Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Ultra-Wide-Angle Zooms - the benefits, as opposed to the deficits ...
Page <<first <prev 4 of 5 next>
Apr 19, 2019 08:56:06   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
Pistnbroke wrote:
I don't quite see why you would use an ultra wide ( 10mm) on a DX crop sensor particularly a Canon .
If you halve the focal length you need 4x the pixels to maintain the same sharpness. So DX for landscape is a bit of a bum idea. But of course if it makes you happy then its fine.
I personally use the 14mm Samyang on a D850 for wide shots at weddings particularly the first dance using disco lights I supply myself and of course church interiors/reception and scatter groups from the top of a ladder.
I don't quite see why you would use an ultra wide ... (show quote)
You use UWA with "FF" but don't see why I would use UWA with "APS-C"??

Maybe I want to take 1 photo instead of 4, and I don't need, or even want, 96mp.

Reply
Apr 19, 2019 08:59:26   #
Pistnbroke Loc: UK
 
perhaps you could explain that ...

Reply
Apr 19, 2019 09:46:49   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 
rehess wrote:
I don't use ultra-wide much with man-made structures - mostly with nature photos. Four years ago when I switched from Canon to Pentax, the Sigma 10-20mm lens is the one lens I truly missed, and then I found that they made that one in K-mount also. I don't normally worry about the corners - I don't put anything important to me there in any case. A wider lens allows me to get closer, which creates a more intimate "there with me" image.


That Sigma 10-20 UWA-Z is an astounding lens, RE … and yes - it does come in ALL APS-C mounts, too …

The corners in any UWA-Z are usually the only problem - where the images are likely to be softer ….

Interesting perspective, RE … I'm likely to use a slightly longer lens for intimate subjects. Prefer using the UWA-Z when I want to expand on the width of an area - showing how expansive it is - in the extreme!!!

Reply
 
 
Apr 19, 2019 09:55:54   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 
Pistnbroke wrote:
I don't quite see why you would use an ultra wide ( 10mm) on a DX crop sensor particularly a Canon .
If you halve the focal length you need 4x the pixels to maintain the same sharpness. So DX for landscape is a bit of a bum idea. But of course if it makes you happy then its fine.
I personally use the 14mm Samyang on a D850 for wide shots at weddings particularly the first dance using disco lights I supply myself and of course church interiors/reception and scatter groups from the top of a ladder.
I don't quite see why you would use an ultra wide ... (show quote)


Pistn … you sound like you're advocating the purchase of a FF body, just in order to do landscapes and wide group shots at weddings. I suspect an APS-C camera is just as adept at doing both those things with equal aplomb. And most APS-C cameras can be picked up under a grand, whilst the D850 swallows up $3300!!!!

Reply
Apr 19, 2019 10:03:30   #
Pistnbroke Loc: UK
 
Well 24 MP spread over an image cannot give the quality of 46 spread over the same image. If you are serious about wide angle you need FX or MF. But if you are happy with your DX so am I .

Reply
Apr 19, 2019 10:06:16   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 
Pistnbroke wrote:
perhaps you could explain that ...


Pistn - Sigma has an 8-16 UWA-Z - but it can only be used on APS-C bodies …

Other than that - 10mm seems to be the widest most UWA-Zs go (Tokina uses 11mm) … whilst the widest you can get in a FF UWA is 14mm … that 4-6mm difference may not seem like much, in print, but it makes an enormous difference in perspective - when looking at the finished photos.

FF has an advantage in some things, but there are trade-offs - one of which is the larger amount of space required to save those images - which means there's less room on your SD Card, and less room on your HD.
Folks have done analyses on the Net between images shot with APS-C and FF bodies, and some have said the difference in quality of the images - is negligible … and, probably - not worth the added expense ...

Reply
Apr 19, 2019 10:10:51   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
Chris T wrote:
Pistn - Sigma has an 8-16 UWA-Z - but it can only be used on APS-C bodies …

Other than that - 10mm seems to be the widest most UWA-Zs go (Tokina uses 11mm) … whilst the widest you can get in a FF UWA is 14mm … that 4-6mm difference may not seem like much, in print, but it makes an enormous difference in perspective - when looking at the finished photos.

FF has an advantage in some things, but there are trade-offs - one of which is the larger amount of space required to save those images - which means there's less room on your SD Card, and less room on your HD.
Folks have done analyses on the Net between images shot with APS-C and FF bodies, and some have said the difference in quality of the images - is negligible … and, probably - not worth the added expense ...
Pistn - Sigma has an 8-16 UWA-Z - but it can only ... (show quote)

10mm on my KP gives the same view as 15mm would give on a K-1 {and Irix does produce a 15mm manual focus lens for the K-1}

Reply
 
 
Apr 19, 2019 10:15:47   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
Pistnbroke wrote:
Well 24 MP spread over an image cannot give the quality of 46 spread over the same image. If you are serious about wide angle you need FX or MF. But if you are happy with your DX so am I .

You must be a Nikon user.
That is fine, but I'd rather spend $700 on a Pentax KP - I have other uses for the other $2500.

Reply
Apr 19, 2019 10:16:49   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 
Pistnbroke wrote:
Well 24 MP spread over an image cannot give the quality of 46 spread over the same image. If you are serious about wide angle you need FX or MF. But if you are happy with your DX so am I .


Pistn … a 46MP sensor packs more pixels into the same area as a 24MP FF sensor, thereby - the pixels have to be smaller. In a less densely packed sensor, the individual pixels are larger, thereby, lending to a higher quality image. In fact, one is better off, apparently, with a 16MP sensor, like the one in the D7000 and Df - or even a 12MP sensor, like the one in the D700 and D3s bodies.

Can you imagine someone taking your suggestion seriously, and going out to buy a MF camera with a UWA?
It would cost them - upwards of ten thousand dollars!!!! …. Some of us exist on just Social Security, here.

Reply
Apr 19, 2019 10:32:26   #
Pistnbroke Loc: UK
 
Been there done that the D7000 16mp ….junk ( by modern standards)

Reply
Apr 19, 2019 10:48:44   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
Pistnbroke wrote:
Been there done that the D7000 16mp ….junk ( by modern standards)

Since you can't be bothered to use "Quote Reply" I have no idea what you are responding to, but I will respond - an older Nikon certainly is inferior to current cameras from other manufacturers; testing shows the Pentax KP to do very well at higher ISO values, which is what matters to me.


(Download)

Reply
 
 
Apr 19, 2019 11:08:58   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 
Pistnbroke wrote:
Been there done that the D7000 16mp ….junk ( by modern standards)


A lot of folks are still using the D7000, Pistn - and producing some pretty fine images, with it, too.

The newer ones in that series - are the D7100 and D7200 - which both upped the Res to 24MP.

But the newEST one - the D7500 - drops the Res DOWN - to 20MP, like the D500 and the D5 …

Now, think about that! … what does Nikon know - we don't?

Reply
Apr 19, 2019 14:32:15   #
Pistnbroke Loc: UK
 
What ever floats your boat ...

Reply
Apr 19, 2019 17:13:08   #
Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England
 
Pistnbroke wrote:
What ever floats your boat ...


Well, thanks, Pistn … for your - oh, so intelligent - contribution - to this - very NICE thread!!!!!!

Reply
Apr 19, 2019 18:50:49   #
User ID
 
Pistnbroke wrote:
I don't quite see why you would use an ultra wide ( 10mm) on a DX crop sensor particularly a Canon .
If you halve the focal length you need 4x the pixels to maintain the same sharpness. .......


Toadall BS

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 5 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.