[atupdate]

All the Sigma images are at either 8 or 9 mm, probably 8. Pentax doesn't have a code for images under 10mm.

Thanks again Norm. This definitely shows that focal length and position within the image makes a difference.

Tim

[normhead]

Thanks again Norm. This definitely shows that focal length and position within the image makes a difference.

Tim

I have images taken at 17mm with the fisheye you wouldn't even know were fisheyes.

This one at 14mm.

[stevebrot]

Breakfast in camp 10-17 fisheye. @17mm

Even the person to the right of the frame in the white hoody looks natural proportioned.



On the point - 10-17 fisheye @ 10mm.. This is what you want, my wife looks skinny. I'd post a comparison picture taken with the Sigma 8-16, but she's stands over my shoulder and makes me throw them all away.


My sister and grandson... Sigma 8-16 rectilinear
Check out his feet..... that's just wrong..


Toronto City Hall art show- Nathan Phillips Square. Sigma 8-16 rectilinear.

Buildings look great, people bottom left look short and squat.


I Love this picture, but if Jennifer (bottom left) ever saw it I'm sure she'd kill me. She looks like a dwarf in this photo/ Sigma 8-16.


One more, again from that series... Faces and bodies completely distorted with the Sigma 8-16. I know this is Jen... but I have to try really hard to put the image together with the face it's taken of. It just doesn't compute. If I'd brought the fisheye...

Great series, Norm! A couple of months with the Zenitar 16/2.8 was all it took to make me a believer. Forget the people, no more smeary trees or mushroom architectural features.


Steve

[clackers]

Yep, great instructive posts as always, Norm!

[normhead]

Thanks, I always have fun.... the joys of being retired.

[MadMathMind]

Not everyone has the computer skills to do good post processing and if you don't and have to get it right in camera all the time then that's fine. I would not take her statement as an insult but rather a defensive statement because of her own insecurity. Instead of being insulted I would feel sorry for her.

Mmmm. What about the corrective work that was done in the darkroom, when we were still shooting film. That's no different really from what we're now doing in Photoshop.

I claim I don't do major Photoshop work because I know I'm not that good at it. I fix things with it but I don't try to make digital art by swapping backgrounds, putting in things that weren't there (with an exception here or there), etc. Some people do really nice work with those things; I leave it to them.


The biggest misunderstanding that makes people anti-processors is that they think a camera JPEG is "pure." Of course it's not. A JPEG is always manufactured; a camera JPEG is just the result of a particular set of choices the engineers at the camera company made. People misunderstand this and think that the JPEG is somehow a product of the camera's hardware or other quality properties.

In the film era, the decisions were made by the film processor. People didn't generally have the means to do anything on their own, so they assumed whatever decisions he made were the "correct" ones.

[normhead]

In the film era, the decisions were made by the film processor. People didn't generally have the means to do anything on their own, so they assumed whatever decisions he made were the "correct" ones.

Except for the real artists who just rented the lab and a technician for a day and sat there with him until they got what they wanted. It used to happen. Some people say if you're going to print your work, it should still happen. If you really want a great print, give it to someone that's skilled at PP and printing, not a photographer. They are different skills.

[paulh]

Yeah, I work with a Canon owner like that. I've told this before, but we were discussing close-up capabilities and I mentioned that we might need a macro. My co-worker said, "Oh...I've got a macro." I said, "Great! What is it?" They said, "It's a macro." I began to get suspicious so I said, "Is it a prime lens...or a zoom with a macro ability?" They said, "It's a real macro." At that point, I knew they didn't know what the hell they were talking about because anyone on this forum who has a macro lens knows what it is. This person couldn't tell me if they had a prime lens, zoom lens, add-on attachment...or what. They're able to get good shots, but I don't think there's a lot of thought behind them.

I had a similar conversation with a Sony shooter who was having some 20x30 posters printed at Walgreens. I told him that those were some nice looking photos. He said, "I used a fisheye lens." I asked him if the lens was a zoom or a prime - he responded, "It's a fisheye". They really were nice images, though.

[Zav]

I had a similar conversation with a Sony shooter who was having some 20x30 posters printed at Walgreens. I told him that those were some nice looking photos. He said, "I used a fisheye lens." I asked him if the lens was a zoom or a prime - he responded, "It's a fisheye". They really were nice images, though.

You should have known that the only fish eye zooms are Pentax lenses. ;-)

[Rondec]

This doesn't really sound like a Canon/Nikon issue. This is a post processing issue. There is a thread on this forum https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/26-mini-challenges-games-photo-stories/16...rocessing.html that is the same kind of thing.

I don't totally get it, but I think there are a couple of feelings that some folks have. Some react against over processed photos and believe that post processing leads to something different from photography (photography should be more like journalism -- capture what is there). Some think that post processing is too hard to learn and some believe that it takes too much time. Some just feel that it isn't in their artistic nature to do much post processing.

From a personal standpoint, I have always felt that any photo that was good enough to keep was good enough to work a little bit extra on. Out of camera jpegs are fine for family snap shots and that is primarily what I use for those, but taking a little extra time does give better results than what the camera jpeg engine can give.

As to the whole fish eye versus rectilinear discussion, it is a personal taste thing. I owned a Pentax 10-17 for quite awhile and sold it, primarily because I didn't like the fish eye projection. The widest lens I own now is the DA 15 limited and it is quite wide enough. Really wide angle lenses are tough to shoot and can give a lot of shots that look about the same if you aren't careful. I have seen great shots with the 10-17, it just didn't work for me.

[paulh]

You should have known that the only fish eye zooms are Pentax lenses. ;-)

!

I forgot to mention that his shots were actually taken with a rectilinear WA, not a fisheye!

[normhead]

To me, its just an extension of what my camera can do. There are a lot of times, if I lost one lens it's wouldn't affect my functionality much of the time. MY DA* 60-250 backs up my Tamron 90 macro, and Sigma 70 macro, and my DA 18-136 and Sigma 18-250. Losing one of those lenses, there's another that can do most of what they do and produce many of the same images I'd take. The 10-17 fisheye actually extends your range. It take images you won't get with any other lens. If you drop it, nothing will replace it. I don't use it much... but I wouldn't sell it either. That would cost me functionality.

[geomez]

I read this whole thread and I don't remember it being confirmed nor denied, so I'll ask...
Norm, are you're fish-eye examples on this thread at all de-fished in PP?

[fs999]

I forgot to mention that his shots were actually taken with a rectilinear WA, not a fisheye!

They could have been de-fished

[Cyril_K5]

Explain to me what this has to do with camera brand snobbery?

BTW...the circular projection of a fisheye lens is not barrel distortion in the usual sense and is actually a more accurate presentation than rectilinear lenses of similar FOV. There is usually little need to de-fish when properly composed. For landscape photography, I prefer a fisheye where I need an extreme FOV. (Stretched trees are so not natural.)

180 degrees diagonal FOV...




Steve

Interesting shot Steve. You used a fisheye lens you say? Which one was it? Where did you post process you raw?
I am also using filters (a Lee set) with my wideangle shots. Would you get vignetting with a fisheye?