UWA Lens or Panorama?

Well, it would depend on which UWA it is and whether it distorts at the wide end etc, but I would say a shot with a wide mountain range - rather than taking an UWA shot and making them look like molehills, a series of stitched shots may provide a more zoomed but wide and more detailed image without the need for major cropping.

If that makes any sense at all.

I like using UWA's for sunsets and waterscapes.
 
I don't use a nodal rail and don't particularly have any desire to get into that side of it so I would say, anything with close subject in frame, I'd use an ultra wide and crop to panorama afterwards. If it's all stuff a reasonable distance form the camera, I'd consider a panorama. Normally use something like a 50mm.

Only other considerations I can think of are convenience, do I have a tripod and pano head with me, do I need loads of resolution, is this a quick grab shot or might I want tonnes of mp to print huge?
 
Tom Green said:
Well, it would depend on which UWA it is and whether it distorts at the wide end etc, but I would say a shot with a wide mountain range - rather than taking an UWA shot and making them look like molehills, a series of stitched shots may provide a more zoomed but wide and more detailed image without the need for major cropping.

If that makes any sense at all.

I like using UWA's for sunsets and waterscapes.
Click to expand...

The mountains are going to look more or less the same surely if you're shooting from the same position?
 
Tom Green said:
a series of stitched shots may provide a more zoomed but wide and more detailed image without the need for major cropping.

I like using UWA's for sunsets and waterscapes.
Click to expand...

This panorama ended up 20000 pixels wide

5D3_9270_9276_stitch_1500-2_1500 by David Williams, on Flickr

and this is a 100% crop from the cranes to the left of the Cheesgrater

5D3_9270_9276_stitch_BIG by David Williams, on Flickr

I don't think anything this side of a 10*8 camera is going to record that sort of detail.

D
 
Last edited:
It does, I use micro four thirds and had a lovely 9-18mm (18-36 FF equivalent) but hardly used it I have to admit, looking recently at trying panoramas and you certainly mentioned what I thought would be more panorama likely ie mountain range type shots. I guess a UWA to get one shot is going to be good for those shots where there's some movement and highly unlikely to get as a panorama due to stitching.
 
Donnie said:
What limitations though? Not arguing, simply looking into the 2 different methods and wondering if its worth me getting another UWA or not ?
Click to expand...

As you mentioned, movement between shots is one.

Requirement for a tripod, or at least, best chance of success using a tripod

Anything close to the camera is going to look weird unless you have equipment and knowledge to deal with it.

Having to remember to lock everything down between takes.

Not major issues, but as your thread alludes to, there are times when one option is better than the other and then somewhere in the middle where both options would do just fine.
 
For me, an UWA is more about perspective control than trying to cram more and more into the frame.

I currently don't have an UWA in my kit bag, but in my experience they are very difficult lenses to use well, but the results can be amazing when done right.
 
Should have mentioned another slight limitation of panoramas. Generally speaking, in order to stitch correctly and avoid weird distortions, you need to sweep with the camera completely level. That is say, that it's nearly always going to be need the horizon dead center on a horizontal panorama. That can be a bit limiting from a composition point of view and may force you to use a wider lens only to then dump half the image afterwards to keep the bit you wanted.

That said, pointing an ultrawide at an extreme angle can cause some serious distortions too. With landscapes it's rarely a problem, if you're in a city, it might well be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top