# Patent: Canon RF 8mm f/4 Fisheye



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 9, 2020)

> Canon News has uncovered a patent for an RF 8mm f/4 fisheye optical formula. By the looks of the patent translation, this is likely for full-frame image sensors.
> This fisheye design has a full 180-degree angle of view.
> *Canon RF 8mm F4.0 Fisheye*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## puffo25 (Apr 9, 2020)

Good, finally a very wide angle lens for the RF series


----------



## ordinaryfilmmaker (Apr 9, 2020)

I've never liked the look of fish eye lenses. Am I crazy? Am I missing something here? What is the appeal for this type of lens? Honestly curious from those that like these


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Apr 9, 2020)

Another specialized lens and that is ok, impressive Canon lenses. I hope in time they there will be L quality lenses for advanced amateur, such as 24-70 or 28-70 f4...reasonably compact, reasonably affordable, reasonably light weight. That is mostly the way Nikon started their mirrorless. Not meant as a complaint about Canon, but please, at some point, introduce some lenses geared toward something for discriminating landscape photographers...good quality, without the cost or weight of fast, heavy lenses.


----------



## riker (Apr 9, 2020)

ordinaryfilmmaker said:


> I've never liked the look of fish eye lenses. Am I crazy? Am I missing something here? What is the appeal for this type of lens? Honestly curious from those that like these



Yep, I find it mostly useless. In the meantime it's a MUST underwater. But a fix focal length one? Nah, that's outdated. The zoom fisheye is a great thing.


----------



## chong67 (Apr 9, 2020)

So many announced RF lens yet again, but always see the same 11 lens on Canon website.


----------



## ordinaryfilmmaker (Apr 9, 2020)

chong67 said:


> So many announced RF lens yet again, but always see the same 11 lens on Canon website.



Be patient young Padawan


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Apr 9, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> By the looks of the patent translation, this is likely for full-frame image sensors


Definitely full frame, yes.



riker said:


> ... a fix focal length one? Nah, that's outdated. The zoom fisheye is a great thing.


I agree. I use mine only occasionally, but the 15 mm end is more important than the 8 mm. I guess is it's very small and light there could be a case for it.


----------



## melgross (Apr 9, 2020)

ordinaryfilmmaker said:


> I've never liked the look of fish eye lenses. Am I crazy? Am I missing something here? What is the appeal for this type of lens? Honestly curious from those that like these


It’s a speciality lens. Not a huge number of users, but popular for certain shots. It’s good to see Canon round out its line from the very shortest to the longest.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 9, 2020)

melgross said:


> It’s a speciality lens. Not a huge number of users, but popular for certain shots. It’s good to see Canon round out its line from the very shortest to the longest.



A LOT of stuff people are pantingly eager for on here when it's speculated about makes me say "So what?" BUT it's all good news for me anyway. If they put money into developing such things, it means there's a market, and furthermore that they have the resources to chase that market, which together mean they'll certainly develop something more pedestrian that I will be interested in, at some point.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 9, 2020)

A little confused by this. At 8 mm the current zoom fisheye is a heavily vignetted circular image, and you need to go out to 15mm to get a non-vignetted image in full frame. Not sure how useful the classic circular image fisheye is (at least for me). With the zoom you really get two lenses in one, plus the flexibility to use it with an APS-C sensor.


----------



## keithcooper (Apr 9, 2020)

This is the same one that appeared in a US patent on the 2nd April





Patent Public Search | USPTO







pdfaiw.uspto.gov





Reading the details, it could become a zoom design, as in the current 8-15, but this patent looks at improving correction of aberrations 

from 
Canon RF / EF Lenses – rumours and news ;-)


----------



## Sharlin (Apr 9, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Not sure how useful the classic circular image fisheye is (at least for me). With the zoom you really get two lenses in one, plus the flexibility to use it with an APS-C sensor.



I guess one point is that an FF circular fisheye _almost_ covers an APS-C sensor (or an APS-C crop of a larger sensor). So with a little distortion/vignetting correction it also functions as a rectangular APS-C fisheye.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Apr 9, 2020)

ordinaryfilmmaker said:


> I've never liked the look of fish eye lenses. Am I crazy? Am I missing something here? What is the appeal for this type of lens? Honestly curious from those that like these


Such a lens has its appeal for photographers that want to shoot 360 sphere panoramas with as less shots as possible. Together with a rumoured high Megapixel Camera one can do high resolution spheres with only 3 shots around and one additional Nadir shot. If I was into the R System yet I would have hoped for a 8 to 15mm fisheye zoom lens. Only 4 shots around with 12mm is good enough for me + 1 Nadir shot.
The 15 mm end is more versatile then the 8mm end which does have very few usecases in my opinion.

Frank


----------



## miketcool (Apr 9, 2020)

unfocused said:


> A little confused by this. At 8 mm the current zoom fisheye is a heavily vignetted circular image, and you need to go out to 15mm to get a non-vignetted image in full frame. Not sure how useful the classic circular image fisheye is (at least for me). With the zoom you really get two lenses in one, plus the flexibility to use it with an APS-C sensor.



It’s not just about focal length. A fisheye lets you capture action at very close range with a huge DOF. This is why the GoPro became so popular. These lenses are invaluable for underwater photography. To get the same DOF on my 14mm f/2.8 I need to stop down to f/11 or f/14. That’s a significant loss of light. There are other conditions that make autofocus and flash photography an issue like having so many moving points (fish, coral, zooplankton) while also being poorly lit. An RF body with it’s ability to focus in the dark along with a large DOF will massively increase my number of useable underwater shots.


----------



## Tom W (Apr 9, 2020)

It’s only a patent - doesn’t mean the lens will be produced. Would be surprised, though, if they made this lens instead of mimicking the 8-15 mm focal length of the EF fisheye zoom.

i have the older 15 mm fisheye. Don’t use it very often.


----------



## geekyrocketguy (Apr 9, 2020)

ordinaryfilmmaker said:


> I've never liked the look of fish eye lenses. Am I crazy? Am I missing something here? What is the appeal for this type of lens? Honestly curious from those that like these


1) VR applications
2) scientific applications
3) security applications
4) gimmicky/novel/B-roll sports stuff
5) I've occasionally used a fisheye lens for landscape photography when I needed something wider than 14mm, and the composition allowed me to put the horizon through the middle of the frame, which made the fisheye projection less annoying and obvious
6) Interior architecture (often defished in one axis)

In short, a fisheye has occasional applications, but gets annoying if overused.


----------



## Architect1776 (Apr 9, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Keep it at $300.00 USD.


----------



## Architect1776 (Apr 9, 2020)

SUNDOG04 said:


> Another specialized lens and that is ok, impressive Canon lenses. I hope in time they there will be L quality lenses for advanced amateur, such as 24-70 or 28-70 f4...reasonably compact, reasonably affordable, reasonably light weight. That is mostly the way Nikon started their mirrorless. Not meant as a complaint about Canon, but please, at some point, introduce some lenses geared toward something for discriminating landscape photographers...good quality, without the cost or weight of fast, heavy lenses.



A good 20mm f2.8 at no more than $300 USD. With computers and machines it should be easy to have superb quality at a decent price.


----------



## sulla (Apr 9, 2020)

ordinaryfilmmaker said:


> I've never liked the look of fish eye lenses. Am I crazy? Am I missing something here? What is the appeal for this type of lens? Honestly curious from those that like these


I have the EF 8-15 fisheye, and I love it! I use it mostly full-frame, i.e. at 14-15mm, but on occasion I shoot circular images at 8mm.
It ist not for every shot of course, but shooting portraits with that lens is maximum fun. (It's a little expensive fun, but maximum of it, at least.)
It's not easy to frame an acceptable portrait, but when the composition works, those are eye-catchers. I've used it at 8mm for group portraits, too, in a football huddle-style, putting the camera on the ground with the lens facing upwards and the people looking down to the camera. Also nice for food-shots or as macro for flowers. (You can get really, really close, I think with a slim extender it's even possible to capture a spider or fly that crawls over the front lens from underneath, I haven't tried, though - “If your photos aren't good enough, then you're not close enough” – Robert Capa).


----------



## Berowne (Apr 9, 2020)

Ah, a Hologon !


----------



## cayenne (Apr 9, 2020)

Photorex said:


> ...one can do high resolution spheres with only 3 shots around and one additional Nadir shot.
> <snip>
> Frank




What is a "NADIR" shot please?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne


----------



## Berowne (Apr 9, 2020)

cayenne said:


> What is a "NADIR" shot please?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> cayenne



Nadir Shot


----------



## BillB (Apr 9, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> A good 20mm f2.8 at no more than $300 USD. With computers and machines it should be easy to have superb quality at a decent price.


Computers and machines add up to heavy front end costs, which means you need volume to get the costs down. I think Canon decided a while ago that zooms were the way to get volume, especially at the wide end.


----------



## gmon750 (Apr 9, 2020)

ordinaryfilmmaker said:


> I've never liked the look of fish eye lenses. Am I crazy? Am I missing something here? What is the appeal for this type of lens? Honestly curious from those that like these


Underwater photographer here. I use the 8-15mm EF Fisheye almost exclusively when out in the ocean. It's a fantastic lens. I'm glad to see Canon working on an RF version. 

I currently have a5DM3 and have been waiting to for a "real" R-body worthy of replacing my 5D. With the R5 coming out, I'll be looking for new lenses, a fisheye version among them.


----------



## RAKaye (Apr 9, 2020)

I was questioning the 90 degree angle of view, since a full frame 8mm fisheye has always had a 180 degree angle of view, resulting in a circular image with a totally black vignette. Reading the patent, it says that the half angle of view is 90 degrees. It now makes sense that the complete angle of view would therefore be 180 degrees.


----------



## ordinaryfilmmaker (Apr 9, 2020)

gmon750 said:


> Underwater photographer here. I use the 8-15mm EF Fisheye almost exclusively when out in the ocean. It's a fantastic lens. I'm glad to see Canon working on an RF version.
> 
> I currently have a5DM3 and have been waiting to for a "real" R-body worthy of replacing my 5D. With the R5 coming out, I'll be looking for new lenses, a fisheye version among them.


 
I cited this scenario in my last video. How do you keep the camera dry?


----------



## Rixy (Apr 9, 2020)

ordinaryfilmmaker said:


> I've never liked the look of fish eye lenses. Am I crazy? Am I missing something here? What is the appeal for this type of lens? Honestly curious from those that like these


For parties, concerts, nightclubs, the shots are very striking


----------



## gmon750 (Apr 9, 2020)

ordinaryfilmmaker said:


> I cited this scenario in my last video. How do you keep the camera dry?



I use an Aquatica 5D housing with a vacuum port to be as certain as can be that the camera remains dry at depth. Serious gear for a serious camera. This is why many of us underwater photographers keep our cameras for so long. Housings like these cost more than the camera so whatever new camera we buy, we're committed to it.


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 9, 2020)

I'm missing somethere here. The spec sheet mentions an 8mm focal length, but some posts seem to infer a 8mm radius image circle on the sensor. Can someone clarify this to me, please?

Also, the spec sheet mentions a 90degree angle of view, but the author claims a 180degree angle of view. What am I missing here?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 9, 2020)

To be honest at f4...the current ef 8-15mm F4 L fisheye is a more interesting prospect. It's a lens that I was an early adopter and a lens that's way more versatile than any other fish eye that I've owned. Add the face that using a EF to RF converter does open the door to rear mounted filters...so the EF lens still rocks in my book as the best fishy ever made.


----------



## brad-man (Apr 9, 2020)

Fisheyes are great for underwater and fighter cockpit shots. Does that make them niche?


----------



## Jack Jian (Apr 10, 2020)

chong67 said:


> So many announced RF lens yet again, but always see the same 11 lens on Canon website.


Give it time Mr. No other brand has done 10 neew lenses in just 1 year.


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Apr 10, 2020)

There was an earlier patent for a RF 8-15mm zoom Fisheye.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 10, 2020)

gmon750 said:


> I currently have a5DM3 and have been waiting to for a "real" R-body...


   Gotta love the snobbish innuendo around here. "Better" would have been a nicer choice of words. Believe you me, the R trounces the 5D Mark III in my experience. I had a 5D mark III and know first hand.


----------



## Joules (Apr 10, 2020)

Nobody seems to be talking about the length. 70 mm! Assuming this is total lens length as usual, only 50 mm sticking out past the body. Less than 2 inches, if you prefer. 

That's pretty tiny for such an extreme lens, right? Maybe finally a lens for the folks who would like their mirrorless equipment to be small and travel friendly.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Apr 10, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I'm missing somethere here. The spec sheet mentions an 8mm focal length, but some posts seem to infer a 8mm radius image circle on the sensor. Can someone clarify this to me, please?
> 
> Also, the spec sheet mentions a 90degree angle of view, but the author claims a 180degree angle of view. What am I missing here?


If you want the mm for the radius of the image on the sensor than it is 12mm radius which gives a circular image with a diameter of the short sensor edge (24mm). The rest of the sensor will be kept in complete darkness.
The lens has a field of view of 180 degree. The spec sheet mentions the half angle of view.


----------



## VORON (Apr 10, 2020)

Photorex said:


> Such a lens has its appeal for photographers that want to shoot 360 sphere panoramas with as less shots as possible. Together with a rumoured high Megapixel Camera one can do high resolution spheres with only 3 shots around and one additional Nadir shot. If I was into the R System yet I would have hoped for a 8 to 15mm fisheye zoom lens. Only 4 shots around with 12mm is good enough for me + 1 Nadir shot.
> The 15 mm end is more versatile then the 8mm end which does have very few usecases in my opinion.


That's correct. But you only need four vertical shots at 12 mm for 100% sphere coverage.

I'd owned three fisheye lenses (8 mm Peleng, 8 mm Sigma, 8-15 mm L), and in fact, the 8 mm setting is really useful only for 1.5x cropped cameras. On full frame shooting your panoramas at 8 mm wastes a lot of sensor area with little convenience improvement versus 12 mm (3 vs 4 shots).

For those who don't shoot spherical panoramas, a fisheye less than 15 mm has little sense, except for rare photos with artistic effect. Although I used to take a fisheye to various trips as my only lens.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Apr 10, 2020)

VORON said:


> That's correct. But you only need four vertical shots at 12 mm for 100% sphere coverage.


Correct, if you shoot them horizontally leveled, but I normally shoot them with a angle of 6 degrees to the zenith (I use the 360 Atom with this built in angle) to have some overlap there as well espacially important with indoor shots. In my case there is a 5th Nadir shot necessary. Which can also be an advantage regarding post production when the aim is to have full sphere ithout a Nadir Patch Nadir mirrorball or Nadir logo or whatever you want to call it.

Frank


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 10, 2020)

Photorex said:


> Correct, if you shoot them horizontally leveled, but I normally shoot them with a angle of 6 degrees to the zenith (I use the 360 Atom with this built in angle) to have some overlap there as well espacially important with indoor shots. In my case there is a 5th Nadir shot necessary. Which can also be an advantage regarding post production when the aim is to have full sphere ithout a Nadir Patch Nadir mirrorball or Nadir logo or whatever you want to call it.
> 
> Frank


I'm curious. How do you take your final Nadir shot? Do you avoid seeing tripod legs somehow? How close together do you get all the photos to a nodal point?


----------



## gmon750 (Apr 10, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Gotta love the snobbish innuendo around here. "Better" would have been a nicer choice of words. Believe you me, the R trounces the 5D Mark III in my experience. I had a 5D mark III and know first hand.



There's always that one person... 

I was referring to my own personal case Einstein. When buying a $3K+ camera, only to invest another $4K-$5K for an underwater housing, and lenses... that camera better be precisely what one needs. It's not "snobbish", it's a necessity.

If you like the current R body, good for you. Buy yourself a participation trophy and move on. I do PAID underwater photoshoots with many shoots costing thousands of dollars. Shots that cannot under any circumstance be lost. That means dual slots. I've had card failures during shoots and that backup slot saved me.

What's your backup-plan when spending money and resources to do an underwater shoot only to have a card fail on that R camera?

Canon does not offer that right now on any current R body. I'm also referring to "real" analog controls/joysticks and not that touch-bar control since it's unusable for underwater housings. Things you obviously didn't factor in before getting triggered.

I didn't imply my personal needs and opinions apply to everyone else. I'm in a very small niche group for Canon and accept that.


----------



## melgross (Apr 10, 2020)

ordinaryfilmmaker said:


> I cited this scenario in my last video. How do you keep the camera dry?


Underwater housing.


----------



## Daan Stam (Apr 10, 2020)

chong67 said:


> So many announced RF lens yet again, but always see the same 11 lens on Canon website.


yeah sadly patents usually dont mean that a new lens is imminent, and that is if they come at all.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 10, 2020)

gmon750 said:


> There's always that one person...
> 
> I was referring to my own personal case Einstein. When buying a $3K+ camera, only to invest another $4K-$5K for an underwater housing, and lenses... that camera better be precisely what one needs. It's not "snobbish", it's a necessity.
> 
> ...


Two card slots, needed or not, doesn't make a camera "real" or not. I understand some people need two slots. I also understand the costs associated with your niche and why you need two slots. That isn't the point. Be "real", dude. Here's your trophy:  BTW: I can't imagine telling people who are using an 18-55 kit lens that they don't have a "real" lens. That is snobbish. Now I'll take my "participation trophy" R and run along home.

*re·al
/ˈrē(ə)l/*
adjective

1.actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed:"Julius Caesar was a *real* person"synonymsactual, existent, nonfictional, nonfictitious, factual, ... moreantonymsunreal, imaginary
2.(of a substance or thing) not imitation or artificial; genuine


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Apr 10, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I'm curious. How do you take your final Nadir shot? Do you avoid seeing tripod legs somehow? How close together do you get all the photos to a nodal point?


I will take my tripod out of the original footprint and shoot from an different angle onto the floor. With PTGUI there is a possibility to stitch such a shot when the viewpoint correction is switched off. You should place some small objects like some kind of jetons onto the floor to find these as controlpoints. They can easily be cloned out afterwards. This method does only work with flat surfaces without differences in height or depth.


----------



## sulla (Apr 11, 2020)

sulla said:


> It's a little expensive fun, but maximum of it, at least.


Here are a few images that I hope illustrate the use of that little fisheye lens nicely. You can have a great time with it!

Portraits I did for a company-website:



A portrait during a seminar:



Get real close and offer unseen perspectives



A friend



An ordinary portrait - with a twist


----------



## melgross (Apr 11, 2020)

sulla said:


> Here are a few images that I hope illustrate the use of that little fisheye lens nicely. You can have a great time with it!
> 
> Portraits I did for a company-website:
> View attachment 189723
> ...


Great photos!


----------



## AJ (Apr 11, 2020)

I have a Tokina 10-17 zoomable fisheye (APSC) that focuses insanely close. It's a fun lens. It's cracking sharp and very contrasty, but the purple fringing drives me nuts at times.

Anyways, I like using a fisheye for astrophotography because it's close to equal-area mapping (no stretch in the corners) and perspective doesn't matter for astro. I was hoping for something faster than f/4, given that the patent is for a prime. f/2.8 would be nice (like the old 15/2.8 which is a nice lens). f/2 would be even nicer...


----------



## SteveC (Apr 11, 2020)

sulla said:


> Here are a few images that I hope illustrate the use of that little fisheye lens nicely. You can have a great time with it!
> 
> Portraits I did for a company-website:
> View attachment 189723
> ...



I'm not normally a fan of fisheye but you've done it well. In all cases you've either made sure the subject is relatively undistorted and used the distortions to pull the attention to the subject (sort of like how bokeh is used), or in one case...you used circular symmetry in your composition. (I guess you can't use rule of thirds here!)

(I guess I've seen too much fisheye where the point seems to be to make the subject's nose as big as the Empire State Building, both in the same frame. As if the point were to grotesqueify (if that's a word) things gratuitously.)

Edit: As I think about it, the key to your technique is to make sure that straight lines in the subject are never severely bent--just compressed, and only lightly so.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 11, 2020)

Berowne said:


> Ah, a Hologon !


Nope!
The Hologon was a non-distorsion ultrawide lens, not a fisheye.


----------



## peters (Apr 12, 2020)

SUNDOG04 said:


> Another specialized lens and that is ok, impressive Canon lenses. I hope in time they there will be L quality lenses for advanced amateur, such as 24-70 or 28-70 f4...reasonably compact, reasonably affordable, reasonably light weight. That is mostly the way Nikon started their mirrorless. Not meant as a complaint about Canon, but please, at some point, introduce some lenses geared toward something for discriminating landscape photographers...good quality, without the cost or weight of fast, heavy lenses.


If you are ready to adapt, there are a lot of decently sized and priced EF lenses. But yes, if you want native lenses for RF, you are correct, there are only high end lenses available. 
Though I think these High End lenses make the new mount and platform realy realy interesting


----------



## David - Sydney (Apr 14, 2020)

riker said:


> Yep, I find it mostly useless. In the meantime it's a MUST underwater. But a fix focal length one? Nah, that's outdated. The zoom fisheye is a great thing.


As others have mentioned, underwater use is essential but 8-15mm zoom is far more useful than a fixed 8mm. I generally use my EF8-15mm at the 15mm fisheye end getting up close to reefs as strobes have a limited reach underwater or over/unders. 
Although I will move to RF with the R5, I will keep my EF8-15mm + adapter as I don't see a RF version being substantially better
I'm not a surf photographer but a fixed lens can be more useful if the housing have limited controls built in. 8mm would mean being way inside the wave/impact zone though.
See the 3rd photo in the recent Nikon surf shots (https://mynikonlife.com.au/news/gea...eo-of-the-year-awards-finalists-announcement/) for a unique shot!
15mm for landscape... the horizon needs to be through the centre of the frame (see below). Tilting up/down can be interesting in certain situations when you deliberately wanting to bend the horizon up/down
I have also used it for astrolandscape for milky way bows to minimise the number of shots needed although f4 needs higher ISO than F2.8 for my 14mm Samyang.
.


----------



## VORON (Apr 15, 2020)

Photorex said:


> Correct, if you shoot them horizontally leveled, but I normally shoot them with a angle of 6 degrees to the zenith (I use the 360 Atom with this built in angle) to have some overlap there as well espacially important with indoor shots. In my case there is a 5th Nadir shot necessary.


I shoot two vertical images with slight up-tilt, and two more images with slight down-tilt. Not using the tripod, just a thin nylon thread ending with a nut as a weight. In most cases the panoramas are stitched almost perfectly (MUCH better than with consumer-grade panoramic camera). Unless there's noticeable wind present. 
My most recent panoramic photo made with this technique, 78 MP: https://photos.app.goo.gl/MPUsBFdoDg8PzcXi6


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 15, 2020)

VORON said:


> I shoot two vertical images with slight up-tilt, and two more images with slight down-tilt. Not using the tripod, just a thin nylon thread ending with a nut as a weight. In most cases the panoramas are stitched almost perfectly (MUCH better than with consumer-grade panoramic camera). Unless there's noticeable wind present.
> My most recent panoramic photo made with this technique, 78 MP: https://photos.app.goo.gl/MPUsBFdoDg8PzcXi6


Wow - Is this what you do? :
* Tie the thread to a screw which goes into the bottom hole of the camera, thread extends just to the ground with nut on bottom to barely stop motion (maybe above a little cross on the ground?). This stabilizes camera position and aids in finding 90 degree directions.
* Two portrait shots in opposite directions, both slightly up.
* Two more of the same (slightly down), 90 degrees from the 1st 2.
That's enough to get the zenith and nadir, and overlap enough so there are no slivers missed.
(very clever!)

What is the focal length mm needed for enough overlap?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 15, 2020)

I have worked on a commercial dive boat for well over 20 years and I have never seen anybody shoot with a circular fisheye. Full frame fisheye, or diagonal 180º yes, 8-15 zoomed to 15, 11-24, 14-24, 16-35, 17-40 all yes, but never a circular fisheye.

The only decent market for a circular fisheye is the VR 360º shooters, which is a quickly growing market in photography, real estate and businesses are expanding their virtual tours more and more.


----------



## VORON (Apr 16, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Wow - Is this what you do? :
> * Tie the thread to a screw which goes into the bottom hole of the camera, thread extends just to the ground with nut on bottom to barely stop motion (maybe above a little cross on the ground?). This stabilizes camera position and aids in finding 90 degree directions.


No, I use thin rubber ring to attach one end of the thread to the lens barrel, as close as possible to the front element (there the nodal point of 8-15 is - see this article).

The another end of the thread is equipped with steel nut as a weight. I take note of some point on the ground (like small rock or leaf), and then try to hover the nut right above this point as close as possible to the ground. That ensures the constant camera positioning within 1-2 cm without tripod. And you don't need fixing the nadir area, as your nut isn't visible on photos.



> * Two portrait shots in opposite directions, both slightly up.
> * Two more of the same (slightly down), 90 degrees from the 1st 2.
> That's enough to get the zenith and nadir, and overlap enough so there are no slivers missed.
> (very clever!)
> ...


Right. Is case with 8-15L I need 12 mm FL - so that's the horizontal FOV is exactly 180 degrees, and there are small black corners in your image. AFAIK it also works with that Tokina zoom fisheye - a version without lens shade.

As a result, your spherical panorama has 325% of your sensor resolution with just 4 shots, while in traditional way (shooting fully circular photos with 3 shots) you get just around 125% of sensor resolution.

I have doubts whether it's going to work on APS-C Canon cameras, due to 1.6x crop, as you won't get 180° horizontal coverage at 8 mm. On Sony with 1.5x crop the 8-15L @8mm works just right.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Apr 16, 2020)

VORON said:


> No, I use thin rubber ring to attach one end of the thread to the lens barrel, as close as possible to the front element (there the nodal point of 8-15 is - see this article).
> 
> The another end of the thread is equipped with steel nut as a weight. I take note of some point on the ground (like small rock or leaf), and then try to hover the nut right above this point as close as possible to the ground. That ensures the constant camera positioning within 1-2 cm without tripod. And you don't need fixing the nadir area, as your nut isn't visible on photos.
> 
> ...


Hi,

your technique sounds interesting. I will try it also. Maybe I will fix the nut on the floor with my foot so that I can stabilize the cam at its NPP by spanning the nylon thread. 

Yes, you are correct, the 8mm on 1,6x Canon Crop is not enough to get 180 degrees coverage onto the sensor.


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 16, 2020)

VORON said:


> No, I use thin rubber ring to attach one end of the thread to the lens barrel, as close as possible to the front element (there the nodal point of 8-15 is - see this article).
> 
> The another end of the thread is equipped with steel nut as a weight. I take note of some point on the ground (like small rock or leaf), and then try to hover the nut right above this point as close as possible to the ground. That ensures the constant camera positioning within 1-2 cm without tripod. And you don't need fixing the nadir area, as your nut isn't visible on photos.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your explanation, and link (which was quite extensive). I assume you shoot all of your spherical panos with 4 photos, but wonder if you ever want more resolution and use other setups with more photos?


----------



## VORON (Apr 17, 2020)

Photorex said:


> your technique sounds interesting. I will try it also. Maybe I will fix the nut on the floor with my foot so that I can stabilize the cam at its NPP by spanning the nylon thread.


I would respectfully disagree. If holding the end of your thread with foot, you won't ensure the fully vertical position of the thread, and your camera will float freely in random direction.

The entire idea is that gravity ensures constant position of the lens' nodal point. In order to achieve this, the nut shall not lay on the ground, but very slightly brush it. I must admit, it's a bit difficult, when a wind is present.



usern4cr said:


> I assume you shoot all of your spherical panos with 4 photos, but wonder if you ever want more resolution and use other setups with more photos?


The 8-15L is my third fisheye lens after Peleng 8mm and Sigma 8mm, and I started shooting my panoramas at 12 mm just recently. Before that I was getting just 20-25 MP at 8 mm, and even less with EOS 5D in 2012-2013. So 78 MP already looks extremely detailed to me.

No, I haven't tried to achieve even more resolution, and if I wanted that, I would simply get the 2nd hand Sony A7R - it would make 120 MP panoramas at 12 mm. Now I'm planning to downgrade my panorama setup a little with Samyang 7.5 mm Fisheye - on Sony APS-C camera it's equal to 12 mm FF, and again it makes 80 MP panoramas with just 500 g camera setup.

BTW, many of my pano shots in full resolution can be looked at here: https://goo.gl/photos/Mi3Pxyn2TnhkSiKGA


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 17, 2020)

BTW, many of my pano shots in full resolution can be looked at here: https://goo.gl/photos/Mi3Pxyn2TnhkSiKGA
[/QUOTE]
That's a lot of spherical panos (well done)! I didn't notice any black portions that you previously mentioned can occur where there is no image coverage. Did you patch them up, or something else?


----------



## VORON (Apr 17, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> That's a lot of spherical panos (well done)! I didn't notice any black portions that you previously mentioned can occur where there is no image coverage. Did you patch them up, or something else?


Thanks! You've probably misunderstood me. There're tiny black corners on 12 mm source shots, but everything is fine on resulting panoramas, unless you've really messed with camera positioning (very rare case though).


----------



## VORON (Apr 17, 2020)

I mean, the source shots shall look like this: https://photos.app.goo.gl/QriMgvJFNER3TXWK9


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 17, 2020)

VORON said:


> Thanks! You've probably misunderstood me. There're tiny black corners on 12 mm source shots, but everything is fine on resulting panoramas, unless you've really messed with camera positioning (very rare case though).


Yes, I thought you meant in the result. I assumed there was lots of black in the initial images. It's good to know there's none in the result.

By the way, is there some "viewer" software/tool that can be used with your panos so that you can pan around (like you see when looking at travel trailers for sale) ?


----------



## VORON (Apr 17, 2020)

Google Photos does that natively after clicking on panorama. Plus lots of panorama viewer or tour maker software. Starting from that's included into PTGUI.


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 18, 2020)

VORON said:


> Google Photos does that natively after clicking on panorama. Plus lots of panorama viewer or tour maker software. Starting from that's included into PTGUI.


OK - I went back and viewed some of your panos that way - it's awesome! It's humbling to me to think that a spherical pano that good could be taken with 4 pictures & no tripod on a camera that small & light, and with unobstructed zenith & nadir view, too! I've loved taking conventional panos for really hires pictures to hang on a wall, but now you've got me wondering about getting into spherical panos for the real-time user interaction they offer. I guess I'll be wondering what's the best lens for that on an upcoming R5!


----------

