Artisan S. wrote:
Why a reduced resolution Klaus,
If you get full coverage of a sphere with three shots, or full covarage of a sphere with six shots, you still wind up with just as many pixels. Only you will find more pixels at the edges of the lens of course.......is that the only cause or am I missing something?
YouÂ´re right - i argumented "unsharp" . .
I meant that using a somewhat longer lens and doing more shots brings a higher resolution/zoom-range than a shorter lens and fewer shots.
I use a 15mm fisheye on a 21MPx fullframe camera. This give me 112MPx with 6 shots. I could use an 8mm fisheye and would need fewer shots.
But that would give me lesser resolution - while covering the same sphere.
The time it takes to do 2 or 3 more shots isnÂ´t that dramatically - but the higher resolution provides a deeper zoom/bigger scaling range.
So i suggest the use of a 15/16mm fisheye on fullframe resp. 10,5mm fisheye on DX. YouÂ´re not THAT much quicker needing only 3shots in slanted mount that it would be vital regarding the loss of pixels - but in crowded places it surely has advantages . . at the cost of sharpness/zoom-range
Depends on what you shoot - crowded places or indoors, real estate or what.