Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="480sparky" data-source="post: 315516" data-attributes="member: 15805">The D600/610, in DX mode, end up being 10.2 mp.&nbsp; I thought I'd keep my DX 10.5 fisheye, but 10.2 mp just didn't cut it.&nbsp; I opted for the Siggy 15mm (based, in part, on backdoorhippie's recommendation) and have never been sorry for it.FWIW, here's the results of my tests for defishing the Sigma 15mm:I found out that in order to defish the lens enough to take out the curvature of the optics, I needed to crop the finished image down to 2788 x 4186 pixels (works out to 11 mp).&nbsp; This results in a staggering 144° FOV.... far wider than my current 17mms.&nbsp; So if I'm willing to toss out more than half my D600's pixels, I can really 'take it all in', so to speak.If pixels are important, I can reduce the amount of defishing and get more pixels in the final image, but the more pixels that are included means more curvature to what should be straight lines.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="480sparky, post: 315516, member: 15805"] The D600/610, in DX mode, end up being 10.2 mp. I thought I'd keep my DX 10.5 fisheye, but 10.2 mp just didn't cut it. I opted for the Siggy 15mm (based, in part, on backdoorhippie's recommendation) and have never been sorry for it. FWIW, here's the results of my tests for defishing the Sigma 15mm: I found out that in order to defish the lens enough to take out the curvature of the optics, I needed to crop the finished image down to 2788 x 4186 pixels (works out to 11 mp). This results in a staggering 144° FOV.... far wider than my current 17mms. So if I'm willing to toss out more than half my D600's pixels, I can really 'take it all in', so to speak. If pixels are important, I [I]can[/I] reduce the amount of defishing and get more pixels in the final image, but the more pixels that are included means more curvature to what should be straight lines. [/QUOTE]

Verification