[Rnovo]

I'm considering on buying a K1mark II for making my panos paired with a Pentax 17mm f4.0 fisheye. This lens seems really narrow (30mm) and my pano head vertical mount may be interfering because the nodal point seems to be very close to the sensor (??). Can anyone confirm what the distance is - in mm - between the centre of the tripod socket and the front flange of the camera? Can't find that anywhere... On the K5 it's 41.6mm
Thanks to all.

---

Last edited by Rnovo; 06-16-2019 at 03:24 PM.

[photoptimist]

A bit of eyeballing with a ruler on the K-1 (mark 1) seems to get a value of just under 40mm (maybe 39.7 or .8?) for the k-1. The same eyeballing with a ruler on a K-5 agrees with your value of about 41.6mm. So the K-1 is just under 2mm shorter in flange-to-socket meaning the lens' nodal point will be about 2mm closer to the tripod socket with the K-1.

[leekil]

I thought the tripod socket was always at the film/sensor plane??

[Rnovo]

Thanks photoptimist, I really might have to mill down that vertical mount then... I'm set on that 17mm fisheye as it looks like a winner at $300, compared to others...!
---------- Post added 09-19-18 at 09:12 ----------

[/COLOR]

I thought the tripod socket was always at the film/sensor plane??

Not usually, on the K5 the sensor plane is shown by the special marking located between the top LCD and the right hand strap attachment lug.

---

Last edited by Rnovo; 06-16-2019 at 03:24 PM.

[UncleVanya]

Isn't shooting panoramic shouts going to be complicated by the field curvature of the 17mm fisheye? I world have thought a flatter field lens would be preferred for stitching.

[robgski]

The 17mm really shines on the K-1 (it is a fantastic lens), but unlike on APS-C where the 17mm is less fisheye and more UWA, on the K-1 the curve is more noticeable.

[IMG][/IMG]

[photoptimist]

I thought the tripod socket was always at the film/sensor plane??

No it's usually somewhere in the center of the body. On film cameras, the film plane is so close to the back cover that it would be impossible to put the socket there.

In the ideal world, the socket would be under the center of gravity for the camera-lens combo to minimize imbalance and torque on the tripod head. It's probably close to true for a DSLR+old compact prime. But today's bigger primes and zooms tend to make things front-heavy.

[Rnovo]

Isn't shooting panoramic shouts going to be complicated by the field curvature of the 17mm fisheye? I world have thought a flatter field lens would be preferred for stitching.

Not all, on the contrary, you need all that FOV to cover the whole 360° in only 6 shots and 1 zenith and 2 nadirs shots for full spherical coverage (9 all together) or even 4, and 1 nadir for the tripod, with a Nikon. The software (my preferred is PTGui) takes care of all that. For planar panos, same thing. When you download your images the "Lens correction" box should be left alone.

---------- Post added 09-19-18 at 13:09 ----------

The 17mm really shines on the K-1 (it is a fantastic lens), but unlike on APS-C where the 17mm is less fisheye and more UWA, on the K-1 the curve is more noticeable.

[/url][/IMG]

Yes, I'm looking forward to it. I just ordered one good looking one from Japan on e-bay at $288US.

[UncleVanya]

Not all, on the contrary, you need all that FOV to cover the whole 360° in only 6 shots and 1 zenith and 2 nadirs shots for full spherical coverage (9 all together) or even 4, and 1 nadir for the tripod, with a Nikon. The software (my preferred is PTGui) takes care of all that. For planar panos, same thing. When you download your images the "Lens correction" box should be left alone.

---------- Post added 09-19-18 at 13:09 ----------


Yes, I'm looking forward to it. I just ordered one good looking one from Japan on e-bay at $288US.

Yes but don't you get different amounts of resolution in the extremes? I've shot stitched piano and done it with different lenses. It does take more shots but I had better results with flater field lenses with good corner sharpness. Granted I wasnt taking 360 degree shots.

[Rnovo]

360° panos ( the ones you can't print) don't have that problem but you are right with planar panos (the ones you can print). When I make a planar one I make sure I go wide with a 16 to 50mm (the DA*?) focal length in portrait mode because you then have the choice in cropping the image to the final format and the corners/edges are gone. You also need to have a generous overlap - 30% minimum - so those edges are gone too.
Your SDM fixes are still working like magic...!

[Rnovo]

Got the K1 II and the 17mm f4.0 is just fine on my Panosaurus, it actually is better than the 10-17mm as you don't have a tiny bit of the head showing in the far right hand corner... For full panos you still need to take 6 shots around, 1 zenith and 2 nadirs - just like the 10-17mm - and resolution/rendition is far superior, loving it.
For those interested go to this link to see K1 II settings for "no parallax - Entrance pupil": Entrance Pupil Database - PanoTools.org Wiki

[Rnovo]

See what that K1 mark II and the 17mm f4.0 fisheye can do for full panos... great stuff, better than with my K5IIs and the 10-17mm fisheye:
https://www.360cities.net/image/saint-antonios-orthodox-church

[Mikesul]

See what that K1 mark II and the 17mm f4.0 fisheye can do for full panos... great stuff, better than with my K5IIs and the 10-17mm fisheye:
https://www.360cities.net/image/saint-antonios-orthodox-church

Those pictures are impressive but I do not see an exif or shooting settings anywhere.

[Rnovo]

That's because the exif is lost in the stitching. I normally make my panos with the K5IIs or K5 before 2014, the 10-17mm set at ∞, f8.0, ISO 100 (as much as I can) with 5 brackets spaced at 2.0EVs. I'm using my K1 II with the 17mm f4.9 fisheye since April with the same settings.

[pschlute]

Nice work.