sigma 8 to 16 for sphericals?

[Zivko Grcic]

Hi There, 

Anyone out there using the Sigma 8 to 16 superwide for creating sphericals with Ptgui??

About to purchase the lens over the Sigma 8 for lower cost an ability to use it for still sin Real estate photography.

Help much appreciated!

-Zivko

[Roger D Williams]

You don't say if you will be using it with a full-frame or APS-C camera. In either case, one advantage of the rectilinear 8-16mm lens is that your panoramas will have many more pixels, many MANY more with full frame. A disadvantage is that you will have to take about twice as many shots and do a lot more stitching. In real estate photography you should have fewer pesky people messing up those seams and needing post processing.

Roger W.

Sent from my iPad

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PTGui" group.
To post to this group, send email to pt...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ptgui+un...@googlegroups.com
Please do not add attachments to your posts; instead upload your files at a file sharing site (for example http://ge.tt/ ) and include a link in your message.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ptgui

[zivko grcic]

Hey Rog, 

Thanks for your response!

Trust me real estate people are pesky cheap and expect caviar at the price of McDonalds french fries but they are my bread and butter!

I'm using a Canon 7D, an APS-C camera.

Doing 12 stills around now for my cylindrical pans with a Canon 10 to 22 lens so already used to taking 12 shots for a full pan around.

I can pick up an 8 MM fisheye which I understand would be just 4 around and 1 up which is nice and short. and 900 bucks in the hole on the Sigma or go cheap with a Rokinson at around 300.

But than have to switch out lenses for the stills required. The great thing about the 8 to 16mm is that I can use the zoom on interior stills without having to switch out lenses when when shooting stills.

How many do you think it would be with the Sigma 8 to 16 mm aspherical lens all considered?

Thanks again, 

-Zivko

Zivko Grcic
President/Photographer
NJvirtualtours LLC
603 Brinley Avenue
Bradley Beach, NJ 07720
1.732.299.7895
International Skype: zivkogrcic
zi...@njvirtualtours.com

www.njvirtualtours.com

Our New Office in Boynton Beach Florida!

3558 Silver Lace Lane

Boynton Beach, Florida 33437

Suite 31

Ranked #1 on Google for "Virtual Tour Company"
 
"Where your Image is Important!"

[tracy....@comcast.net]

If you don't mind me asking, what are you guys getting for real estate panos?

Tracy R. Willis
(678) 522-3450

---

From: "zivko grcic" <zi...@360realhometours.com>
To: pt...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:14:48 PM
Subject: Re: [PTGui] sigma 8 to 16 for sphericals?

Hey Rog, 

[Roger D. Williams]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:14:48 +0900, zivko grcic <zi...@360realhometours.com> wrote:

Hey Rog, 

Thanks for your response!

You're welcome, Zivko!

Trust me real estate people are pesky cheap and expect caviar at the price of McDonalds french fries but they are my bread and butter!

Hmm. I hope you sometimes get jam on your bread and butter!

I'm using a Canon 7D, an APS-C camera.

Doing 12 stills around now for my cylindrical pans with a Canon 10 to 22 lens so already used to taking 12 shots for a full pan around.

I can pick up an 8 MM fisheye which I understand would be just 4 around and 1 up which is nice and short. and 900 bucks in the hole on the Sigma or go cheap with a Rokinson at around 300.

I had a Sigma 8mm fisheye for years and loved it. Great lens. I tried a Rokinon and couldn't get it to focus, although I understand

this is a known problem with a fairly easy cure. It was beyond me, though, so I returned it. I seriously thought about the 8-16mm

but after trying it I decided on a different lens, with a slightly longer focal length, as it covered more of the range of focal lengths

as which I normally shoot, so I don't have much direct experience using the Sigma 8-16m although I must say it was a very sharp

lens and had no serious faults I could discover. I think you will like it. Of course 12mm equivalent is a bit fierce for interiors,

so you will probably be using it more at the other end for your stills.

But than have to switch out lenses for the stills required. The great thing about the 8 to 16mm is that I can use the zoom on interior stills without having to switch out lenses when when shooting stills.

Yes, exactly. But you seem to have overlooked the possibility of de-fishing your sigma shots. Resolution takes a hit, as you are using much less of the camera's native resolution by cropping and de-fishing a fisheye, but could well be "good enough" for a bread and butter client.

How many do you think it would be with the Sigma 8 to 16 mm aspherical lens all considered?

Well, if you are happy with 12 around at 10mm, I would guess nine or 10 around at 8mm, but of course you will need at least two more, one each for nadir and zenith. So you won't save much time on taking shots.

Roger W.

-- 

Business: www.adex-japan.com
Pleasure: www.usefilm.com/member/roger
Panorama: Rogerama at photosynth.net

[PTGui Support]

Hi Zivko,

You can easily simulate the lens in PTGui: just load a number of random
images (portrait orientation) and set the lens parameters to
rectilinear, 8mm, 1.6x crop. Then switch the panorama editor to 'Edit
Individual Images' mode and do Projection-Spherical.

Now you can drag the images around until the sphere is covered.

You'll find that you need 6 shots around. You can cover the nadir and
zenith with one extra shot each but overlap is quite sparse. Personally
I'd use an 8mm fisheye if a fast and cheap workflow is the goal.

Joost

> zi...@njvirtualtours.com <mailto:zi...@njvirtualtours.com>
> www.njvirtualtours.com <http://www.njvirtualtours.com/>
>
> */Our New Office in Boynton Beach Florida!/*

> 3558 Silver Lace Lane
> Boynton Beach, Florida 33437
> Suite 31
>
> Ranked #1 on Google for "Virtual Tour Company"
>

> /"Where your Image is Important!"/

>
> On Sep 17, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Roger D Williams wrote:
>
>> You don't say if you will be using it with a full-frame or APS-C
>> camera. In either case, one advantage of the rectilinear 8-16mm lens
>> is that your panoramas will have many more pixels, many MANY more with
>> full frame. A disadvantage is that you will have to take about twice
>> as many shots and do a lot more stitching. In real estate photography
>> you should have fewer pesky people messing up those seams and needing
>> post processing.
>>
>> Roger W.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2012, at 4:42 AM, Zivko Grcic <zi...@360realhometours.com

>> <mailto:zi...@360realhometours.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi There,
>>> Anyone out there using the Sigma 8 to 16 superwide for creating
>>> sphericals with Ptgui??
>>> About to purchase the lens over the Sigma 8 for lower cost an ability
>>> to use it for still sin Real estate photography.
>>> Help much appreciated!
>>> -Zivko
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "PTGui" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to pt...@googlegroups.com

>>> <mailto:pt...@googlegroups.com>

>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> ptgui+un...@googlegroups.com

>>> <mailto:ptgui+un...@googlegroups.com>

>>> Please do not add attachments to your posts; instead upload your
>>> files at a file sharing site (for example http://ge.tt/ ) and include
>>> a link in your message.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/ptgui
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "PTGui" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to pt...@googlegroups.com

>> <mailto:pt...@googlegroups.com>

>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> ptgui+un...@googlegroups.com

>> <mailto:ptgui+un...@googlegroups.com>

[Didier Gmail]

Hi Zivko and All,

I personally use my Sigma 8-16mm DC HSM for more than 1 year and love it.

It delivers fantastic images with amazing sharpness from center to corners, even at full aperture.

Reviews confirm it : see among others http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-8-16mm-f-4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx .

For a full 360x180 and my 7D, I shoot 2 rows of 6 (overlap is 34% in yaw and 42% in pitch) + nadir without any problem.

Since this rectilin lense does not suffer from NPP displacement with incident angle, the stitching quality won't be affected by any other delta-yaw or delta-pitch. On that regard, I had stitching problems when using fisheyes.

It will also give you a better resolution than a 8mm fisheye.

Finally, DxO optics pro has a dedicated module for the Sigma 8-16mm, in case you 'd like to correct distortion and CA.

 

I recommend this great lens, not saying that its exceptional FOV (108.7 x 85.9) is also very useful in normal "everyday" use and ...architecture photography.

 

Didier

 

 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: pt...@googlegroups.com [mailto:pt...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf

> Of PTGui Support

> Sent: mardi 18 septembre 2012 09:53

> To: pt...@googlegroups.com

> Subject: Re: [PTGui] sigma 8 to 16 for sphericals?

>

> Hi Zivko,

[Erik Krause]

Am 18.09.2012 01:22, schrieb Roger D Williams:
> one advantage of the rectilinear 8-16mm lens is that your panoramas will
> have many more pixels, many MANY more with full frame

Quite sure? Pixel count of a spherical panorama depends on the lens
focal length and the sensor pixel density. Since even the 36 MP Nikon
D800 has the same pixel density like a 16 MP DX or APS-C camera you'll
actually get the same amount of result pixels f.e. from a D7000...

For details see http://wiki.panotools.org/DSLR_spherical_resolution

--
Erik Krause
http://www.erik-krause.de