Which W/A camera and lens?

[nzdavid]

I'm eager to get a digital camera with an ultra wide angle lens for houses, interior and exterior. Max

quality images essential. I love film, but one magazine I submit to now accepts only digital!

 

I hate the barrel distortion evident on some compact models. (And SLRs for that matter. Elongated

heads and swaying ceilings.) My 24 Elmarit ASPH used with M3 and M6 has zero distortion, but would

translate as a 32 I think with the M8.

 

Options:

 

* Get M8 plus new W/A. Which one? (M8 also useful for other photojournalistic work.)

 

* What are the ultra compact C-Lux D-Lux models like?

 

* Another compact, eg Ricoh GR-D.

 

* DSLR, eg Digilux 3 or similar.

 

* A software fix for barrel distortion?

 

All advice welcome!

 

David

www.davidkillick.co.nz

[shambrick007]

"Elongated heads and swaying ceilings." Any very-ultra wide will do that. Keep the camera level, and round objects away from the corners.

[james mitchell dc]

The M8 and 24mm Elmarit ASPH is a terrific combination. I wish I had the 21 Elmarit ASPH. That would me a terrific setup as well. I am trying to code my 21mm/2.8 Kobalux, without much success.

[stuart_richardson]

David -- can you just scan the film and submit it? You probably would submit both at tiff

files...why would they care whether it was film or digital if it was submitted digitally? If you

are set on digital, I think the GR-D is pretty hard to beat for a compact wide angle camera.

The M8 is great, but still a lot more than almost anything else out there. The 21mm Zeiss

biogon or 21mm voigtlander would make great 28mm's on it though...

[nzdavid]

Why can't I just scan and submit TIFF files? Well, that's fine for most publications, but I

don't make the rules. There's no way I'm giving up film! But digital is a practical alternative

in some cases. We're seeing more and more digital reproduction in magazines, of course -

and while some of it is excellent, some of it is inferior to the MF and LF images they used

to print.

[peter_werner1]

There are some excellent third party ultra W/A lenses. I use the following on the M8 and like the results:<br><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00J7Ad&tag=">Nikkor 20mm/4.0</a><br>

 

<a href="">Zeiss Flektogon 20mm/4.0</a><br>

<a href="http://www.leicaphoto.net/discus/messages/7/791.html?1166893312">Zenitar 16mm/2.8</a><br><br>

For the Zenitar you will have to correct the barrel/pincushion distortion in Photoshop.<br><br>

 

Another excellent WA is the 21mm/2.8 Kobalux but it is difficult to find and expensive. A few days ago one fetched $1,037 on ebay.

 

There are of course the modern Leica and Zeiss 20mm lenses. See the excellent <a href="http://www.reidreviews.com/reidreviews/">Sean Reid Reviews</a> for comparative tests.

[jobo1]

Just a pointer, in case you missed it: Sean Reid is an interior photographer and runs an excellent (although for-pay) review site. He also has a few free reviews on Luminous Landscape, including one of UWA lenses on crop factor digital range finders. IIRC he's using a Canon 5D, sometimes with a Sigma 12-24.

[derek_stanton2]

Canon 5D + 24mm Canon Tilt/Shift lens.

[Uhooru]

ditto Derek, right tool for job, full frame sensor thus full wide angle of lens, plus T/S lens for perspective correction a must for archetectural. That's why so many still use view camera's and scan:)

[35mmdelux]

invest in good scanner.

[miguel_curbelo]

An Olympus DSLR with the 7-14mm zuiko lens.

[orvillerobertson]

If you want maximum image quality and are doing interior shots for a magazine, then your

best choice is a large format digital back. To use anything else is oing yourself a disservice.

The perspective control is critical.

[nzdavid]

Thanks for your help, time to do more research. Trouble is, I really like my film cameras

and for most purposes it's hard, if not impossible, to find anything better. Another thing is

that digitals cost one helluva lot (even factoring in savings on film) and they are still

getting superseded so fast that it makes the prospect of forking out big bucks for a top

model (especially MF!) rather daunting. Which kind of sways me towards something like

the Ricoh because I favor the philopsophy of compact size and high performance.. then

again, quality results really do count.. tricky, so much choice....thanks again for your help.

[Nowhereman]

David:

<p>

I don't think you can go wrong with the Ricoh GR-D with which I've made prints as large as

40x52icnhes (100x133cm). The first picture is at 28mm-equivalent and the second one is

with the 21mm attachment:

<p>

<center><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/118/297297852_c794227cea_o.jpg"

width=875 height=648></center>

<p>

<center><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/103/251772044_d8f9c53f4a_o.jpg"

width=875 height=576></center>

<p>

--Mitch/Bangkok

[jimsimmons]

Photoshop CS2 has a lens distortion tool that will fix most simple barrel distortion problems. You can establish the right setting for a particular lens, save that setting and apply it as a one-step action to each shot. For pro work, a single-lens solution like the GR-D is not versatile enough. I shoot 6x7 rollfilm on a 4x5 view camera for most of my architectural clients, and scan the film. I do plenty of fixing-up in photoshop, but there is no substitution for the full compliments of movements that a view camera gives you.

[MTC Photography]

"Elongated heads" is caused by the disparity of camera angle of view

and your angle of view when viewing picture from wide angle lens. If you enlarge a picture to suitable size, for instance 16x20", and view

it at a distance such that the viewing angle is identical to that of

the camera, then the apparently "elongated head" will disappear at once like magic.<P>

 

Suppose a picture is taken with a Elmarit -R 19mm/2.8, its from edge

to edge angle of view is 87 degree, roughly speaking 90 degree.

The usual print from lab is 4x6"; to avoid seeing elongated head,

you need to view it at 3" from the picture to get a near 90 degree

viewing angle. But people usually view such a picture at 8 to 10"

, there is a disparity of view angle, thus the elongated head.

 

Viewing 4x6" from 3" is not practical. If you enlarge it to 16x20"

then view at comfortably at 10", you are viewing a roughly 90 degree

same as the lens die, the elongated head disappears.

 

Hence elongated head is not a lens problem, it is a viewing habit

problem.

[allison_reese2]

wow martin, i never heard of that premise before, it makes sense, thanks.