Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 29 Nov 2012 (Thursday) 22:36
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Full frame 16mm vs crop 10mm

 
Dead ­ Cell
Mostly Lurking
17 posts
Joined Oct 2005
     
Nov 29, 2012 22:36 |  #1

Is there any visual difference between a full frame camera (5d) and shooting at 16mm vs 1.6 crop camera (t4i) and shooting at 10mm? If I am not mistaken, it will be the same image angle. Will the 10mm look more warped, less sharp, etc?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
maverick75
Cream of the Crop
5,700 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 607
Joined May 2012
Location: Riverside,California
     
Nov 29, 2012 22:40 |  #2

You will get the same field of view but not the same focal length.

10mm on a crop will still be 10mm.


- Alex Corona Sony A7, Canon 7DM2/EOS M, Mamiya 645/67
Flickr (external link) - 500px (external link) - Website (external link)- Feedback -Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TSchrief
Goldmember
Avatar
2,099 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Bourbon, Indiana
     
Nov 29, 2012 23:28 |  #3
bannedPermanent ban

maverick75: True. But what does that mean? The-Digital-Picture.com has review the 10-22 to have less distortion at the wide end than the 16-35. Since the 10-22 IS a 10mm lens the DOF will be deeper at the same f/ stop than the 16-35. It also means you can use a narrower f/stop on the 10-22 to get as much DOF as possible, and that will be greater than what you could get with the 16-35. Whether or not that means anything in a real photograph, I have no idea. I don't do a ton of UWA.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
twoshadows
Liquid Nitrogen
Avatar
6,219 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 827
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sinning in paradise
     
Nov 30, 2012 00:50 |  #4

16mm on FF @ f/2.8 from 10' = infinity dof


Miss Julia Grey
xgender.net (external link)
I'm non-binary - please refer to me as she/her/Miss

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TSchrief
Goldmember
Avatar
2,099 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Bourbon, Indiana
     
Nov 30, 2012 01:38 |  #5
bannedPermanent ban

twoshadows wrote in post #15307182 (external link)
16mm on FF @ f/2.8 from 10' = infinity dof

twoshadows: You really need a 'focused at' distance for this to mean much.

A more direct comparison, from DOF Master.

On a crop:
10mm focused at 2 feet with f/16. DOF from 8" (yes, inches) to infinity.
10mm focused at 10 feet with f/16. DOF from 1' to infinity.

On FF:
16mm focused at 2 feet with f/16. DOF from 11.4" to infinity.
16mm focused at 10 feet with f/16. DOF from 1.5 feet to infinity.

Couple that with the lower distortion of the 10-22 and I think we have a winner.
Couple that with the better DR, IQ and crop-ability of FF and we are once again, confused. The distinction is really too small to make much of a difference. If you look at the money, however, the difference is huge!

5D2 + 16-35 = $3,100.
Rebel + 10-22 = $1,400.

That is a rather large pile of money for a very small, if any at all, improvement.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
twoshadows
Liquid Nitrogen
Avatar
6,219 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 827
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sinning in paradise
     
Nov 30, 2012 03:17 |  #6

10 ft IS the focused at distance.

well thought out, but a few things:

16-35mkI - $900
5Dc - $500
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
$1400

10-22 is not f/2.8

I don't know how the AF is on the 10-22, but the 16-35 is blazing fast.

While you're talking about minute spec differences, you're forgetting that the 10-22 just couldn't get a pic like this given the lighting in 99% of the worlds gyms.

IMAGE: http://www.pbase.com/iangreyphotography/image/147449583/original.jpg

And btw, there are no "winners" here. There are differences. I'm just trying to be helpful to the OP.

Miss Julia Grey
xgender.net (external link)
I'm non-binary - please refer to me as she/her/Miss

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
twoshadows
Liquid Nitrogen
Avatar
6,219 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 827
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sinning in paradise
     
Nov 30, 2012 03:27 |  #7

Oh, and my point about the dof was that even at f/2.8, your dof will be out to infinity when the object is only 10 ft away. So having enough dof is never a problem with the 16-35 @ 16mm. Otoh, you can create shallow dof with the L, whereas you can't with the e-fs.


Miss Julia Grey
xgender.net (external link)
I'm non-binary - please refer to me as she/her/Miss

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TSchrief
Goldmember
Avatar
2,099 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Bourbon, Indiana
     
Nov 30, 2012 04:00 |  #8
bannedPermanent ban

twoshadows wrote in post #15307368 (external link)
Oh, and my point about the dof was that even at f/2.8, your dof will be out to infinity when the object is only 10 ft away. So having enough dof is never a problem with the 16-35 @ 16mm. Otoh, you can create shallow dof with the L, whereas you can't with the e-fs.

Nice shot. I really don't think I could get that with a 10-22, which is most definitely NOT f/2.8. AF is quick, but I've never shot a 16-35 either. BTW, if you focus a 16-35 at 10 feet, f/2.8, 16mm, on a full frame body, the DOF is from 2'9" to infinity, which is exemplified nicely by your basketball shot. I was not trying to 'win' either, just making the case that the APS-c/10-22 option is viable. I am slowly making the transition to FF. I just bought a 5D. So far, just playing with it, but it is different. I like it. I formerly did my FF stuff on a film body, ELAN 7NE. Digital is much more fun.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Copidosoma
Goldmember
1,017 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 68
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Edmonton AB, Canada
     
Nov 30, 2012 09:28 |  #9

twoshadows wrote in post #15307368 (external link)
Oh, and my point about the dof was that even at f/2.8, your dof will be out to infinity when the object is only 10 ft away. So having enough dof is never a problem with the 16-35 @ 16mm. Otoh, you can create shallow dof with the L, whereas you can't with the e-fs.

Care to explain how you can have DOF from 10 feet to infinity even at f2.8 but create shallow DOF as well? While you are at it you can exaplain why the EF-s can't do it with a lens with a focal length giving the same FOV. DOF is primarily a lens feature. The crop vs FF thing is actually not as clean cut as most people seem to think.

I think some people need to put the calculators away and actually use the gear more.


Gear: 7DII | 6D | Fuji X100s |Sigma 24A, 50A, 150-600C |24-105L |Samyang 14 2.8|Tamron 90mm f2.8 |and some other stuff
http://www.shutterstoc​k.com/g/copidosoma (external link)
https://500px.com/chri​s_kolaczan (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidc502
Goldmember
Avatar
3,456 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 31
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Tennessee
     
Nov 30, 2012 09:35 |  #10

Dead Cell wrote in post #15306771 (external link)
Is there any visual difference between a full frame camera (5d) and shooting at 16mm vs 1.6 crop camera (t4i) and shooting at 10mm? If I am not mistaken, it will be the same image angle. Will the 10mm look more warped, less sharp, etc?

Make sure you read this resource about sensor sizes and how it influences photography.

http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …al-camera-sensor-size.htm (external link)


_
My Gear is ---> Here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TSchrief
Goldmember
Avatar
2,099 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Bourbon, Indiana
     
Nov 30, 2012 09:49 |  #11
bannedPermanent ban

Dead Cell wrote in post #15306771 (external link)
Is there any visual difference between a full frame camera (5d) and shooting at 16mm vs 1.6 crop camera (t4i) and shooting at 10mm? If I am not mistaken, it will be the same image angle. Will the 10mm look more warped, less sharp, etc?

I think we have, essentially, answered this question. The answer is NO, most of the time. At the extremes of DOF the 1.6 crop will get you a tiny bit more DOF. At the extremes of lighting, the f/2.8 16-35 on FF will get you a bunch more light, along with better high-ISO performance, getting shots the 10-22 just couldn't get. I would suppose that in 95%+ of UWA usage, none of us could tell which setup was used when looking at the final product, provided it was printed smaller than 20 x 30 inches. If you want the ABSOLUTE BEST in all situations, you'll have to get both setups.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
booja
Goldmember
1,638 posts
Likes: 95
Joined Jan 2008
Location: houston, tx
     
Nov 30, 2012 10:20 |  #12

in short, yes it will look essentially the same. anything on the wide end will look distorded.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
clarnibass
Senior Member
774 posts
Likes: 8
Joined May 2011
     
Nov 30, 2012 10:28 |  #13

Copidosoma wrote in post #15308068 (external link)
Care to explain how you can have DOF from 10 feet to infinity even at f2.8 but create shallow DOF as well? While you are at it you can exaplain why the EF-s can't do it with a lens with a focal length giving the same FOV. DOF is primarily a lens feature. The crop vs FF thing is actually not as clean cut as most people seem to think.

I don't think he meant creating shallow DOF at 16mm/10mm from 10 feet away. That was referring to no DOF "problem" since you have it to infinity.

I imagine he referred to a situation such as (e.g.) taking a photo from 1m away and wanting a blurred background.
FF 16mm 2.8 gives you about 73cm DOF.
Crop 10mm 3.5 gives about 220cm DOF.

Another example, from 1.5m away.
FF 16mm 2.8 gives you less than 2m DOF.
Crop 10mm 3.5 gives you.. I'm not sure, but the calculator shows about 30m for f/3.4 and infinity for f/3.6.

But another thing is using the lenses' other focal lengths.
With the FF 16-35 lens you can use it at 35mm at 2.8. From 2m away you get about 50cm DOF.
Crop at 22mm 4.5 from 2m away gives you about 160cm DOF.

Obviously in many situations it won't matter that much but in some situations some people might care... or not :)


www.nitailevi.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
twoshadows
Liquid Nitrogen
Avatar
6,219 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 827
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sinning in paradise
     
Nov 30, 2012 16:07 |  #14

Copidosoma wrote in post #15308068 (external link)
Care to explain how you can have DOF from 10 feet to infinity even at f2.8 but create shallow DOF as well? While you are at it you can exaplain why the EF-s can't do it with a lens with a focal length giving the same FOV. DOF is primarily a lens feature. The crop vs FF thing is actually not as clean cut as most people seem to think.

I think some people need to put the calculators away and actually use the gear more.

Actually Copidosoma, what I wrote is based on some years of experience shooting with an UWA on all 3 Canon Dslr formats, not a calculator. Read Clarnibass's response as he understood what I meant.

DoF is a result of 4 things, none of which are the lens. Format, distance to subject, aperture and FL. Again, this is from experience and not a calculator. And one can achieve shallow(er) DoF by shooting the 16-35 @ 35mm f/2.8.

I think some people need more experience with more types of equipment. :rolleyes:


Miss Julia Grey
xgender.net (external link)
I'm non-binary - please refer to me as she/her/Miss

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
twoshadows
Liquid Nitrogen
Avatar
6,219 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 827
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sinning in paradise
     
Nov 30, 2012 16:09 |  #15

TSchrief wrote in post #15308154 (external link)
I think we have, essentially, answered this question. The answer is NO, most of the time. At the extremes of DOF the 1.6 crop will get you a tiny bit more DOF. At the extremes of lighting, the f/2.8 16-35 on FF will get you a bunch more light, along with better high-ISO performance, getting shots the 10-22 just couldn't get. I would suppose that in 95%+ of UWA usage, none of us could tell which setup was used when looking at the final product, provided it was printed smaller than 20 x 30 inches. If you want the ABSOLUTE BEST in all situations, you'll have to get both setups.

I like this^^^ :)


Miss Julia Grey
xgender.net (external link)
I'm non-binary - please refer to me as she/her/Miss

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,642 views & 0 likes for this thread
Full frame 16mm vs crop 10mm
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is brotherbear86
875 guests, 377 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.