Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 25, 2007, 11:05 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

Second:


Attached Images
 
bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2007, 12:59 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
penolta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California USA
Posts: 5,206
Default

In this case, the corrected one is clearly better, as the perspective in the first one is too exaggerated for a building of only two stories. It is a very nice photo.
penolta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2007, 1:10 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Hi Kjell,

I'll go with penolta here. I like the corrected version. I believe that penolta's analysis of the lower building height is correct.

Harriet's original looks better to my eye, as the corrected version looks top-heavy, and I think it is probably a function of building height in these two examples.

This thread has opened my eyes a bit -- I haven't done much architechtural stuff, but has given me much to consider if and when I do. . .

Very nice work, everyone, both picture posters and analysts!

Scott
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2007, 9:56 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
NonEntity1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lake Placid Florida USA
Posts: 2,689
Default

What an interesting thread. Honestly, I don't think I would have bothered changing either Harriet or Kjell's photos as the slight perspective angle is not something I would notice much or feel detracted by it. However, presented with the "improved" versions in each case, I did prefer both version improved (but only by a little).

Daniel's shot was tougher. I like the defished version better except for the fact that part of the arch was lost. If there was a way to defish and only lose some of the statue's base that would be my choice but losing the complete arch is too high a price for the defishing.

$.02 on artistic preference from a guy whose wife won't let him pick his one clothing, take it for what it is worth :roll:.

Tim
NonEntity1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2007, 9:58 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
NonEntity1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lake Placid Florida USA
Posts: 2,689
Default

I forgot to ask, does every wide angle reticular lens have the same effect as the Canon 10mm Daniel posted? I really dislike how that looked and would much prefer a fish eyed perspective. I ask because the Pentax 12-24mm is on my wish list, but not if 12mm distorts anything like that, I would not have liked that even if the person was not in the shot.

Tim
NonEntity1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2007, 11:30 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
danielchtong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,890
Default

NonEntity1 wrote:
Quote:

Daniel's shot was tougher.* I like the defished version better except for the fact that part of the arch was lost.* If there was a way to defish and only lose some of the statue's base that would be my choice but losing the complete arch is too high a price for the defishing.



Tim
Tim ,
Not just part of it has been defished . Also look at the 2nd defished version left top corner.



The top square portion of the column is now in an angle whereas the original spherical version had it perfect (well the column is crooked though).
Sure there are tradeoff. But how would general public, an average photographer and a good photographer values that?

Quote:
I forgot to ask, does every wide angle reticular lens have the same effect as the Canon 10mm Daniel posted?
I believe Pentax 12-24mm or DA14mm would not be so bad.

Daniel
danielchtong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2007, 12:56 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

Kjell - I immediately liked the corrected one better also. You did a nice job with it. Do you have any examples taken with your shift lens, vs a regular lens? I'd be interested to see how much difference it makes.

I'm another one who's been thinking of something wider than the kit lens. My original thought was to get the Pentax 10-17 but most of the time the bowed lines would drive me nuts and if I'm always going to be defishing the pictures, I'd rather get the 12-24. I briefly looked through the viewfinder with both lenses (Pentax rep was at my local camera store) but that's not enough to really decide. I rather liked the 10mm field of view, but think 12-24 is probably a more useful range.


mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:32 PM.