All too common that people seem to think their own wants/needs/use cases represent those of the majority. The prevalence of that attitude doesn’t make it less asinine.What is niche for you is routine for others.
Upvote
0
All too common that people seem to think their own wants/needs/use cases represent those of the majority. The prevalence of that attitude doesn’t make it less asinine.What is niche for you is routine for others.
Ah, no, I'm fine with manual movements - I'd just like movements to be recorded in EXIF for post processing. Interesting to see that the recent Fuji T/S lenses [30/110] include this to some extent [at a price...]The only time I damaged a TSE lens (24mm II), was when I stupidly dropped it in Jersey. I don't want to know how much more expensive it would have been to repair a motorized one. TBH, I want (as an amateur!!!!) neither motor, nor AF. A pro user will certainly disagree (wouldn't you, Keith?). But a 14-16mm shift (no zoom). Otherwise, as long as you don't brutalize a TSE, they are not fragile at all.
But you can also just take a single frame of autofocus 30mm instead of two frames of manually-focused shifted 50mm and skip the entire stitch step. Or a frame of 14mm instead of two 24mm, etc. Or just swivel any lens on the camera and stitch those.it's to simplify the shooting of panoramic images
You need to carry around more lenses, and if you're already using a 17mm going wider is not so easy, or inexpensive.But you can also just take a single frame of autofocus 30mm instead of two frames of manually-focused shifted 50mm and skip the entire stitch step. Or a frame of 14mm instead of two 24mm,
You get a different kind of panorama. Of course there are different ways to achieve that - one uses what found more comfortable. You don't like it? Don't use it yourself.Or just swivel any lens on the camera and stitch those.
Of course it won't satisfy pixel peepers like you. Lower IQ doesn't always mean "unacceptable IQ". Still, you are free to crop a little to remove the very edges of the image, id you don't like them. One is still enlarging the area where the best part of the lens image is used. It's also a way to get a larger field of view avoiding the edge distortions of shorter lenses - especially useful for interiors.Hard to image many sales or prints or what have you just absolutely cannot tolerate a mere 22MP and yet, are fine with the lower IQ such an image will have outside of 22mm radius.
What "trinity" zoom lens should I use to get a 10mm or 14mm focal length? I decided not to buy the 11-24mm and buy the 17mm T-S instead, it's much more useful for me. If the RF version is shorter it could be welcome.You can't back off enough to use a trinity zoom at 0.6x the focal length of your shift lens?
True - but a single image may not achieve what you're looking for.Not easier than a single image that doesn't need a stitch, no.
he could get the exact same shot by cropping a normal shot from the same position with 0.6x or so of the focal length.
@SwissFrank talks a lot about things with which he has no direct experience. For things with which he does have experience, he assumes his experience is universal.I wonder if you uses or used such lenses, though.
Indeed. The mark of someone speaking from a lack of experience.What "trinity" zoom lens should I use to get a 10mm or 14mm focal length? I decided not to buy the 11-24mm and buy the 17mm T-S instead, it's much more useful for me. If the RF version is shorter it could be welcome.
Unfortunately, Canon has a long history of not implementing firmware features that should ‘take very little’. An obvious example is that the R5 shoots 20 fps in electronic shutter, when it should be very easy to implement lower fps options as many here are asking for.Anyway once you have automatic control of lens movements it takes very little to implement whatever tricks you like in firmware - be it for calculating the plane passing for three or more points (if it exists), or shifting to make panoramic images - can't see why Canon should not implement both if users can take advantage of them.
I agree Samyang's mechanism is plastic-fantastic. If we are talking about Samyang's fragility in the original post, honestly, why would Canon solve Samyang's problem? Where we believe these lenses will go price-wise, if coming to fruition, Samyang customers will not buy them.The fragile TS lenses are not Canon's, but Samyangs, since their TS actuation-gears are (used to be?) made of "engineering plastics".
Of course, as you wrote, if you overtighten the controls with sheer bestiality...
PS: tell your friend I'm sorry for her, I dropped mine too and know what it costs.
I paid about $900... Gaasp!I agree Samyang's mechanism is plastic-fantastic. If we are talking about Samyang's fragility in the original post, honestly, why would Canon solve Samyang's problem? Where we believe these lenses will go price-wise, if coming to fruition, Samyang customers will not buy them.
It's not just the beast mode to tighten, it's how people twist and torque (pitch/yaw) the knobs while adjusting. The screw looses its straightness and beyond the point of curvature, you cannot shift or tilt anymore as the adjustment knob cannot traverse beyond that point. I have seen it more for shift than tilt, given the smaller screws/knobs.
I think she ended up paying $50 as her part, she was/is a long-time CPS Platinum member from film era. When the lens came back, it was as good as new. Canon does take really good care of such customers.
On a side note, to me, looks-wise, TS-E 17 is the most beautiful lens, an "engineer's art work".