[quote name='popo' timestamp='1288426272' post='3837']
Specifically on TS lenses, to me it seems traditional simple DoF considerations seem inadequate an expression. Particularly for a landscape application where the subject is often on a plane from you to infinity, you could say the effective DoF, at least for the subject, is infinite if you put the cone of focus roughly from yourself to infinity, and the OOF areas would be put out of shot.
Hmm... I probably should rewrite that but I haven't had enough coffee yet!
[/quote]
You still have to be careful with selectively positioning the plane or wedge of focus. I've seen a few mountain landscapes which at first glance seem to have DoF from closest foreground to the furthest mountain top, but then you suddenly notice why the image feels awkward: the valleys between the flowers in the foreground and the mountains in the background are not in focus at all <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />.
What I wanted to say in my statement is that you do not so much get more DoF, but that you can selectively place the DoF plane or DoF wedge (almost) anywhere in the scene in front of the camera. That has advantages, but also risks <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />.
However, I do recommend them to anybody who is prepared to learn to use and understand them, they are really magnificent tools! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> And when it comes to the two latest releases by Canon (TS-E 17L and TS-E 24L II): I don't think there currently are any better lenses out there for use on FF, APS-H or APS-C.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1288404943' post='3836']
No, it isn't. That's where you are wrong.
[/quote]
Same aperture, same composition, a FF shot has more shallow DoF than an APS-C shot. Yes, you can use a wider aperture on the APS-C, but when you're at f/1.4 on the FF, I guess you won't find an APS-C lens that'll give you the equivalent aperture.
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1288383505' post='3834']
The Canon 17-40L is slightly cheaper than the EF-S 10-22, and performs better on FF than the 10-22 does on APS-C. [/quote]
MMV. I tried both 17-40 and 10-22 on my 40D. The 10-22 was sharper at the corners and had better flare resistance.
[quote name='BG_Home' timestamp='1288597688' post='3859']
Same aperture, same composition, a FF shot has more shallow DoF than an APS-C shot. Yes, you can use a wider aperture on the APS-C, but when you're at f/1.4 on the FF, I guess you won't find an APS-C lens that'll give you the equivalent aperture.
[/quote]
Not true. Same aperture, same field of view, SAME DOF.
Aperture is measured in mm's. f-values are focal length divided by aperture.
Your proposition is a bit strange: One chooses an aperture to get the desired DOF. One does not choose an f-value just to take it as "standard across sensor sizes".
So Win is very right.... APS-C does NOT have a DOF "advantage". Equivalent f-values + equivalent field of views deliver equivalent images. And image softening diffraction also sets in at equivalent f-values. So in all aperture related areas, they are equivalent. Only FF has an advantage, as it can reach f-values with no equivalent available for APS-C (like you correctly identified).
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1288603574' post='3861']
MMV. I tried both 17-40 and 10-22 on my 40D. The 10-22 was sharper at the corners and had better flare resistance.
[/quote]
Yakim,
I said 17-40L on FF is better than 10-22 on APS-C, I wasn't saying anything about 17-40L on APS-C (40D).
17-40L on APS-C actually underperforms, from my own experience, and can't be compared to the 10-22 anyway. On a 40D the 17-540L is a short standard zoom, while the 10-22 is an UWA zoom.. It is really only when used as an UWA zoom on FF that the 17-40L comes into its own.
BTW, try shooting a 10-22 with high contrast conditions, do the same with 17-40L, and tell me what you see ... You might be amazed.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
[quote name='BG_Home' timestamp='1288597688' post='3859']
Same aperture, same composition, a FF shot has more shallow DoF than an APS-C shot. Yes, you can use a wider aperture on the APS-C, but when you're at f/1.4 on the FF, I guess you won't find an APS-C lens that'll give you the equivalent aperture.
[/quote]
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1288614014' post='3864']
Not true. Same aperture, same field of view, SAME DOF.
Aperture is measured in mm's. f-values are focal length divided by aperture.
Your proposition is a bit strange: One chooses an aperture to get the desired DOF. One does not choose an f-value just to take it as "standard across sensor sizes".
So Win is very right.... APS-C does NOT have a DOF "advantage". Equivalent f-values + equivalent field of views deliver equivalent images. And image softening diffraction also sets in at equivalent f-values. So in all aperture related areas, they are equivalent. Only FF has an advantage, as it can reach f-values with no equivalent available for APS-C (like you correctly identified).
[/quote]
Yep, quite right, BC. It is all about equivalent apertures. FF has quite an advantage here, because for the large apertures there is no equivalent one on APS-C. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
After reading most of the threads, I'm still not 100% sure how come a cropped sensor (e.g. APS-C) can have advantages over an FF sensor in the bottomline, except for macro and other tele usage like bird shooting. And still, the abilities in macro usage can be discussed, because sensors may have pros/contras based on various criterias. For example if we compare 16.2 MP APS-C with 12MP FF, the fine detail in post-cropped image vs. the tonal & dynamic range produced by FF sensor...
OTOH, I think FF sensors are better in landscape photography even in terms of DoF because I can use smaller apertures before they become diffraction limited. There are many wide angle lens choices (ok I admit it, a bit more expensive than the APS-C compatible ones but we left the budget out of the IQ discussion). One thing which can be mentioned on the negative side is the vignetting. Bu rather than "wide aperture vignetting", I'd say darker corners because of multiple filter usage on wider FLs. It's clear that using a FF compatible wide angle on a cropped sensor has it's advantages in terms of vignetting and IQ on the edges/corners. But if you pay the price, you'll get a better quality on FF...
Regarding portrait shots; no doubt, better subject isolation combined with sharper image (FF lens can be stopped down to get sharper image), go for the FF sensors.
So, all in all, except for the discussions regarding tele usage and (some) macro advantages, I personally cannot count any pros for the cropped format by means of IQ. But of course I'm still open for hearing the advantages of a cropped sensor. (I still did not sell my DX body yet...<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />)
Kind regards,
Serkan
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1288615327' post='3866']
Yakim,
I said 17-40L on FF is better than 10-22 on APS-C, I wasn't saying anything about 17-40L on APS-C (40D).
17-40L on APS-C actually underperforms, from my own experience, and can't be compared to the 10-22 anyway. On a 40D the 17-540L is a short standard zoom, while the 10-22 is an UWA zoom.. It is really only when used as an UWA zoom on FF that the 17-40L comes into its own.
BTW, try shooting a 10-22 with high contrast conditions, do the same with 17-40L, and tell me what you see ... You might be amazed.
Kind regards, Wim
[/quote]
I do not have the 17-40 anymore and I never tried it of FF. That said, I know that APS uses the best part of the lens (the center) and thus it is often the case where FF results are worse than APS.
Unfortunately, Israel is a very sunny country and high contrast is all too frequent. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> The 10-22 has never failed me. Not even once. I can't say that I ever seriously tested it (that is, other than for sporadic tests, where it excelled) but for about 3 years it has proven itself as a true gem. In some aspects (e.g. flare resistance and extremely low light AF) it outperforms even the mighty 17-55/2.8 IS. Yes, it is a bit less sharp in the corners but only when you really pixel peep i.e. look at 100% 18MP files in the corners.
In the few sporadic tests I've made (40D) both 17-55 and 10-22 were either equal or better than (the otherwise excellent) the 17-40. When I had the 1D I must confess that I really liked my F/4 trio (17-40, 24-105, 70-200) but ever since I switched to EF-S with the 40D I am much happier with my 10-22, 17-55 and 60. Even with the much more demanding 7D they still excel.
BTW, I recently bought the A33 and paired it with the Tamron 60/2. While IQ is very good, AF performance lag behind the slower 60/2.8. That, alongside with the incredibly uncomfortable ergonomics of the A33 means I am selling both and happily stay with my EF-S lenses. So, you see, it's not that I haven't tried other things. I did, and I found that the EF-S lenses either comparable or superior to both L and third party lenses.
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1288616310' post='3868']
After reading most of the threads, I'm still not 100% sure how come a cropped sensor (e.g. APS-C) can have advantages over an FF sensor in the bottomline, except for macro and other tele usage like bird shooting. And still, the abilities in macro usage can be discussed, because sensors may have pros/contras based on various criterias. For example if we compare 16.2 MP APS-C with 12MP FF, the fine detail in post-cropped image vs. the tonal & dynamic range produced by FF sensor...
OTOH, I think FF sensors are better in landscape photography even in terms of DoF because I can use smaller apertures before they become diffraction limited. There are many wide angle lens choices (ok I admit it, a bit more expensive than the APS-C compatible ones but we left the budget out of the IQ discussion). One thing which can be mentioned on the negative side is the vignetting. Bu rather than "wide aperture vignetting", I'd say darker corners because of multiple filter usage on wider FLs. It's clear that using a FF compatible wide angle on a cropped sensor has it's advantages in terms of vignetting and IQ on the edges/corners. But if you pay the price, you'll get a better quality on FF...
Regarding portrait shots; no doubt, better subject isolation combined with sharper image (FF lens can be stopped down to get sharper image), go for the FF sensors.
So, all in all, except for the discussions regarding tele usage and (some) macro advantages, I personally cannot count any pros for the cropped format by means of IQ. But of course I'm still open for hearing the advantages of a cropped sensor. (I still did not sell my DX body yet...<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />)
Kind regards,
Serkan
[/quote]
As most of us have budget constrains we must consider the price difference vs. other differences. Try think of this in the following way: What is the IQ difference and what is the price difference? In many cases you pay a lot for just an incremental IQ difference.
And of course, there are other things besides IQ. Apart from my general perspective about this I am experiencing this very critically right now. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> See my last paragraph above.
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1288616310' post='3868']
After reading most of the threads, I'm still not 100% sure how come a cropped sensor (e.g. APS-C) can have advantages over an FF sensor in the bottomline, except for macro and other tele usage like bird shooting. And still, the abilities in macro usage can be discussed, because sensors may have pros/contras based on various criterias. For example if we compare 16.2 MP APS-C with 12MP FF, the fine detail in post-cropped image vs. the tonal & dynamic range produced by FF sensor...
OTOH, I think FF sensors are better in landscape photography even in terms of DoF because I can use smaller apertures before they become diffraction limited.
[/quote]
This is not true. If you select a SIMILAR DOF for both FF and APS-C, the diffraction softness effects on the image will be the same for BOTH formats. For FF you need to select a SMALLER f-value to get a similar DOF. And with that smaller f-value, diffraction effects on the image will be the same.
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1288616310' post='3868']
There are many wide angle lens choices (ok I admit it, a bit more expensive than the APS-C compatible ones but we left the budget out of the IQ discussion). One thing which can be mentioned on the negative side is the vignetting. Bu rather than "wide aperture vignetting", I'd say darker corners because of multiple filter usage on wider FLs. It's clear that using a FF compatible wide angle on a cropped sensor has it's advantages in terms of vignetting and IQ on the edges/corners. But if you pay the price, you'll get a better quality on FF...
Regarding portrait shots; no doubt, better subject isolation combined with sharper image (FF lens can be stopped down to get sharper image), go for the FF sensors.
So, all in all, except for the discussions regarding tele usage and (some) macro advantages, I personally cannot count any pros for the cropped format by means of IQ. But of course I'm still open for hearing the advantages of a cropped sensor. (I still did not sell my DX body yet...<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />)
Kind regards,
Serkan
[/quote]
|
