Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

Ordered the 5D2 yesterday, really hoping it'll re-ignite the fire to try get a push on using a camera casually again. Only ever seem to take the camera out recently when I have to ...
 
Something has been bugging me lately, and it's focal lengths on crop and full frame cameras...

I recently bought a wide angle lens for my camera; the Sigma 10-20/4-5,6. What does that make it on an Olympus body with a 2x crop? With Olympus' ordinary lenses it's easy due to the 2x crop, you just double it and you get the full frame equivalent. The said Sigma is the equivalent of 15mm on it's widest on a 1,6x crop APS-C camera according to dpreview. Olympus' 9-18mm that I also considered was an 18-36mm equivalent on full frame, by dpreview. Baring this in mind, what is it that you really get on the Olympus with the Sigma 10-20mm?

I'm kind of confused as I just wanted the widest lens (non-fisheye) possible for my money. I just wish they based their focal lenght designations on what you actually see in the view finder, so it would be the same on all cameras regardless of crop factor. That said I'm pleased so far with my Sigma, as I haven't yet been wanting for a wider lens, and it was a bit cheaper than the ZD 9-18mm. It does use large (and expensive) 77mm filters though...
 
Marcos - the focal length remains the same. The field of view is cropped, so you get the same field of view as a 16mm lens with a 10mm FOCAL LENGTH lens on a 1.6 body; but the perspective/distortion etc is still 10mm you just get less than a full frame. This is why they are still numbered as say a 10mm. (Even in the case of the Canon EF-S lens which only works on crop factor bodies.)
 
4/3 FOV crop factor = 2x
10 x 2 = 20
equivalent FF FOV = 20mm

focal length x crop factor = apparent focal length, you're over thinking it
 
what is it that you really get on the Olympus with the Sigma 10-20mm?
Click to expand...
10-20 on an Olympus looks like (ie.: has the same field of view as) 20-40 on full frame, 15-30 on Nikon crop, and 16-32 on Canon. It's the field of view and circle of confusion that change, not the focal length. 12mm is always 12mm whether it's on a compact camera or a full-frame camera.

Notice how compact cameras have lenses that are around 6mm - 20mm zooms? These are stupidly-wide lenses, but they need to be that wide just to give the tiny sensors a normal field of view. 20mm is a telephoto lens on compacts.

This is one major reason I tell people to stay away from Olympus and other 4/3rds cameras. Going ultra-wide leaves you with a lot fewer options. If you want something as rectilinearly wide as full-frame (14mm), your only option is the hyper-expensive Zuiko 7-14 at $1750 (!!!). With Nikon and Canon crop, you have a lot more options to get as-wide-as-makes-no-difference for a lot less money, what with the Sigma 10-20, Nikon 10-24, Canon 10-20, Tamron 10-24, Tokina 11-16 and so on...

*waits for nomix to reply in scathing defense of Olympus* :p
 
Last edited:
So I've been given a EOS 300D and I am happy to report that DSLR's are awesome. Photography can be fun, imagein that! Anyway I put my old new camera to work and it quickly defeated the cats eyes which no longer glow like he was radioactive.

katt2.jpg


I'm trying to learn how to operate a real camera and I've started developing an urge to shell out with money on a new one. How far have we come from 2003 and the 300D? Canon or Nikon? Lenses? And what does the numbers mean? It's like trying to get into EVE Online, the sheer volume of information overpowers a newbie easily.

I hear the new Pentax K-x is nice for beginners...
 
Last edited:
Are you looking to start another debate about expensive ultrawides that don't allow you to use filters?
Click to expand...
:lol:

Woah, I didn't realize that at first. So, not only is the Zuiko the sole ultra-wide option for Olympus users, but it can't use filters either. Ouch.
 
After about 2 months taking pictures exclusively with the 500D, I tried using a Sony compact and nearly smashed it out of anger. :lol: For a few seconds I was "Where the hell is the Manual mode"? Looks like I am spoiled for life! :p
 
Compact cameras are mostly garbage. Even if their controls are usable, the artistic limitations of infinite depths of field and crappy ISO performance are hair-pullingly frustrating.
 
epp_b said:
:lol:

Woah, I didn't realize that at first. So, not only is the Zuiko the sole ultra-wide option for Olympus users, but it can't use filters either. Ouch.
Click to expand...


To be fair, the Zuiko doesn't look as Xbox-hueg as the 14-24, so it may be possible to use a Cokin system or gels or similar. No way to use screw-in filters, though.
 
epp_b said:
Compact cameras are mostly garbage. Even if their controls are usable, the artistic limitations of infinite depths of field and crappy ISO performance are hair-pullingly frustrating.
Click to expand...

and being forced into using JPGs that get massively over processed in camera and have no dynamic range at all
 
epp_b said:
Compact cameras are mostly garbage. Even if their controls are usable, the artistic limitations of infinite depths of field and crappy ISO performance are hair-pullingly frustrating.
Click to expand...

Ramseus said:
and being forced into using JPGs that get massively over processed in camera and have no dynamic range at all
Click to expand...

That things you pointed out don?t annoy me too much. What really annoys me is that you must select a "situation", like portrait or landscape and let the damn machine do it for you. I feel stupid not setting exposure and apperture by myself.
 
epp_b said:
This is one major reason I tell people to stay away from Olympus and other 4/3rds cameras. Going ultra-wide leaves you with a lot fewer options. If you want something as rectilinearly wide as full-frame (14mm), your only option is the hyper-expensive Zuiko 7-14 at $1750 (!!!). With Nikon and Canon crop, you have a lot more options to get as-wide-as-makes-no-difference for a lot less money, what with the Sigma 10-20, Nikon 10-24, Canon 10-20, Tamron 10-24, Tokina 11-16 and so on...

*waits for nomix to reply in scathing defense of Olympus* :p
Click to expand...
The 7-14mm is a Super High Grade lens, intended for professionals, hence the price is rather high. It's fully weather sealed and built like a tank too. It is however no more expensive than Nikon's similarly placed $1830 Nikkor 14-24 and it covers the same field of view (just zooms a little longer) on a crop frame, not just on a full frame. Olympus does have the 9-18mm budget wide angle (18-36 on full frame) which is pretty close to what the Nikkor, Canon, Sigma and Tamron offers on an APS-C sensor (16mm on full frame) If you're using micro 4/3 then you have the $1100 Panasonic 7-14mm (14-28 on full frame)

The main advantage of the 4/3 system is at the tele-end of things of course with up to 600mm (equivalent on full frame) covered at f2,8.
 
marcos_eirik said:
It is however no more expensive than Nikon's similarly placed $1830 Nikkor 14-24 and it covers the same field of view (just zooms a little longer) on a crop frame, not just on a full frame.
Click to expand...

The 14-24 is f/2.8, while the 7-14 is f/4. Considering that and its diminutive size, it's beyond me why the Zuiko is so expensive.
 
so that nobody can afford it? :dunno:

They wouldn't move many consumer grade lenses if the pro grade stuff was reasonably priced
 
BerserkerCatSplat said:
The 14-24 is f/2.8, while the 7-14 is f/4. Considering that and its diminutive size, it's beyond me why the Zuiko is so expensive.
Click to expand...
Diminutive size? I have tried the 7-14/4 on both my E-520 and E-410 before that, and it's very big and heavy, in pictures it looks like a 14-54/2,8-3,5, 11-22/2,8, 12-60/2,8-4 or a 14-35/2. It's only marginally lighter and smaller than the Nikkor 14-24. It's about the same size as the massive 14-35/2. Compared to the Nikkor 14-24 the Zuiko is: 780g vs 1kg, 86,5x119,5 vs 98x131,5.

Some of the reason for the 7-14 being one stop slower, was according to Olympus that they sacrificed a stop of light for more sharpness, even in the corners. What I have experienced so far with (super) wide angles is that they are best used stopped down anyway.
 
Last edited:
marcos_eirik said:
Diminutive size? I have tried the 7-14/4 on both my E-520 and E-410 before that, and it's very big and heavy, in pictures it looks like a 14-54/2,8-3,5, 11-22/2,8, 12-60/2,8-4 or a 14-35/2. It's only marginally lighter and smaller than the Nikkor 14-24. It's about the same size as the massive 14-35/2. Compared to the Nikkor 14-24 the Zuiko is: 780g vs 1kg, 86,5x119,5 vs 98x131,5.

Some of the reason for the 7-14 being one stop slower, was according to Olympus that they sacrificed a stop of light for more sharpness, even in the corners. What I have experienced so far with (super) wide angles is that they are best used stopped down anyway.
Click to expand...

It's still diminutive compared to the massive hunk of glass that is the 14-24, any way you slice it. And, yes, any lens works best stopped down. However, the 14-24 manages to be extremely sharp while being f/2.8, so I don't see the limitation there either.
 
epp_b said:
This is one major reason I tell people to stay away from Olympus and other 4/3rds cameras. Going ultra-wide leaves you with a lot fewer options. If you want something as rectilinearly wide as full-frame (14mm), your only option is the hyper-expensive Zuiko 7-14 at $1750 (!!!). With Nikon and Canon crop, you have a lot more options to get as-wide-as-makes-no-difference for a lot less money, what with the Sigma 10-20, Nikon 10-24, Canon 10-20, Tamron 10-24, Tokina 11-16 and so on...

*waits for nomix to reply in scathing defense of Olympus* :p
Click to expand...

I agree. Somewhat.

It is cheaper to get wide wide angle with APS-C. Just get the Sigma 10-20. Then again, you could also get the Canon 10-22, but then it's quite expensive again.

The 7-14 is expensive because it is one of the best lenses ever made. And that's not the Olympus fanboy talking. It really is that good. It was the first telecentricly designed UWA zoom lens, it preceeded the Nikkor 14-24 - which uses the same sort of telecentric design principle - by, 2, 3 years?

The fact of the matter is, you get what you pay for. The 7-14 is only matched by the 14-24. Okay, I'll agree the 14-24 is better, simply because it's faster (f/2.8 vs. f/4.0). But, to use the 14-24 as a UWA, and not a silly wideish standard zoom, you need to get an FX body. So that will add to the price. For those rushing in with the 16-35L II, rush back out, it is nowhere near neither the 7-14 nor the 14-24.

As for optical design, the 7-14 has to resolve a high density sensor. The 14-24 only has to resolve a big, low density FX sensor. :p

In the end, you get what you pay for. Want a EFL 28-70mm f/2.0 lens that is just as sharp at f/2.0 as it is at f/8.0? Then you better be ready to pay for it.

You want ultra wide angle of ultimate quality? Then you better be ready to pay for it, no matter what system you use.

Bodies are for years, lenses are for life.

:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top