Fisheye lens... for video?

[raskous]

Hey all

I've been shooting videos on my dives for a while now, with a gopro
But i feel it's time to get more control and image quality, so i've been looking at getting a canon T2i (550d) which seems to be the best one in my budget.

I've also been looking at lenses, and noticed that a bunch of websites about UW photography really love using fisheye lenses, especially the tokina 10-17 one.
I can understand that choice for pictures... but the thing is, the more i look at videos shot with a fisheye, the more i hate it, all i see is curved lines everywhere. It just looks cinematographically wrong to me, and just reminds me of teenagers shooting skate videos.

So i just wanted to know if you, video shooters, were also using fisheyes, and if so, what is the real advantage of using those vs a normal wide lens, what could be so good about it that it'd be worth having curved lines everywhere?

I've been looking at a bunch of TV UW documentaries, and for me, it doesn't look like they use fisheye (i could be wrong though, i'm not a pro), so it gets me wondering why dslr user focus so much on fisheyes.

Chris

 

[doctormike]

I shoot with the 10-17 on a 7D, having changed from the 12-24. The lens is FANTASTIC, I really love the effect. It is true, that you get a little of bowing if you are shooting a shipwreck in tight quarters, but this has become a very popular option for UW video. I would also recommend the Magic Filters - a MUCH better solution than trying to light a wide scene with artificial light. Here are some examples...

[VIMEO]31708612[/VIMEO]

[VIMEO]26199840[/VIMEO]

The advantage of the fisheye for still photography is that you can get VERY close to a subject, minimizing the water column between you and the subject, so the image quality is much improved:



Mike

 

[raskous]

Hmm i see what you mean, it does look like your subjects are really close to the camera.
But again, I really get annoyed by all those curvy lines everywhere. The horizon is not flat, like you said the wreck is all distorted, the sand line is all curvy... It really weirds me out.
But that being said it works nicely for the photo. I just get weirded out in videos. Maybe it's about personal taste or because i'm used to topside cinematography..

So basically, if you were using a standard wide angle lens with the same focal length and settings for those shots, what would essentially be the difference?
Would you see less of the subject on the side? Is that the main point?
If you're at the same distance with same settings then it should be the same amount of water between, so should be the same color/quality wise, shouldn't it?

 

[flareside]

The advantage of the fisheye for still photography is that you can get VERY close to a subject....View attachment 110911

Mike

But only if the subject allows it.

But again, I really get annoyed by all those curvy lines everywhere. The horizon is not flat, like you said the wreck is all distorted, the sand line is all curvy... It really weirds me out.

There are filters that can remove some of the distortions in post processing if they are really bugging you. (I'm no expert on the subject, I just know they are out there because they discuss them on the GoPro forums)

 

[doctormike]

Hmm i see what you mean, it does look like your subjects are really close to the camera.
But again, I really get annoyed by all those curvy lines everywhere. The horizon is not flat, like you said the wreck is all distorted, the sand line is all curvy... It really weirds me out.
But that being said it works nicely for the photo. I just get weirded out in videos. Maybe it's about personal taste or because i'm used to topside cinematography..

Well, not much that we can say about that here. If you really prefer the look that you get with a non-fisheye lens, then that's what you should shoot. The 10-17 has become very popular for UW video and stills, but that doesn't mean anything if you don't like the effect...

So basically, if you were using a standard wide angle lens with the same focal length and settings for those shots, what would essentially be the difference?

This was shot with a Tokina 12-24 (non-fisheye) on the 7D, before I got the fisheye:

[VIMEO]24428642[/VIMEO]

Would you see less of the subject on the side? Is that the main point?

You might find these links interesting, they go over the differences pretty well:

Fisheye Lens vs. Wide-Angle Lens | Underwater Photography Guide

Best Lenses for Underwater Photography | Underwater Photography Guide

If you're at the same distance with same settings then it should be the same amount of water between, so should be the same color/quality wise, shouldn't it?

Right, but the whole point of the fisheye (for fish portrait shots, etc..), is that for a given subject, you can get a lot closer with the fisheye and still keep the whole subject in the frame. That means (1) less water between subject and lens, and (2) less water to attenuate your strobe output. Both of these will give you better results.

 

[kkfok]

I think taking video is entirely different from taking still. With fisheye lens I found it very odd to pan the camera sideway.

 

[raskous]

I think i understand the appeal for fisheye lens, mostly that you can get super close to a subject without having it cropped on the side, and remove some water in between.
But for me that just isn't worth having curvy vertical lines...

I think the video above with the non fisheye lens, looks 100 times better to me than the fisheye one. (at least cinematography wise. The colors aren't that great though, but that's probably for another reason)

So yeah if i ever go for a wide angle lens, I would still prefer a non fisheye one.
Of course the best would be to try them all, but unless i win the lottery that's not gonna happen soon, hehe.

Thanks for all your answers, guys!

 

[doctormike]

I think i understand the appeal for fisheye lens, mostly that you can get super close to a subject without having it cropped on the side, and remove some water in between.
But for me that just isn't worth having curvy vertical lines...

Then that's all that matters!

I think the video above with the non fisheye lens, looks 100 times better to me than the fisheye one. (at least cinematography wise.

OK, but you are also comparing an ocean dive in North Carolina with Sand Tigers, etc... with a quarry dive!

The colors aren't that great though, but that's probably for another reason)

Yes, the reason is that if you shoot wide angle video, you are pretty much dependent on ambient light, since even the most powerful video lights don't go very far underwater. Therefore, your colors will be lost (starting with the reds) as you descend, and even in relatively clear, shallow water you will have a mostly blue cast. The video shot with the fisheye was also shot using the Magic Filter, which fixes that problem. I need to go back to North Carolina with that filter...

 

[quickpix]

When you are using the fisheye lens and a large dome port do you have the camera set on auto focus or to you choose a arbitrary distance to set the lens at?