Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Panasonic 7-14

biomed

biomed

New member
Jorgen Udvang said:
The Panasonic GH cameras have totally changed the way I shoot industrial photos. Being able to use the articulated screen and the excellent Pana 7-14 open up a whole new world of angles and perspectives. Here, I have the camera almost at floor level in a location where there isn't room for anything the size of my head between the camera and the wall.
Click to expand...
That is indeed a huge advantage of the fully articulated screen. When using the GH3/7-14 combo I almost always use the LCD to compose and focus. I don't believe I would shoot much with this lens without this feature.
 
biomed

biomed

New member
Skridlovian said:
I'm a long-term Nikon user who acquired an OMD a few months ago. My D700 hasn't done much since. I've had the Nikon 14-24 2.8 since it was first released so the Panasonic 7-14 is an appealing equivalent given the general approval and many of the images posted. Right now it's hard to justify (OK: afford) this lens given that I have the Nikkor - which I can't bear to sell even though I don't use it a lot.

A couple of comments. Many of the shots posted here and elsewhere show conspicuous keystoning - which is obviously unavoidable in some circumstances. However where the vertical angles aren't extreme, I'm really surprised that people aren't correcting this extremely unsightly effect; it's often accompanied by the shot being out of level too, which is glaringly obvious with subjects that include architecture. I'd have thought that any IQ loss caused by PP correction of these effects would be hugely compensated.

The other characteristic that nobody except me seems to mind - and it applies to both of the lenses above, and no doubt all others at these extremely short focal lengths, is the "volume anamorphosis" distortion. This is most apparent where there are people toward the edge of the shot who appear disturbingly broadened. Obviously these aren't portrait focal lengths but the effect can be seen even with inanimate subjects, variably. The stretching effect is particularly noticeable where there are circular or spherical elements at the periphery of the shot .
As far as I'm aware the only RAW processor that corrects this is DxO, and I'm not sure whether the 7-14 is amongst their mapped lenses, or even if this correction can be applied to any lens of appropriate FL. They offer two different correction strategies.
Volume anamorphosis correction
Given that I have four RAW processors already I find it hard to justify (again!) buying this software however it's definitely worth downloading an evaluation copy to see if this facility makes a worthwhile difference.

Roy
Click to expand...
Roy,
I agree with you. This lens takes a bit of practice. As with any short lens, awareness of subject placement and keeping the camera level can be critical if distortions are to be kept to a minimum. I strongly recommend using a spirit level mounted in the flash shoe if your camera does not have a built in level. Short lenses will distort more near the FOV. If a person is the main subject try to place them near the center. Distortion can be corrected with software, but extreme correction will result in having to crop a lot of the image. All of this being said, the distortion can be used very creatively. The 7-14 does invite experimentation. The DxO ViewPoint software for correcting wide angle distortion is now $49.00.


Mike
 
Last edited:
Jorgen Udvang

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
It all depends. When I'm shooting for fun, like the 17 May photos, I don't do corrections. Sometimes, I even keep keystoning as a "special effect", like here:



For commercial shots, I always do corrections, like this one which is heavily corrected using the "Warp" function in PS:

 
S

Skridlovian

New member
biomed said:
Roy,
I agree with you. This lens takes a bit of practice. As with any short lens, awareness of subject placement and keeping the camera level can be critical if distortions are to be kept to a minimum. I strongly recommend using a spirit level mounted in the flash shoe if your camera does not have a built in level. Short lenses will distort more near the FOV. If a person is the main subject try to place them near the center. Distortion can be corrected with software, but extreme correction will result in having to crop a lot of the image. All of this being said, the distortion can be used very creatively. The 7-14 does invite experimentation. The DxO ViewPoint software for correcting wide angle distortion is now $49.00.


Mike
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed, I'd seen DxO's promotions for this stand-alone function, which I'll be trying soon. However having raised the subject numerous times over the years I've been using UWAs on various different forums I've noticed that very few people seem to care. As opposed to many other less obvious lens "defects". Worrying about minute degrees of "sharpness" on snaps that'll end up in web-sized versions is absurd when confronted by gross geometric distortions - of which there are some hideous examples posted here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top