift the lens rather than the body and rarely/never have parallax problems. I can do so without any distortion associated with pano stitching. With shift lenses and the use of focus stacking I regularly shoot with subjects inches from the lens and out to infinity in sharp focus. I recently started using medium format lenses and a shift adapter to achieve the view of an 18mm to 28mm lens with 150 to 200MP equivalent sensor sizes. I have been doing so with a Canon 17 TS-E for over 10 years to achieve the view of an 11 to 12mm lens with 85MP equivalent sensor size on the 5DSR. I have chosen shifting/stitching over typical pano/stitching. Piece of cake!Īnd avoid the 50 and stick with the 16-35 if you can get only one lens. The disadvantage: It's more work, but really, how tough is it to feed six or eight raws into Lightroom or Microsoft ICE and wait a couple of minutes. To sum up the panorama advantages : Very low distortion, dead sharp sides and corners, correct geometry, fewer pyramid shaped buildings or other vertical subjects, vastly greater resolution, much wider field of view out beyond 180 degrees if desired.
#Deghosting in ptgui pro software#
Most pano software usually has an adjustable deghosting feature which will usually eliminate any duplicate portions of each image.
#Deghosting in ptgui pro series#
Shoot your series, than another and then a third time such that you can peep each series and discard for any possible motion blur. The workaround is really very easy, handheld or tripod: shoot fast and maintain about a shot per second.
Superwide bloat and distortion has been responsible for far more lousy landscapes than a few extra twigs in a pano, which by the way is why every pano person should have Photoshop, but that's a subject for a different thread. Just because there might be a tiny bit of duplication here and there on the pixel peep? Hell no! But are we to give up that fantastic ultrawide seascape
If you want a wide field of view and don't want the background subject reduced to a flattened pimple with bloated sides and foreground, I recommend a pano almost every time.Īgain and again we hear the old maxim that sky, waves, branches, even poor innocent clouds will ruin your pano, but such is not usually the case. Would love to hear any personal experience or recommendations for this? Is the commentary correct? The majority of my shooting will be parks with high grasses, trees and water as I am not in a mountainous area, so my subjects are much more likely to have motion. The comments section seemed split, with folks saying it works great for large static landscapes (like mountain ranges) but poorly when there is movement (such as trees in wind, water, etc.). The interesting concept that was brought up was using a 50mm prime to shoot landscape and then stitching photos together. I thought I had settled on the 16-35, but this video brought up an interesting concept. I've been renting the RF 16-35mm and will look to make a purchase of that or a 50mm in the next six months. I've been watching lots of videos and came across an interesting one that spoke about different focal length pros and cons. Am looking to start getting much more into landscape photography as I am learning.