danny25 wrote:

what is the main reason I should use the 10-22mm Canon on a Canon 50D and not a Sigma 8mm.

Higher resolution of final pano.

What is the main reson I should use a Sigma 8mm on a Canon 50D and not my 10-22mm Canon.

Many fewer shots to cover the same scene.

danny25 wrote:

I love to hear and respect every input....

Then you should not be afraid by the following contradictions...

danny25 wrote:

What is the main reason I should use a Sigma 8mm on a Canon 50D and not my 10-22mm Canon.

- Because a fisheye use the same amount of pixels in any direction (same pixel amount per angular unit ratio, solid angle.) For spherical pano this make sense!
- Because 10-22mm zenith shots are difficult to stitch (especially when they encompass nothing but blue sky or uniform ceiling parts, dito for white painted walls, see Solid-color interior walls not stitched correctly by jodaboda for an example.)

danny25 wrote:

what is the main reason I should use the 10-22mm Canon on a Canon 50D and not a Sigma 8mm.

- Because fisheye image quality is low in the corners, so that a higher than the minimal amount of source images is preferable for the best final pano quality (I often uses 12 shots from such a fisheye for a single spherical pano but tend to keep it secret because this don't look smart ;o)
- Because in most spherical panos the interesting details are located near to the horizon (source images where pitch = 0.) Poor stichs next to the tripod legs or in the sky are easy to mask, these parts could even be excluded when uninteresting...
___

Actually, I guess the best solution is betwixt and between. I recently bought a Tokina 10-17 mm zoom in the hope of using it at 10 mm for fewer shots and at 17 mm for higher image definition. This works, but next to zenith shots are more difficult to stitch.

danny25 wrote:

btw...when is Giga here for MAC???

Simplified answer: when Mac will be able to host it.

danny25 wrote:

Higher resolution because of the quality of the lens?
The body I wanne use is the same?

"Resolution" is a question of the lenses´s ability to "see" very small details sharp enough. For that reason very good and detailed lenses - which means high resolution and sharpness even in the finest details - are very expensive.
Fisheyes have very hard times to "see" sharp=detailed=high-resolution over their entire FOV.
For that reason i myself don´t use fisheyes even for spheres - i use a razorsharp=detailed=high-resolution Nikon prime lens and take the burdon of 40 + Nadir shots for a sphere.

The body itself doesn´t matter that much - even a 6mpx DSLR produces phantastic highrez spheres this way.

Another point is a high-rez rectangular picture. Here the amount of single shots count most - given a lens which provides good resolution=sharp details. But here the sensor´s size/pixels count also.

A small sensor packed with too much pixels is definitely counterproductive - it´s NOT the amount of pixels . . it´s the combination of sensor-size and the amount of pixels.

A full-frame sensor which carries 12mpx produces better results than a crop-sensor with 12mpx - besides a higher dynamic because of bigger pixels and therefore being able to take more photons per pixels.
Small pixels can take a lesser amount of photons (light) and need electronical amplification to compensate that - but each amplification produces artefacts . . which means visible noise in that case.

Finally it´s a question of both: the lense´s quality in terms of sharpness/resolution AND the sensor´s ability to handle the amount of details/sharpness/resolution the lens provides to it.

best, Klaus

Last edited by klausesser (2009-02-13 17:01:27)