Panos Gone Wild?

CreationBear · 11-27-2015, 08:35 AM

A question for you photographers who usually hike-in for your landscape work: how important to you is it (if at all) for you to be able to do "technical" panoramas (i.e with nodal slides, pan heads, etc.) in the field? And if it is, does single-row usually suffice, or are you in-for-a-penny, in-for-a-pound with a full multi-row set-up?

As a newbie, it's pretty easy for me to see the utility of a new lens (understatement of the year?

) but I'm a bit uncertain of the ROI of a full pano kit--both in terms of money and weight--especially since it would probably mean pimping out my Manfrotto 410 with a lot of Hejnar products.

Any thoughts greatly appreciated!

**baro-nite** · 11-27-2015, 11:07 AM - **1 Like**

Depends on why you're stitching (file size? angle of view? aspect ratio?, bokeh pano?), the nature of the composition (especially regarding close subjects), and to some extent on the stitching software. Forum user kh1234567890 has posted lots of handheld panos including close subjects and there seem to be no problems.

I have enough gadgets to do multi-row, but it's been a while since I've stitched more than a single row. Using a panning clamp, mounting the camera at the back of the clamp gets pretty close to the no-parallax point without additional panning gear. But since you have a Manfrotto 410, where the camera sits away from the pan axis anyway, it's possible to get the no-parallax point precisely.

I've been doing some film panos recently, and kind of wish I had a panning clamp with click stops instead of having to eyeball the rotation between shots. But I've just acquired a 6x17 camera so I don't think I'll invest in a new panning clamp.

CreationBear · 11-27-2015, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by baro-nite

But I've just acquired a 6x17 camera

You might be the first one on your block...

I'll definitely look forward to seeing some samples, though I imagine it takes a print to get the full impact of such an image.

At any rate, thanks for the insights--it might be a case where it will take a trial-and-error approach to see what's essential and what can be fudged; for instance, I'm really curious as to how much of a difference having the lens axis offset from the 410's yaw axis makes out in the real world. It might be the case that just sticking a 498RC4 in the bag (with or without a dedicated pano base) might be the hack, though you're still left with the problem of there not being much in the way of compact L-brackets for the Manfrotto QR clamps.

Basie · 11-27-2015, 12:54 PM

I do take a fair amount of pano's on the field. Usually not hiking, but I always use just hand held The one from th penguins was a moving rubber duck. SO if the subject is a little forgiving you can get by with hand held

AdrianM · 11-27-2015, 01:27 PM - **1 Like**

Except for night time panos, I find that I can hand-hold a 15mm lens on the K3 down to about 1/10th of a second, so I usually skip the weight of a technical setup. Just came back from 3 weeks in the UK and took lots of panos, including early evening, and my tripod didn't get used once.

Attached pano is four shots taken hand-held from a ferry coming into Ullapool from Stornoway.

**Quartermaster James** · 11-27-2015, 03:08 PM

Handheld for the most part. Light willing, of course.
Usually multiple rows. I'd rather get information I don't end up using than end up wishing for shots not taken.

CreationBear · 11-27-2015, 05:45 PM

Thanks for the input, gents!

Good to know you're getting good results handheld--I might have been making things harder than they have to be.

wkraus · 11-28-2015, 05:07 AM

Seeing the unaninmity on this topic, I feel I must push a bit in the other direction. A well-established strategy for interesting images with a wide FOV is to include some of the close foreground for a sense of perspective and scale. This will generally not work without a proper pano head. However, the setup is not necessarily very expensive. I combined mine from parts I purchased separately and it works just fine.
OTOH, if all you want to include in your image is roughly at the same distance hand-held will be OK in many cases.

CreationBear · 11-28-2015, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by wkraus

I feel I must push a bit in the other direction

Excellent, "contrarians" are most welcome!

I was sweating the "entrance pupil"/parallax issue for precisely that reason--for composition reasons, but also simply because the environment in my part of the world seldom includes wide vistas or clear overlooks. That said, I'm still not sure that I couldn't substitute a UWA focal length for a single-row pano in most cases--except that I tend to like the "compression" of the standard/short tele look better in most cases.

mikeSF · 11-28-2015, 06:29 AM

I shoot panos on every outing and find the extra hardware for nodal adjustment to be very destabilizing(wiggly) to the system and not worth the hassle. Most current stitching software can handle parallax well unless you have something very close and in all my pano shooting, i have never placed an object so close my software could not reasonably stitch it. Put that money toward a new lens and be happy. good luck!

I once did a 66 frame pano (3 rows x 22 horiz frames) just using a ball head...don't need no stinking pan head, lol.

**baro-nite** · 11-28-2015, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by CreationBear

That said, I'm still not sure that I couldn't substitute a UWA focal length for a single-row pano in most cases--except that I tend to like the "compression" of the standard/short tele look better in most cases.

This isn't a property of the lens. When you stitch, you effectively transform your lens into a wide(r) angle lens. Crop from a wide angle lens and you'll see the same compression you get from a tele. Stitching gets you more resolution if you want to print large; it allows you (well, the software) to create impossibly wide and/or fast lenses, but it doesn't change the perspective you and your camera have from where you're standing.

CreationBear · 11-28-2015, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by mikeSF

don't need no stinking pan head

Ha, but it occurs to me that you're playing on a whole 'nother level.

I hadn't considered the software aspect to the question, but it would be nice not to lug any more ounces up the hill than I have to--my load-out, even with "compact" Pentax gear is a bit out of control right now.

Baro-nite--that's a great point, I'd forgotten about the "crop" part of stitching...much to learn!

wkraus · 11-28-2015, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by mikeSF

Most current stitching software can handle parallax well unless you have something very close and in all my pano shooting, i have never placed an object so close my software could not reasonably stitch it.

My software (Hugin) begs to differ. That's what it tells my about the project I'm just stitching (but I have to admit that this is exceptional):

mikeSF · 11-28-2015, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by wkraus

My software (Hugin) begs to differ. That's what it tells my about the project I'm just stitching (but I have to admit that this is exceptional):

hmm, let's see the screenshot of your frame arrangement. I get that message in Hugin when I haven't overlapped enough, esp with wide angle FL's or lenses with some barrel distortion. How close is your foreground object that is causing the parallax?

wkraus · 11-28-2015, 11:58 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by mikeSF

hmm, let's see the screenshot of your frame arrangement. I get that message in Hugin when I haven't overlapped enough, esp with wide angle FL's or lenses with some barrel distortion. How close is your foreground object that is causing the parallax?

Thanks, but it's not so serious. It just fitted so nicely. I have lots of overlap in my project. I cleaned up a few outlying control points and now it appears to be working fine (it's stitching right now).

11-27-2015, 08:35 AM	#1
CreationBear Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 2,415	Panos Gone Wild? A question for you photographers who usually hike-in for your landscape work: how important to you is it (if at all) for you to be able to do "technical" panoramas (i.e with nodal slides, pan heads, etc.) in the field? And if it is, does single-row usually suffice, or are you in-for-a-penny, in-for-a-pound with a full multi-row set-up? As a newbie, it's pretty easy for me to see the utility of a new lens (understatement of the year?) but I'm a bit uncertain of the ROI of a full pano kit--both in terms of money and weight--especially since it would probably mean pimping out my Manfrotto 410 with a lot of Hejnar products. Any thoughts greatly appreciated!

11-27-2015, 03:08 PM	#6
Quartermaster James Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 653	Handheld for the most part. Light willing, of course. Usually multiple rows. I'd rather get information I don't end up using than end up wishing for shots not taken. Last edited by Quartermaster James; 11-28-2015 at 07:44 AM.

11-28-2015, 11:37 AM	#13
wkraus Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Near Vienna, Austria Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,065	Originally posted by mikeSF Most current stitching software can handle parallax well unless you have something very close and in all my pano shooting, i have never placed an object so close my software could not reasonably stitch it. My software (Hugin) begs to differ. That's what it tells my about the project I'm just stitching (but I have to admit that this is exceptional): Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Folders gone wild (K-3 II)	Zafar Iqbal	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	4	11-22-2015 07:11 PM
Nature Ocean Gone Wild	Den	Post Your Photos!	8	04-11-2013 09:39 AM
Macro Wild Flowers Gone Wild!	WillH	Post Your Photos!	9	10-11-2012 09:31 AM
Night supermoon gone wild	shiner	Post Your Photos!	2	05-06-2012 12:17 AM
Photography Gone Wild	dafiryde	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	13	10-28-2008 08:27 AM

11-27-2015, 11:07 AM - 1 Like	#2
baro-nite Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: North Carolina, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,295	Depends on why you're stitching (file size? angle of view? aspect ratio?, bokeh pano?), the nature of the composition (especially regarding close subjects), and to some extent on the stitching software. Forum user kh1234567890 has posted lots of handheld panos including close subjects and there seem to be no problems. I have enough gadgets to do multi-row, but it's been a while since I've stitched more than a single row. Using a panning clamp, mounting the camera at the back of the clamp gets pretty close to the no-parallax point without additional panning gear. But since you have a Manfrotto 410, where the camera sits away from the pan axis anyway, it's possible to get the no-parallax point precisely. I've been doing some film panos recently, and kind of wish I had a panning clamp with click stops instead of having to eyeball the rotation between shots. But I've just acquired a 6x17 camera so I don't think I'll invest in a new panning clamp.

11-27-2015, 11:39 AM	#3
CreationBear Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 2,415 Original Poster	Originally posted by baro-nite But I've just acquired a 6x17 camera You might be the first one on your block... I'll definitely look forward to seeing some samples, though I imagine it takes a print to get the full impact of such an image. At any rate, thanks for the insights--it might be a case where it will take a trial-and-error approach to see what's essential and what can be fudged; for instance, I'm really curious as to how much of a difference having the lens axis offset from the 410's yaw axis makes out in the real world. It might be the case that just sticking a 498RC4 in the bag (with or without a dedicated pano base) might be the hack, though you're still left with the problem of there not being much in the way of compact L-brackets for the Manfrotto QR clamps.

11-27-2015, 12:54 PM	#4
Basie Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Windhoek, Namibia Photos: Gallery Posts: 990	I do take a fair amount of pano's on the field. Usually not hiking, but I always use just hand held The one from th penguins was a moving rubber duck. SO if the subject is a little forgiving you can get by with hand held

11-27-2015, 05:45 PM	#7
CreationBear Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 2,415 Original Poster	Thanks for the input, gents! Good to know you're getting good results handheld--I might have been making things harder than they have to be.

11-28-2015, 05:07 AM	#8
wkraus Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Near Vienna, Austria Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,065	Seeing the unaninmity on this topic, I feel I must push a bit in the other direction. A well-established strategy for interesting images with a wide FOV is to include some of the close foreground for a sense of perspective and scale. This will generally not work without a proper pano head. However, the setup is not necessarily very expensive. I combined mine from parts I purchased separately and it works just fine. OTOH, if all you want to include in your image is roughly at the same distance hand-held will be OK in many cases.

11-28-2015, 05:32 AM	#9
CreationBear Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 2,415 Original Poster	Originally posted by wkraus I feel I must push a bit in the other direction Excellent, "contrarians" are most welcome! I was sweating the "entrance pupil"/parallax issue for precisely that reason--for composition reasons, but also simply because the environment in my part of the world seldom includes wide vistas or clear overlooks. That said, I'm still not sure that I couldn't substitute a UWA focal length for a single-row pano in most cases--except that I tend to like the "compression" of the standard/short tele look better in most cases.

11-28-2015, 06:29 AM	#10
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,622	I shoot panos on every outing and find the extra hardware for nodal adjustment to be very destabilizing(wiggly) to the system and not worth the hassle. Most current stitching software can handle parallax well unless you have something very close and in all my pano shooting, i have never placed an object so close my software could not reasonably stitch it. Put that money toward a new lens and be happy. good luck! I once did a 66 frame pano (3 rows x 22 horiz frames) just using a ball head...don't need no stinking pan head, lol.

11-28-2015, 06:46 AM	#11
baro-nite Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: North Carolina, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,295	Originally posted by CreationBear That said, I'm still not sure that I couldn't substitute a UWA focal length for a single-row pano in most cases--except that I tend to like the "compression" of the standard/short tele look better in most cases. This isn't a property of the lens. When you stitch, you effectively transform your lens into a wide(r) angle lens. Crop from a wide angle lens and you'll see the same compression you get from a tele. Stitching gets you more resolution if you want to print large; it allows you (well, the software) to create impossibly wide and/or fast lenses, but it doesn't change the perspective you and your camera have from where you're standing.

11-28-2015, 10:42 AM	#12
CreationBear Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 2,415 Original Poster	Originally posted by mikeSF don't need no stinking pan head Ha, but it occurs to me that you're playing on a whole 'nother level. I hadn't considered the software aspect to the question, but it would be nice not to lug any more ounces up the hill than I have to--my load-out, even with "compact" Pentax gear is a bit out of control right now. Baro-nite--that's a great point, I'd forgotten about the "crop" part of stitching...much to learn!

11-28-2015, 11:44 AM	#14
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,622	Originally posted by wkraus My software (Hugin) begs to differ. That's what it tells my about the project I'm just stitching (but I have to admit that this is exceptional): hmm, let's see the screenshot of your frame arrangement. I get that message in Hugin when I haven't overlapped enough, esp with wide angle FL's or lenses with some barrel distortion. How close is your foreground object that is causing the parallax?

11-28-2015, 11:58 AM - 1 Like	#15
wkraus Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Near Vienna, Austria Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,065	Originally posted by mikeSF hmm, let's see the screenshot of your frame arrangement. I get that message in Hugin when I haven't overlapped enough, esp with wide angle FL's or lenses with some barrel distortion. How close is your foreground object that is causing the parallax? Thanks, but it's not so serious. It just fitted so nicely. I have lots of overlap in my project. I cleaned up a few outlying control points and now it appears to be working fine (it's stitching right now).