Wow - now that is really weird.
Weird? Yes - at least . .
PS: on my manual head i use the same "pattern" as on the Panoneed/TC combination: 6 shots @-12° and 1 Zenith.
Klaus your pattern is fine.; 6-around at -12 and 1 zenith.
Except that I have often found that shooting outdoors with a manual head (no XML) that a +90 zenith shot would often bw omitted from the stitch becasue it lacked any matching features with images in the main row of 6 images.
The 'solution' presented by Hans Nyberg was to shoot the 'zenith shot at about +60-65 which covers the zenith well but when the yaw is also chosen carefully will almost always mean you can get an good link between the 'zenith' shot and the main row of 65.
I never had this issue Hans mentioned. IF i would have it: iÂ´d use the xml which the TC provides (on Merlin as well as on Panoneed).
But felix said that the T&C calculated that weird 6 shots at -9° + 6 shots at +1 + zenith pattern.
I can't see that that would ever be 'right'/optimal.
So how did it arise?
This is kind of crazy indeed - and the only issue i can see here is the user, sorry
I guess heÂ´s misinterpreting things.
Josef tried to clear it, i tried to explain some things - Felix seems to prefer to stick with his ideas.
The fact all other lenses but fisheyes work well for him indicates that the TC does itÂ´s maths right. ItÂ´s the same maths on which the fisheye calculation bases.
The fact that it works also with fisheyes for more than 400 users - i was wrong with the 200 - without issues seems not to indicate problems with calculating fisheyes.
The fact that i use the TC without any issue as well as the fact that i used it in earlier days with Canon and Nikon crop cameras and 10,5mm DX as well as 15/16mmFX fisheyes and NEVER had such an issue . . . indicates that it does itÂ´s maths well.
The fact that the xml which the TC provides matches well in APG and PTGui also seems to indicate that it does the calculation well.
So . . . what can i say . .