Hi, through this photo I would like to tell you about a serious problem with my pentax kit. There is no real 10mm. Basically I do a lot of architectural photography and I often find myself
in extreme situations, where I can't go further back or higher. In this case my tripod was very high since the reflex was placed on an extra Manfrotto 290, so I shot from about 1.80mt, but
in order not to have falling, oblique or crooked lines more than this I could not do, however I got too close to the end of the highest tower. In short, with me there was a friend with his
Sony A7riii and a Voigtlander 10mm f 5.6e he shot from my own tripod and from the same height but that difference between 11mm and 10mm (which seems little) 130.4 ° vs 126.1 °, the it
allowed to keep the lower tower a little better, that little bit, which makes the photo more beautiful and more harmonious. I repeat, in the end even in mine the tower is inside the frame,
but that difference that may seem a little to very annoying to a trained eye. I wonder why Pentax hasn't developed a serious 10mm for its Full Frame SLR line. Maybe we are not many who use
this focal length, but going to mount a photomerge with many shots, especially if you run a hdr, means wasting a lot of time on the computer and producing errors in the final merger. In short,
inside a church a 10mm is always better than a photomerge. Then in Nature to make landscape there are no problems, because mistaking small points of the photomerge is not relevant and visible
. But inside a cathedral, a small mistake can seem horrible. In any case, have you ever noticed this lack? For me it is a huge flaw. Because I repeat I shoot a lot inside, basilicas, churches
and cathedrals where 10mm makes the difference. I don't want to leave Pentax because it's the best at night, but I think I'll have to. Forgive my awful English.

[Kerrowdown]

In this case my tripod was very high since the reflex was placed on an extra Manfrotto 290, so I shot from about 1.80mt

I also do some architectural photography professionally and understand your needs. Firstly I would say that there are certainly higher and much more rigid and stable tripods available rather than the Manfrotto you mentioned.

For example: I use Gitzo tripod Systematic, series 5 XL, 4 sections, GT5543XLS, 198cm high and there is also available Gitzo tripod Systematic, series 5 giant, 6 sections, GT5563GS, 278 cm high... both of these heights can be achieved without the use of centre columns, for extra stability.

However, if you still require further height you could add the Gitzo telescopic column XL Systematic, series 5, carbon, GS5513XLS, thus giving you another additional 67 cm of height given you 265 cm and 345 cm respectively. All this plus the the height of your tripod head, which in the case of Arca-Swiss C1 Cube Gp (Geared Panning) Classic is another 11cm.

However there is a down side to all this height, you will need to invest and carry around with you... a good step ladder as I do, in order to get anywhere close to your camera.

[normhead]

I also do some architectural photography professionally and understand your needs. Firstly I would say that there are certainly higher and much more rigid and stable tripods available rather than the Manfrotto you mentioned.

For example: I use Gitzo tripod Systematic, series 5 XL, 4 sections, GT5543XLS, 198cm high and there is also available Gitzo tripod Systematic, series 5 giant, 6 sections, GT5563GS, 278 cm high... both of these heights can be achieved without the use of centre columns, for extra stability.

However, if you still require further height you could add the Gitzo telescopic column XL Systematic, series 5, carbon, GS5513XLS, thus giving you another additional 67 cm of height given you 265 cm and 345 cm respectively. All this plus the the height of your tripod head, which in the case of Arca-Swiss C1 Cube Gp (Geared Panning) Classic is another 11cm.

However there is a down side to all this height, you will need to invest and carry around with you... a good step ladder as I do, in order to get anywhere close to your camera.

Now that I need to see picture of.

[Lowell Goudge]

When I travel I also like to do similar shots and can understand to some extent the issue, but while I can understand the impact, of lack of a good rectilinear 10mm on full frame, that was a limit as well in the film era, where 15 mm on full frame was for all practical intents, the limit.

There is a full frame sigma 12-24 I believe, available on the used market. (It was a screw drive lens).

In general I have been quite happy with my Sigma 10-20 on APS-C which is 15 mm equivalent, or my 8mm full frame (as opposed to circular) APS-C fisheye

For parallel line distortion, I don’t understand the complaint. That has nothing to do with field of view of the lens other than the desire to have all corrections done in. Camera. Why not use correction for converging lines in post processing? Most good photo editors can do this, and to make effective use, it only requires getting one axis correct, although corelPSP for example can deal with nothing parallel or square. The OP can also stitch 2 or more shots together.


While I secretly wish for a single lens camera with 1-1000mm focal length range it will never happen

[normhead]

No matter how extreme things are, you can always find someone who wants something more. If you need 10 today, once you get it, you'll discover need 9 tomorrow. I guess your point is for what you do you'd get more images.

It's a rare complaint. Whenever you are working at the edges of functionality, companies with more market share have the advantage.

[Kerrowdown]

Now that I need to see picture of.

It's not for the faint hearted, especially if I'm wearing the kilt...

[normhead]

It's not for the faint hearted, especially if I'm wearing the kilt...

I feel ill.

[house]

Tastes differ but I think that particular view would benefit more from a shift lens than a wider lens. The arcades are becoming very distorted. I say this as a fan of romanesque architecture in general and Sant'Ambrogio in particular. My hunch is that the new Laowa 15mm shift would allow for better views that a 10mm uwa in most cases. Particularly if you are shooting older types of architecture that express monumentality. The amount of ground grows to quickly with extremely wide lenses. Really wide lenses work best for me when you can hide that the lens is wide by not having leading lines coming in from the corners. This means they only really work for facades not rooms.

Again, just offering my personal opinions but I do know a lot about architecture and it's representations as well as the general preferences of architects.

[asterfaos]

For parallel line distortion, I don’t understand the complaint. That has nothing to do with field of view of the lens other than the desire to have all corrections done in. Camera. Why not use correction for converging lines in post processing? Most good photo editors can do this, and to make effective use, it only requires getting one axis correct, although corelPSP for example can deal with nothing parallel or square. The OP can also stitch 2 or more shots together.

Hello, thanks for your consideration and happy new year. The trick is there, when you go to correct an oblique line, the resulting clipping will inevitably make you lose width.
So you see the final result standing straight from the start of falling and oblique lines. I do not know if you understood. The only solution to increase the original space is the photomerge.
Starting oblique is a deception, after you will lose what you have earned, if you check my photo the vertical lines are all parallel.

Tastes differ but I think that particular view would benefit more from a shift lens than a wider lens.

I think like you, but choices have to be made. I wanted to buy the Laowa 15mm decentralized but it costs 1000 euros. In short, I'm happy to lengthen the arches on the sides,
but the vertical lines must be parallel. Or, it's a good option to make all vertical lines oblique but the horizontal lines have to be parallel, but that's another type of shot I take with skyscrapers.

No matter how extreme things are, you can always find someone who wants something more. If you need 10 today, once you get it, you'll discover need 9 tomorrow. I guess your point is for what you do you'd get more images.

Very true, in fact 11mm is not bad at all. But I think 10 is the limit, after that I really have to shut up.

[Kerrowdown]

if you check my photo the vertical lines are all parallel.

With my professional architectural imagery, I actually reintroduce just a hint (and I mean just a hint) of convergence to my verticals, otherwise I find that buildings can look unnatural and unbalanced. Almost to the point of appearing to be introducing divergence, even though they are still perfectly vertical

When you look at an image without this, you can sense somethings not right, but can't put your finger on it. Well this wee tweak makes things right, whilst perhaps not being technically correct, the image becomes more relaxed to our eyes. When you consider, this is how we as people, normally view buildings... from ground level looking up.

Maybe give it try next time, you'll be surprised what this small difference can make to a finished image.

[Lowell Goudge]

Hello, thanks for your consideration and happy new year. The trick is there, when you go to correct an oblique line, the resulting clipping will inevitably make you lose width.
So you see the final result standing straight from the start of falling and oblique lines. I do not know if you understood. The only solution to increase the original space is the photomerge.
Starting oblique is a deception, after you will lose what you have earned, if you check my photo the vertical lines are all parallel.

I don’t understand your comment. In the photo editor I use, you can elect to either crop, or not, to the extents of the frame. Therefore as long as what you want is in the full width of the shot, you can crop this section out of the “wedge” later.

[WPRESTO]

Two suggestions:
1) experiment with a fish-eye lens and PP, especially the latter to see if you can establish a specific procedure (lens profile) that delivers satisfactory straightening of all linear features. Look into the stand-alone programs specifically to de-fish an image.

2) If you can get up really high via a tripod, as suggested by Kerrodown, instead of a step ladder consider a remote monitor and a motorized tripod head. Almost certainly more expensive, but potentially more convenient to transport and might allow positioning the tripod just a bit further back, such as closer to a wall or top of a downward stairwell that would preclude using a stepladder.

[asterfaos]

Two suggestions:
1) experiment with a fish-eye lens and PP, especially the latter to see if you can establish a specific procedure (lens profile) that delivers satisfactory straightening of all linear features. Look into the stand-alone programs specifically to de-fish an image.

2) If you can get up really high via a tripod, as suggested by Kerrodown, instead of a step ladder consider a remote monitor and a motorized tripod head. Almost certainly more expensive, but potentially more convenient to transport and might allow positioning the tripod just a bit further back, such as closer to a wall or top of a downward stairwell that would preclude using a stepladder.

I was already on the edge against the wall, I commanded the k-1 from a smartphone. I was already very high, forget it, maybe I have to change my method.

[othar]

While it is always nice to achieve the image you desire with a single shot, I think two vertical shots (panned in the nodal point of the lens), stitched in post would have been a viable option in this instance.