rudiphoto wrote:
NOPE! The same perspective? Definitely NOT! You have to remember, it's only a CROP! The sensor is still at the same distance from the lens mount, still at the same focal plane. A 16mm lens WILL offer a different perspective to a 10mm lens!
Sorry Rudi but this isnt correct. I was surprised by this myself but after buying a FF 1Ds and also owning a 10-22, the perspective is EXACTLY THE SAME
Yes you are correct that DOF will be different because DOF is affected by focal length but perspective isnt.
Think about it, if a 10mm on a 20D, which gives an equiv FOV of a 16mm lens on FF, has a different perspective than a 16mm lens on FF, as you state, Then a 5mm digicam lens which gives around a 35mm equiv FOV, would have just insane distortion and yet it doesnt.
Gibbonx wrote:
The lens isn't the same distance from the sensor, that's the whole point of EF-S lenses
It's at a closer distance (through a shorter back focus) to give the same FOV. That's what the EF-S mount allows.Edited by Gibbonx on Aug 25, 2005 at 04:17 PM GMT
Maybe so, and maybe that makes up for some of the difference, but ultimately you will NOT get exactly the same look as FF sensor, especially as far as DOF control goes. Try shooting a 100mm macro lens on a 20D, then try the same with a film camera (use the same settings on both cameras). Then crop the film frames to match the 20D sensor coverage and SEE the difference! DOF will be wildly different!
Now try shooting a 50mm prime on a 20D at f/1.8, then do the same with an 85mm f/1.8 on a film camera. You will see differences in perspective (and not just the apparent 5mm difference in lens "equivalent" focal length). The reason for that is that you have to stand in (roughly) the same spot to obtain both images, yet you obtained one with a lens with a wildly different focal length to the other! The differences are there, even though they might be subtle some of the time.
DOF will be different, but that is the only thing that will be different, and not what we're talking about anyway.
Trust me, an EF-S 10-22mm on a 20D will give exactly the same perspective (distortion) as a 16mm lens on a FF camera (assuming the quality of the lens itself is the same - we're talking theoretical anyway). You'd have to break some laws of physics to see otherwise. This is the comparison I was making earlier.
The scaling down argument you've used a couple of posts above is exactly why.
Unless the 10-22mm lens is nearly 40% closer (!!!) to the sensor than the 16-35mm, then the perspective will not be the same!
I have not held a 10-22mm in my hand recently, but I would doubt that it protrudes that far back into the camera. However, the scaling down effect would otherwise work. We agree on that!
Given that the 10-22mm is NOT the same quality as the 16-35mm, and that you CANNOT buy an EF-S lens that wide in f/2.8, it is a moot point anyway. And as far as DOF control, you'd need even wider aperture on the EF-S to match what you're see with a 16-35mm on a FF camera... it's a different animal! That's why I want FF! I want my lenses to work as originally designed! I paid for L quality, and I want to use all of it, not have it cropped.
rudiphoto wrote:
Unless the 10-22mm lens is nearly 40% closer (!!!) to the sensor than the 16-35mm, then the perspective will not be the same!
If they have the same FOV (which they do) and both their image circles are matched to the size of the sensor (which they are), then the perspective has to be the same.
Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree
And yep, I do agree that it's a moot point anyway - I don't usually argue much, I'm just having a bad day.
You've got some awesome photos on your site by the way, Rudi - excellent work.
I guess the scaling down effect (if it could be done exactly), WOULD produce the same perspective from both lenses. (How's that for not agreeing with you? And I still want FF! )
Now comes the hard part - Who wants to lend me their 20D with a 10-22mm EF-S, so I can test it out for myself?
This debate has been done to death out there... The reality is that both give on their respective body's a full 16mm view. The difference between them comes into their linearity continuity (sp?) and their DOF. I don't know which one wins out, I don't really care.
I have both lenses, and will have a 5D to try out when I head into Canon on their first open day, and will ask if I can try it. Hell, I'll go and do it at a store with a 1Ds MkII... They're both almost the same distortion.
I think people are failing to realise that even all said and done, these are STILL TWO DIFFERENT lenses!
If you're dissapointed in the 5D, then don't buy it. I'm buying, but that's because it's exactly what I want and need. Sure it's not perfect, and sure it's not a 1 series body etc, but then Canon don't want to market it that way.
And another thing, enough with the 20D bashing. People were praising it not long ago for it's affordable technology advantage, and it's supperior performance.
calvillo wrote:
Finally, have you missed the threads where posters have said that they didn't feel the D IIN upgrade was worthwhile? Apparently, I'm not alone.
If you are into upgrading for the sake of upgrading (a la the 'conspicuous consumption' comment), then indeed, the 1DMkII-N is not for you. If you are in the market for your first 1D-Series camera, it is a perfect choice. I acknowledge the original 1D needed a higher-res sensor, but at 8 MP, there's not much that a qualified operator can't do with the MkII, assuming of course it's being used for the subjects it was designed for.
Canon's lack of a sensor upgrade indicates that they (and most of the market, apparently) consider it a mature product. Again, if it were 13MP FF, what would distinguish it from the Ds-Series? Your argument is questionable for those who don't 'need' a 1Ds-Series camera. If the 1Ds MkII were $4K, I'm sure you'd consider it your perfect camera, from the sound of it.
It's quite clear to anyone reading this thread that (based upon what you've said) you own the wrong camera for what you shoot. That's not a valid reason to slam Canon for not upgrading the sensor in a camera that doesn't need a sensor upgrade. You can, however, be annoyed that the price of entry for a 1-Series FF camera prevented you from buying it.
calvillo wrote:
As far as resolution/file size is concerned, I've never worried about having too big a file, rather the opposite. Granted that's probably because I'm not a PJ. Instead, my concern is giving my client enough image so they can crop the way they want, or may decide they want later, and still have the size/resolution they need!
Hammerli wrote:
You're right, that's my word and I apologize. Your exact phrasing was that it was unimaginable "The thing I can't imagine...", and later "but I can't see..." so as you took the liberty of stating in that thread that "I've been told I'm full of it..." even though no one actually said that, it was pretty clear what your tone and inference was; but again you didn't so much as say foolish.
As my Mother used to say, "it's not what you said, it's your tone." The "I know you are but what am I" isn't becoming, oh, sorry it was "I'll refrain from saying what you sound like."
H, first you interpreted differently than my meaning, whether you want to believe that or not. When someone writes, "I can't imagine" or "I can't see" maybe they really are giving THEIR opinion/perspective.
And as far as the last point, I can object to tone like anyone else, and when you bring in the quote I made to someone else, it seems like it would be fair to read their post, and check out their tone, which I simply responded to.
It's really strange that the fact I have an opinion other than yours is so grating to you, even when I overtly state it's opinion, and my own.
calvillo wrote:
It's really strange that the fact I have an opinion other than yours is so grating to you, even when I overtly state it's opinion, and my own.
Just like everyone else, you are certainly entitiled to your opinion. I don't find opinions grating; it's the vehement defense that one's opinion is the only right one that gets old. Both sides have made their points, so at some point it's foolish to continue arguing just for the sake of the last word. So go ahead and respond and hopefully that will be the end of it and we can move on.
Kagetsu wrote:
This debate has been done to death out there... The reality is that both give on their respective body's a full 16mm view. The difference between them comes into their linearity continuity (sp?) and their DOF. I don't know which one wins out, I don't really care.
I have both lenses, and will have a 5D to try out when I head into Canon on their first open day, and will ask if I can try it. Hell, I'll go and do it at a store with a 1Ds MkII... They're both almost the same distortion.
I think people are failing to realise that even all said and done, these are STILL TWO DIFFERENT lenses!
If you're dissapointed in the 5D, then don't buy it. I'm buying, but that's because it's exactly what I want and need. Sure it's not perfect, and sure it's not a 1 series body etc, but then Canon don't want to market it that way.
And another thing, enough with the 20D bashing. People were praising it not long ago for it's affordable technology advantage, and it's supperior performance....Show more →
Has anyone compared the edge quality of the 10-22 EF-S lens on a 20D with the 16-35 or 17-40 on a 1Ds or 1Ds MkII (or even a film body).
The biggest problem for me with any EF-S lens is it will only mount on three different Canon DSLRs and two of those are Rebels.
The 20D is a decent camera though I think the 5D is better in most respects. It is not just a 20D with a fullframe sensor. The 20D's framerate advantage is not as useful as it seems given the small buffer. For RAW files, the 20 has a smaller buffer than either the 10D or the D60.
Andrew Grant wrote:
[ The 20D's framerate advantage is not as useful as it seems given the small buffer. For RAW files, the 20 has a smaller buffer than either the 10D or the D60.
Typically one doesnt need to shoot more than 6 frames at 5 FPS though and the buffer does empty pretty quick as long as you have a decent CF card for it to write too
Even on the 1D mkII I usually only shoot a burst of 4 or 5 shots antcipating peak action. I cant think of any situations where anyone would really need to hold down the shutter for several seconds at a time.
The Big Bad wrote:
Sorry Rudi but this isnt correct. I was surprised by this myself but after buying a FF 1Ds and also owning a 10-22, the perspective is EXACTLY THE SAME
Yes you are correct that DOF will be different because DOF is affected by focal length but perspective isnt.
Think about it, if a 10mm on a 20D, which gives an equiv FOV of a 16mm lens on FF, has a different perspective than a 16mm lens on FF, as you state, Then a 5mm digicam lens which gives around a 35mm equiv FOV, would have just insane distortion and yet it doesnt.
tested it myself and saw it with my own eyes ...Show more →
Agreed with TBB above, and the real reason for differences in perspective is camera-to-subject distance. (I'm not sure why we're talking about the distance between lens and focal plane, which is an indirect if not spurious explanation.) Long before digital came on the scene, Pop Photo explained it the best with cropped comparison shots of cityscapes taken with different lenses. With a camera fixed in one place, a highly cropped 24mm shot has exactly the same perspective ("stacking" effect) as a similarly framed FF 200mm image.
The 24mm ultra-crop is pretty grainy and doesn't have good resolution, which is one reason why we use telephotos. The point of the article was to get going and move that camera with your feet if you want different "perspectives." When you want a wide-open vista with stretched distances between elements, you need to get close and you consequently need a WA to cover the scene.
A photog is going to shoot a 10mm shot on a 1.6x body at the same distance from the subject as he will with a 16mm on an FF. Ergo, same perspective.
The Big Bad wrote:
Typically one doesnt need to shoot more than 6 frames at 5 FPS though and the buffer does empty pretty quick as long as you have a decent CF card for it to write too
Even on the 1D mkII I usually only shoot a burst of 4 or 5 shots antcipating peak action. I cant think of any situations where anyone would really need to hold down the shutter for several seconds at a time.
If you need that, get a video camera
One of my concerns before I got my 20D was the 6 shot RAW buffer because I do use a lot of burst shooting in my work. As it turns out, it is not a problem at all because of the fast speeds at which the buffer clears. In 8 months of heavy use, I think I may have filled the buffer to capacity once or twice. Even then, because it does write to the card so fast, within about a second, it was ready to shoot another 3-4 shot burst. While I still would have preferred a deeper buffer, in reality, the buffer is no problem whatever.
Les
Jeff wrote:
If you are into upgrading for the sake of upgrading (a la the 'conspicuous consumption' comment), then indeed, the 1DMkII-N is not for you. If you are in the market for your first 1D-Series camera, it is a perfect choice. I acknowledge the original 1D needed a higher-res sensor, but at 8 MP, there's not much that a qualified operator can't do with the MkII, assuming of course it's being used for the subjects it was designed for.
Canon's lack of a sensor upgrade indicates that they (and most of the market, apparently) consider it a mature product. Again, if it were 13MP FF, what would distinguish it from the Ds-Series? Your argument is questionable for those who don't 'need' a 1Ds-Series camera. If the 1Ds MkII were $4K, I'm sure you'd consider it your perfect camera, from the sound of it.
It's quite clear to anyone reading this thread that (based upon what you've said) you own the wrong camera for what you shoot. That's not a valid reason to slam Canon for not upgrading the sensor in a camera that doesn't need a sensor upgrade. You can, however, be annoyed that the price of entry for a 1-Series FF camera prevented you from buying it.
I don't believe they consider it a mature product. I believe it is a competitive reponse to Nikon while they prepare their DIGIC III ubercamera. With Canon you can figure out what they will do with their 1 series camers if you know the data throughput they can handle. They've figure out the noise problem, and how to build large sensors with reasonable economy. Can they build a low power very high data rate processor? Not this year.
And I still want FF! 
)
