Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Is perspective not that important to you people??  (Read 3844 times)
Photon-hunter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« on: October 18, 2006, 03:59:25 AM »
ReplyReply

I have been coming and going from this forum to others(fred Miranda,Dpreview,Photonet)etc for a few years now.I dont post much,often get the feeling the majority of you guys have more interesting/experienced things to say. I learned a real LOT over here and got some very good advise to complete what today is my photographic kit.I enjoy photography so much and am very happy with my gear.

But curiously enough, as much as people talk(write) about equipment and very specially about lenses, (sharpness,FOV,CA,PF,diastortion,etc), and the active and eternal discussion about FF or Crop-sensors, I beleve there is one aspect of the lenses that is hardly ever discussed: Perspective.

I am a very happy guy living in Crop-land, Acceptable quality EF-s Zooms have made the reach of Ultrawide achievable,but I believe with the high image quality the crop-sensored cameras deliver nowadays the real difference to me is in PERSPECTIVE.My 24-70 L is something lika a 38mm in my 20D..BUT...it still has a WA 24mm perspective, and that does make a difference to MY photography.I think the correct use of the specific perspective of a certain lens is what can make a picture succesfull over the Angle of view it covers.I find landscape WA photography the most challenging and satisfactory when properly done, and this takes me to my 10-22 EF-s:

I love the field of view of this wild lense, BUT I am afraid I hate it´s´perspective.To Wild, to accentuated,far objects simply TOO far. I am wondering what things would be like covering the same FOV with a 16-35 in full frame....Huh

Perspective, relative size and situation of the objects in a picture are a basic key (TO ME) in phofography and I would like to know other people´s take on this one and what their position with regard to this would be in the eternall FF-APS debate.

All the best

Erik.
Logged
Nill Toulme
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 741



WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 18, 2006, 08:14:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, first of all, I don't think what you say is true.  If it were, then the 7mm lens on my little pocket P&S would have the perspective of a 7mm lens on a 35mm camera.  But of course it doesn't — it gives the perpective, and field of view, more or less of a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera.  It does have the DOF of a 7mm lens, but not the perspective, which depends, as I understand it, not on focal length but on subject distance.  And the relative DOF of different sensor sizes is a topic that is flogged to death on the fora you mention.

But then this sort of thing has always been well over my head so I could easily be completely wrong.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
« Last Edit: October 18, 2006, 08:18:24 AM by Nill Toulme » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #2 on: October 18, 2006, 08:56:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Perspective is determined by the position of the camera relative to the subjects, assuming focal length (and crop if necessary) are chosen to cover the same Field Of View on the final image. From the same camera position, 10mm in EF-S and 16mm in 35mm format give the same perspective as well as the same uncropped FOV.

So if you get too wide a perspective at 10mm with your EF-S camera and lens, just zoom in a bit.

Apparently you have never used 16mm in 35mm format (few of us have, because it was so expensive for one thing). If you had, you would have had the same "too wide" experience.


P. S. One ironical bonus of the shift to smaller digital SLR formats is that lenses like the Canon 10-22 EF-S have improved the affordability of very wide FOV compared with what we had in the 35mm film camera era.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2006, 09:06:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, first of all, I don't think what you say is true.  If it were, then the 7mm lens on my little pocket P&S would have the perspective of a 7mm lens on a 35mm camera.  But of course it doesn't — it gives the perpective, and field of view, more or less of a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera.  It does have the DOF of a 7mm lens, but not the perspective, which depends, as I understand it, not on focal length but on subject distance.  And the relative DOF of different sensor sizes is a topic that is flogged to death on the fora you mention.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80971\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's my understanding of the situation too. You change perspective when you change the shooting position or distance to subject. A 50mm lens on an APS-C camera thus becomes an ideal portrait lens because you are shooting from the same distance as you would using an 80mm lens on FF 35mm.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2006, 09:09:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am a very happy guy living in Crop-land, Acceptable quality EF-s Zooms have made the reach of Ultrawide achievable,but I believe with the high image quality the crop-sensored cameras deliver nowadays the real difference to me is in PERSPECTIVE.My 24-70 L is something lika a 38mm in my 20D..BUT...it still has a WA 24mm perspective, and that does make a difference to MY photography.I think the correct use of the specific perspective of a certain lens is what can make a picture succesfull over the Angle of view it covers.I find landscape WA photography the most challenging and satisfactory when properly done, and this takes me to my 10-22 EF-s:

I love the field of view of this wild lense, BUT I am afraid I hate it´s´perspective.To Wild, to accentuated,far objects simply TOO far. I am wondering what things would be like covering the same FOV with a 16-35 in full frame....Huh

Perspective has absolutely nothing to do with focal length, and everything to do with the location of the camera relative to the subject. If you have a sunflower 6 inches away from the camera and a mountan 100 miles away, the sunflower is going to appear larger than the mountain no matter what lens you shoot with. Similarly, any time you shoot a portrait from 2 feet away, the subject is going to appear to have an unnaturally large nose, again regardless of the lens used. Focal length simply alters how much of the face and background is in frame. Given the same camera location and field of view, perspective will be the same regardless of the camera format and lens focal length combination used to achieve it. To achieve a particular framing and composition, focal length should follow camera placement, not the other way around.

The short answer to your last question is too bad, so sad, exaggerated near-far perspective is an unavoidable by-product of wide-angle lenses (because you're unusually close to the "near" subject, thus it looks unnaturally large), and that won't change whether you're using a digicam, cropped DSLR, full-frame DSLR, medium format, or 4x5. If you don't like it, step back a bit and use a longer lens.
Logged

howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2006, 09:09:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Deleted by writer.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2006, 09:12:39 AM by howiesmith » Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2006, 09:13:45 AM »
ReplyReply

What you might be seeing is perspective distortion from the 20D's smaller viewfinder and not perspective change in the image itself?  Or possibly you simply "see" in longer focal lengths than you originally thought you did?  The hard fact is, an image taken at a 20 feet with a 10mm lens on the 20D looks just like an image taken at 20 feet with a 16mm lens on the 5D -- other than DoF.  So lastly, perhaps it is the change in DoF that is bugging you?  

Cheers,
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2006, 09:18:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
P. S. One ironical bonus of the shift to smaller digital SLR formats is that lenses like the Canon 10-22 EF-S have improved the affordability of very wide FOV compared with what we had in the 35mm film camera era.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80980\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

BJL,
I recall my Sigma 15-30 was actually cheaper than the EF-S 10-22 and tests in the store revealed the Sigma at 15mm was marginally sharper. On the 5D the Sigma  might provide a slightly wider FoV (should theoretically), although I haven't compared images.

But that EF-S 10-22 is a lot lighter and more compact.  
Logged
Photon-hunter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2006, 09:40:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Thankyou guys for all the input.
Since my original post I got the chance to see side by side the same picture taken from the same position only swithching in the tripod the 20D-10-22 for the 5D 17-40...obviously same framing and...Drums please...SAME PERSPECTIVE!!! Simply identicall. I think there is a misconception a lot of people seem to share and practichall example has shown me what influence the relative position to the subject has over perspective(been a busy morning  )....

Things clear, you are right I was wrong...and I am happy!!

Best,Erik.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2006, 09:24:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
BJL,
I recall my Sigma 15-30 was actually cheaper than the EF-S 10-22 and tests in the store revealed the Sigma at 15mm was marginally sharper. On the 5D the Sigma  might provide a slightly wider FoV (should theoretically), although I haven't compared images.

But that EF-S 10-22 is a lot lighter and more compact. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80987\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,

To clarify, I was comparing what SLR makers like Canon offered for 35mm film cameras to what the same SLR makers now offer for their new smaller digital SLR formats. In the case of Canon, the shift being from a very expensve (but fast) 16-35 or a 17-40/4 to a 10-22 EF-S that is as wide as the 16-35, far cheaper, smaller and lighter, but also slower (and maybe not as sharp; I do not know). In general, equally wide or wider coverage is available now from the major SLR makers for their new DSLR formats as was available from those same SLR makers in the 35mm film SLR era, and at lower cost than equally wide lenses currently offered for 35mm from those makers.

Your example mostly shows that Sigma (in its search for niches in lens market not filled by major SLR makers) offers wider 35mm format zooms than Canon does (or any major SLR maker unless you count the Olympus 7-14 FourThirds lens).
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2006, 10:28:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Your example mostly shows that Sigma (in its search for niches in lens market not filled by major SLR makers) offers wider 35mm format zooms than Canon does (or any major SLR maker unless you count the Olympus 7-14 FourThirds lens).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81147\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not quite true, BJL. Sigma also make a 12-24 which would be wider on FF 35mm than the Olympus 7-14. It would also be wider by a greater margin than the 2mm difference would suggest because of the wider aspect ration of 35mm, would it not?  
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2006, 10:57:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not quite true, BJL. Sigma also make a 12-24 which would be wider on FF 35mm than the Olympus 7-14. It would also be wider by a greater margin than the 2mm difference would suggest because of the wider aspect ration of 35mm, would it not? 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81159\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I do not consider Sigma to be a major SLR maker; that is a distinction that I made in my previous post with talk of Sigma seeking out niches not covered by major SLR makers.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #12 on: October 19, 2006, 11:39:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I do not consider Sigma to be a major SLR maker; that is a distinction that I made in my previous post with talk of Sigma seeking out niches not covered by major SLR makers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81168\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Perhaps not, but it is certainly a major lens maker, and we are talking about lenses, are we not? Sigma seem to have a fairly extensive range of lenses on offer. I'd buy them more often if they included image stabilisation. I'm consciously aware when I use the Sigma 15-30 at, say 30mm and 1/30th sec that I'm probably not going to get as sharp a result as I'd like or as I would get if I switched lenses to, say the Canon 24-105 IS, or 28-135 IS, but changing lenses can sometimes cause one to miss the shot.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #13 on: October 23, 2006, 05:55:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray, I take a lack of interest in a certain type of lens from every major SLR makers as indicative that demand for such a lens is very low, though not necessarily non-existent. Sigma makes money filling such low demand niches, exploiting the advantage that it can sell the same lens in multiple lens mounts, and so sell more lenses any one SLR maker can with a specialized one-mount only offering.

The bottom line really not that the new digital specific SLR formats have wider lens options, but that for most purposes, the options offered by camera makers are about as good for those formats as for 35mm, contrary to the out-dated complaints about losing wide angle coverage to the dreaded crop.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad