Wide angle vs panorama

What is the difference between a shot taken by wide angle lens (say @10-15 mm) and a panorama stitched by shots taken by normal lens (say kit lens @18 mm)?

I did once a pano Test

http://www.thailand.chainat.ch/test/p1.JPG

http://www.thailand.chainat.ch/test/pano.jpg

Ist just atest, but I am sure you can't do this with a wide-angle

Perspective mostly. The wider the focal length the greater the perceived distance between objects front-to-back. A 50mm lens used to shoot a panorama should yield a rather natural looking view, while the same stitched view through, say, a 16mm lens might seem both stretched (L to R) and distant (F to B).

I've always called panorama's a "poor man's ultra wide" lens

or you can have a combination of both... this is 4 shots stitched at 10mm:

I usually turn the camera to portrait to do panoramas and overlap each shot by about a third...

Dave_W said:

I've always called panorama's a "poor man's ultra wide" lens

Click to expand...

Then you would be wrong. Panoramas are about getting more resolution and a more normal perspective than getting more width. You shoot multiple frames with a longer lens and stitch them together which offers a more normal perspective and an image that's doesn't have to enlarged as much as a scene shot with an ultra wide. I'd say it's more accurate to call an ultra wide a lazy man's panorama.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

No, I definitely called pano's a poor man's wide angle.

All kidding aside, I do see your point. A pano is meant to include a wider berth of scene just like a WA it's just that WA's come with the added bonus (or liability) of angular distortion, whereas pano's do not.