DSLRUsers.com

Leigh (nnnnsic) came to Newcastle for a visit this weekend just gone. One of the places we visited was Cathedral Church of Christ the King otherwise known as Christ Church Cathedral. This is Newcastle's Anglican cathedral and was first built in 1817. In 1885 work started on replacing the old church with the current one. The new cathedral came into use 1902 but the main body was not fully completed until 1964. This is the first of two batches of pics from there. All but the very last pic were taken with the 10.5 DX Nikkor fish eye lens - hand held and shot in ambient lighting only. They have have had partial lens correction done using DxO optics.

I think they show some of the versatility of the lens and they certainly allowed me to get more of the interior of this beautiful building. We spent just over an hour there and could have spent twice as long. To see a large version of a pic just click it.





The last photo of the stained glass is two shots taken with the nikkor 12-24 and composited together.

...

Peter,

Great stuff, the Catherdral takes on another dimension in colour, compared to Leigh's earlier shots.

Love #3 and #4 they are excellent, #1 is just a little behind them, and #2 doesn't really work aswell in my opinion. Pity about the harsh window lighting and reflections on the ground.

Peter - these shots in colour are great and your correction of perspective works very well. I agree with Craig on the floor reflection as being distracting.

Peter,

You're already converted and now you take Leigh down to that road

Craig, Chris. How I wish that reflection was not on the floor <grrrr>. The colours in the church are amazing. I'd like to go back when it's a little darker outside.

Birddog - I'm a died in the wool agnostic. The only conversion I'll do on Leigh is to turn him into an oenophile

stubbsy wrote: Birddog - I'm a died in the wool agnostic. The only conversion I'll do on Leigh is to turn him into an oenophile

So, he earned a degree in wine appreciation short course
Next one send him to fozzie, so he can complete his master degree at the Barrossa Valley vineyard.

Hi Peter - sorry to be picky but....

In #2 it would've been heaps better if had been standing in the centre. There's a lean to the shot that's only really obvious when you see #1 and #2 together. #3's a bit off as well

I think the vertical treatment of #3 works a lot better than the horizontal of #1 and #2 as it accentuates the fact that you are in a cathedral - #1 for me just doesn't look quite right.

I prefer these colour shot's to Leigh's B&W - personal preference of course.

Looking at #3 I reckon that the banners could have been a good subject for shots as well.

I've only been in this cathedral once before (mid 80's I think) and was certainly impressed then. I didn't have my camera with me as I was taking part in an Army Church Service at the time It looked like the sort of place you could explore for ages.

Peter, very nice work! The last 2 are my faouritve.

Alex

Peter,

These are great. It's so good to see that much coverage in a church, with that lovely clean light and great straight verticals. I think you've done a good job here. First two are my favs here.

Paul

No need to worry about being picky. I can take it

paulvdb1 wrote:In #2 it would've been heaps better if had been standing in the centre.

Yep - I have a few others where I did just that, but this image was much better exposed and sharper.

paulvdb1 wrote:There's a lean to the shot that's only really obvious when you see #1 and #2 together. #3's a bit off as well

The lean is an artefact of the fact they were shot with a fisheye lens. While they have had some defishing applied, I haven't gone 100%

paulvdb1 wrote:I think the vertical treatment of #3 works a lot better than the horizontal

To be honest I didn't really think about it at the time, but you are 100% correct. When I go back there I'll do some more with that orientation. It has much more majesty to it doesn't it.

So far as the banners - yes great potential subjects (although a little hard to get high enough for) as are the stained glass windows (there are probably 20 or 30 of them) and the statues and carvings....

Oddly I've lived in Newcastle all my life, spent 10 years living 1 block away from the cathedral and this is only the second time I've been inside.

Peter, great shots and the lighting is spot on and very even which is always a big ask for these type of indoor shots

stubbsy wrote:How I wish that reflection was not on the floor <grrrr>.

The 12-24 could really use a slide-in filter holder slot to accept a polariser...

Cheers
Steffen.

Oops, just realised the shot with the reflection was taken with the 10.5. AFAIK, it has a rear filter bayonet, but that's of no use with a polariser...

Cheers
Steffen.

Steffen wrote:Oops, just realised the shot with the reflection was taken with the 10.5. AFAIK, it has a rear filter bayonet, but that's of no use with a polariser...

Cheers
Steffen.

Correct on both counts Steffen, and my 12-24 is the Nikkor so if it were that lens it can take front mounted filters

Slider wrote:Peter, great shots and the lighting is spot on and very even which is always a big ask for these type of indoor shots

Thanks Mark. This sort of environment is a big test for equpiment and photographer. Good job I have quality equipment

Gorgeous images Peter. I agree with Craig et.al. re-reflection and I know how p...ed you must be about its presence.
Colours brilliant and certainly a different look to Leigh's.

By way of some comment I like the one to the left of the stained glass window (that I think is beautiful) the only correction would be to adjust the balance so slight move to the right when taking the shot I suppose(but I'm being picky here on a well taken image).

Similarly the first one loses a little of its inherent impact (IMO) due to the eye grabbing left hand pew/stand whatever it is and the slight imbalance that it contributes to as well. Perhaps moving a little closer or asking the rector to move the bloody thing But I would think that moving closer to the main seating may have even enhanced or made more prominent that glorious reflective circular glow in the middle of the isle way. That reflection initself is a little off centre, so therefore moving in closer and slightly to the right again may have presented more of a balanced view.
Again I say that I'm nit picking here as I know at your level Peter you are striving for every little imperfection to be shut out, personal opinions notwhithstanding
Though they're beautifully taken images which ever way you cut it, Peter
cheers
marco

Marco

Thanks for taking the time to offer this well considered critique

marcotrov wrote:By way of some comment I like the one to the left of the stained glass window (that I think is beautiful) the only correction would be to adjust the balance so slight move to the right when taking the shot I suppose(but I'm being picky here on a well taken image).

This screamed at me the moment I PPd it. My biggest weakness now is my failure to perfectly compose in camera and it's something I'm working on.

marcotrov wrote:Similarly the first one loses a little of its inherent impact (IMO) due to the eye grabbing left hand pew/stand whatever it is and the slight imbalance that it contributes to as well. Perhaps moving a little closer or asking the rector to move the bloody thing But I would think that moving closer to the main seating may have even enhanced or made more prominent that glorious reflective circular glow in the middle of the isle way. That reflection initself is a little off centre, so therefore moving in closer and slightly to the right again may have presented more of a balanced view.

This was a challenge. It's a corrected fish eye shot and that long bench actually goes back much further than this (I cropped about 1/4 from the bottom and a touch left and right). I have another image standing forward of it, but the foreground is too busy - I think it needs that foreground space to lead into the image. I also had a less corrected version of this, but it just added even more of the bench. And of course my in camera composition let me down AGAIN.

marcotrov wrote:Again I say that I'm nit picking here as I know at your level Peter you are striving for every little imperfection to be shut out, personal opinions notwhithstanding

Finally - I don't have a problem with that - in fact I encourage this wholehartedly. I strive for the perfect shot (of course I'll never get it). Comments like these help me along that path.

aha a 10mm fisheye lens can be used for taking spanning architectural scenes
wish i had one in Paris as on occassion the 12mm end of the 12-24dx wasn't wde enough to fit everything in

just tel me one thing why are you images so rectalinear straight when you took them on a fisheye lens they cropped or something?

technically great image by the way as i know how hard it is to get a sharp pic hand held in low light.

wendellt wrote:aha a 10mm fisheye lens can be used for taking spanning architectural scenes
wish i had one in Paris as on occassion the 12mm end of the 12-24dx wasn't wde enough to fit everything in

just tel me one thing why are you images so rectalinear straight when you took them on a fisheye lens they cropped or something?

technically great image by the way as i know how hard it is to get a sharp pic hand held in low light.

I believe Peter used dxo optics

Wendell

Andrew is correct I used DxO. This lets you choose the defish percentage anywhere between 0 and 100%. Some samples - same image, different % defish:

................................... 0% defish ...................................................................................... 33% defish
.....

................................... 66% defish ..................................................................................... 85% defish
.....
................................... 100% defish..................................................................................... 100% defish + crop
.....

yeah peter that's some insane wide angle trickery
i have started a newfound lust for 2006 a nikon fisheye but i still dont liek the fact it can't take filters on the front element, what happens if you scratch it, well i guess lust for another one

thanks for the demonstration and thanks andrew for pointing DXO out

wendellt wrote:yeah peter that's some insane wide angle trickery
i have started a newfound lust for 2006 a nikon fisheye but i still dont liek the fact it can't take filters on the front element, what happens if you scratch it, well i guess lust for another one

thanks for the demonstration and thanks andrew for pointing DXO out

Hahhahaha, didn't take you long, the same day you post you don't need/want anymore kit, you've already found a lens to lust after. But in all seriousness this is a very fun and cool lens that can provide some great affects, but is also sharp as a tack!

wendellt wrote:yeah peter that's some insane wide angle trickery
i have started a newfound lust for 2006 a nikon fisheye but i still dont liek the fact it can't take filters on the front element, what happens if you scratch it, well i guess lust for another one

thanks for the demonstration and thanks andrew for pointing DXO out

Like Craig said and I hinted in the lens lust post I knew having played with this lens that it's one you'd lust

Hardest thing is not to get your feet in shot since it has a 180 degree field of view

Edit: And if you want to have a closer look at these images the larger versions are accessible in my SmugMug gallery here. Note that there IS distortion at the eggstream edges.

Thanks Stubbsy for that very nice illustration. As if I had needed any more firing up of my lust for that bloody 10.5...

Two questions: is the DxO software you've used Windows only, and, did you notice any notable image deterioration in (esp 100%) corrected shots?

Cheers
Steffen.

Alpha_7 wrote:

wendellt wrote:yeah peter that's some insane wide angle trickery
i have started a newfound lust for 2006 a nikon fisheye but i still dont liek the fact it can't take filters on the front element, what happens if you scratch it, well i guess lust for another one

thanks for the demonstration and thanks andrew for pointing DXO out

Hahhahaha, didn't take you long, the same day you post you don't need/want anymore kit, you've already found a lens to lust after. But in all seriousness this is a very fun and cool lens that can provide some great affects, but is also sharp as a tack!

Craig,
Lust is similar to the air we're breathing. No more lust means no more air go into your lung, then no more joys, you can only see people with tears on their eyes.

Steffen wrote:Thanks Stubbsy for that very nice illustration. As if I had needed any more firing up of my lust for that bloody 10.5...

Two questions: is the DxO software you've used Windows only, and, did you notice any notable image deterioration in (esp 100%) corrected shots?

Cheers
Steffen.

Steffen

It's Windows only. Nikon Capture also offers defish for this lens, but it's 0 or 100% only. When corrected to 100% you can see noticeable chromatic aberration at the edges hence a crop is best which still gives you a hell of a lot of image. Here is a link to the original 100% defish example from above. The DxO software can be set to optimally crop. They can achieve this as they have a separate module for every lens so in this case it optimally crops where this is largely eliminated based on their testing.

The big plus with DxO is that it is module based. You get one for your body and a separate one for each lens. Each module is fine tuned for the optical characteristics of the particular lens/body and corrects any known flaws.

If you compare the 0% and the 100% + crop images above they appear subjectively the same but with the rectilinear conversion done.

Thanks Stubbsy. I went to download the demo version, and it turns out they support Mac OSX as well

Unfortunately, there is no support for D2H RAW, only JPEG

I'll give it a try anyway...

Cheers
Steffen

Steffen wrote:Thanks Stubbsy. I went to download the demo version, and it turns out they support Mac OSX as well

Unfortunately, there is no support for D2H RAW, only JPEG

I'll give it a try anyway...

Cheers
Steffen

Well there you go. I looked at their site for that and couldn't find it. Musn't have looked hard enough. I wonder how a D2H NEF is different. My guess is it will work.

#1 really appeals to me with it's lovely colours, stubbsy, I like that one very much. A very nice series overall.