Old Montreal... 180 degrees at a time.

[jerryph]

This past Saturday was the nicest day of the year so far. Warm and sunny, it was the perfect time to take the camera into the Old Port of Montreal and the surrounding Old Montreal area.

Cobble-stone streets and a mix of architecture that goes from brand new to 2 centuries old make it a photographer's paradise. I must have counted at least a hundred people walking around with dSLR cameras!

The title... "Old Montreal... 180 degrees at a time" Comes from the fact that I slapped on my fisheye lens and it has a coverage of 180 degrees horizontally with the camera in the same orientation. The fisheye look is unique and definitely not something that I would use very often, but for this exercise, I found it both fun and challenging.

My flickr slideshow of "Old Montreal... 180 degrees at a time (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerryph/sets/72157616098908198/show/)".

Enjoy.

[ladyups]

Some very interesting views here, Jerry. It looks like a beautiful city. I love the brick streets. Reminds me of the streets of St. Joseph when I was a young child. I think most of them have been taken up or covered up. There are a couple houses in Chillicothe that were built with the bricks from the streets of St. Joseph. I can't say the fisheye lens is one I would care to have...just not an angle I like looking at. Those beautiful buildings deserve more.

[dkippen]

Jerry - this looks like it was a lot of fun. I suppose the challenging part would be which shots would look better with the fisheye? I think many of the building shots look better with the fisheye rather than "street photos". My favorite is the first one with the sun shining through. Nice job.

[jerryph]

The fisheye is definitely a learning experience, and best expoilited in either very wide expanses or tighter smaller rooms or elegant settings like a church. Of course if you want to make fun of someone, just bring the lens to within 3 inches of their nose and take a shot... then run (haha).

The distortion is something that has to be watched very carefully as a couple degrees up too much or a couple degrees down too much and the picture does fall on it's face, so to speak. This is discovered over time and a little more practice than I have had with this lens. It is also very easy to get "tired" of looking at fisheye pictures very fast.

I took out a lot of the pics that I was not happy with, but there were perhaps 3 or 4 at most that I was pleased in the set (Debbie got my fav right off, the first picture).

Depth of field is something also that is very different. I could go F/2.8 or F/8 and see very little differences. Fishy... lol

All in all a lens that I like, but not one that will go on the camera on a regular basis (best used here and there at most). I realized this when I bought it, but always wanted a fisheye. I am glad I purchased it. :)

I did do a series with a more traditional lens, and will post about that one later.

Thanks for the comments ladies. :)

[coffee]

Very nice shots Jerry. I so much love out of the ordinary images. Maybe one day if I ever have money again I would like to look into a fish eye. Is this a dedicated lens, and if so how fast is it and what mm?

I would love to see one of these in HDR.

[jerryph]

Is this a dedicated lens, and if so how fast is it and what mm?

I would love to see one of these in HDR.

Easy enough to do...

Original
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3459/3396229773_18447d4007.jpg

FishEye + HDR
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3558/3399811315_dd3dd45533.jpg

This was the 60 second version so nothing overyly fancy. :)

The lens is a Sigma 15mm F/2.8 fisheye prime lens. This is the FX version, not really intended for use on DX lenses.

I just noticed that the pictures do not look completely the same. I am too tired to look now, but I need to find out if this is Flickr's fault or Photomatix's fault. Strange, and more on this later. :confused: