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?
DeadCell Mostly Lurking 17 posts Joined Oct 2005 More info | 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 |
maverick75 Cream of the Crop More info | Nov 29, 2012 22:40 | #2 |
TSchrief Goldmember 2,099 posts Joined Aug 2012 Location: Bourbon, Indiana More info | Nov 29, 2012 23:28 | #3 Permanent banmaverick75: 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.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
twoshadows Liquid Nitrogen 7,342 posts Gallery: 52 photos Best ofs: 19 Likes: 4904 Joined Jul 2007 Location: Between the palms and the pines. More info | Nov 30, 2012 00:50 | #4 16mm on FF @ f/2.8 from 10' = infinity dof xgender.net
LOG IN TO REPLY |
TSchrief Goldmember 2,099 posts Joined Aug 2012 Location: Bourbon, Indiana More info | Nov 30, 2012 01:38 | #5 Permanent bantwoshadows wrote in post #15307182 16mm on FF @ f/2.8 from 10' = infinity dof twoshadows: You really need a 'focused at' distance for this to mean much.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
twoshadows Liquid Nitrogen 7,342 posts Gallery: 52 photos Best ofs: 19 Likes: 4904 Joined Jul 2007 Location: Between the palms and the pines. More info | Nov 30, 2012 03:17 | #6 10 ft IS the focused at distance. And btw, there are no "winners" here. There are differences. I'm just trying to be helpful to the OP. xgender.net
LOG IN TO REPLY |
twoshadows Liquid Nitrogen 7,342 posts Gallery: 52 photos Best ofs: 19 Likes: 4904 Joined Jul 2007 Location: Between the palms and the pines. More info | 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. xgender.net
LOG IN TO REPLY |
TSchrief Goldmember 2,099 posts Joined Aug 2012 Location: Bourbon, Indiana More info | Nov 30, 2012 04:00 | #8 Permanent bantwoshadows wrote in post #15307368 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.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Copidosoma Goldmember More info | Nov 30, 2012 09:28 | #9 twoshadows wrote in post #15307368 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. Gear: 7DII | 6D | Fuji X100s |Sigma 24A, 50A, 150-600C |24-105L |Samyang 14 2.8|Tamron 90mm f2.8 |and some other stuff
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nov 30, 2012 09:35 | #10 Dead Cell wrote in post #15306771 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. _
LOG IN TO REPLY |
TSchrief Goldmember 2,099 posts Joined Aug 2012 Location: Bourbon, Indiana More info | Nov 30, 2012 09:49 | #11 Permanent banDead Cell wrote in post #15306771 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.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
booja Goldmember 1,638 posts Likes: 103 Joined Jan 2008 Location: houston, tx More info | 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 800 posts Likes: 11 Joined May 2011 More info | Nov 30, 2012 10:28 | #13 Copidosoma wrote in post #15308068 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.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
twoshadows Liquid Nitrogen 7,342 posts Gallery: 52 photos Best ofs: 19 Likes: 4904 Joined Jul 2007 Location: Between the palms and the pines. More info | Nov 30, 2012 16:07 | #14 Copidosoma wrote in post #15308068 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. xgender.net
LOG IN TO REPLY |
twoshadows Liquid Nitrogen 7,342 posts Gallery: 52 photos Best ofs: 19 Likes: 4904 Joined Jul 2007 Location: Between the palms and the pines. More info | Nov 30, 2012 16:09 | #15 TSchrief wrote in post #15308154 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^^^ xgender.net
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in 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!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is Sandro Bisotti 1754 guests, 170 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||