Reading mode: Light Dark

Anybody else bummed about MKII crop?

Go to last post
If you know how difficult it is for a (ultra-) wide angle lens to fill the extreme reaches of a full-frame digital sensor with some quality information, you will appreciate the 1.3x crop factor as a sensible compromise. Fisheyes are an exception to some extent.

Here is an example of the problems that UWA lenses run into with a full-frame sensor; top-left corner of a 1Ds frame shot with the EF 17-40L, 1:1 crop. All the mushy parts and most of the CA-infested areas will get cropped off by a 1.3x sensor - gotta love that, since these areas are of no practical use anyway.



; (250 kB)

Regards
Stefan

--

»We've experienced the fact that the perceptions of an expert surpass the precision of measuring instruments.« Nakabayashi-san of Canon, Inc.
 
I know what you're saying... and you're right in a way, but like i have said before, in the very specific market i am in, anybody hardly uses the 16 to 28 mm range but let's say that about 30% of all skateboarding photos are made with fisheyes; the rest will be normal or tele lens.

FF would have been nice because it would have made the 1DmkII the ultimate no-compromise camera for me.

Now it isn't and the slightly higher than expected price isn't making it easier to say "yes, i'm buying". I was expecting something in the 3750-4000 euro price range, but that was wishful thinking and I think that 4500 euro is still very reasonable for this great camera... pity 'bout the crop...
Stefan Schott said:
If you know how difficult it is for a (ultra-) wide angle lens to
fill the extreme reaches of a full-frame digital sensor with some
quality information, you will appreciate the 1.3x crop factor as a
sensible compromise. Fisheyes are an exception to some extent.

Here is an example of the problems that UWA lenses run into with a
full-frame sensor; top-left corner of a 1Ds frame shot with the EF
17-40L, 1:1 crop. All the mushy parts and most of the CA-infested
areas will get cropped off by a 1.3x sensor - gotta love that,
since these areas are of no practical use anyway.



; (250 kB)

Regards
Stefan

--
»We've experienced the fact that the perceptions of an expert
surpass the precision of measuring instruments.« Nakabayashi-san of
Canon, Inc.
Click to expand...
--
remember, they're tools, not toys.
 
Gevork Mosesi said:
Well excuse me. People have invested thousands of dollars in Lenses
they used to use with film cameras. Now, those lenses are basically
worthless, and we need to purchase new lenses, and having three
different crops doesnt help either. Maybe youve got extra money
lying around and can afford to waste it on lenses that will be
obsolete as soon as more affordable FF comes out, the rest of us,
dont have that luxury.
Click to expand...
Hm, what about me? Contax C/Y and G mount lenses and bodies. No digital solution in sight.

What about Leica users? No digital body for M mount, and the possibility of a digiback for R8 and R9.

Come to think of it, Olympus, Minolta, Practica, what about Nikon and Canon Rangefinders ....

And another thing, the snowtires I bought three years ago for my car won't fit the crurrent Model, same maker, same name, same engine, bigger brakes in the new model, no 15" wheels anymore.

Volker
 
Gevork Mosesi said:
Well excuse me. People have invested thousands of dollars in Lenses
they used to use with film cameras. Now, those lenses are basically
worthless,
Click to expand...
?????All of my old lenses are now worthless???? I only bought ONE new lens when I went digital, a single new wide lens. Some of my lenses are more usefull now (my fast 135 works like a fast 200) and the rest are just as usefull as before, I just use different ones.

Look at how much less money a 80-200 f2.8 is than a 100-300 f2.8.
 
On my 10D I have a 112-320mm F2.8 lens (effective - Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX). It cost $575

If I were to go full frame, a 120-300 F2.8 ( I think thats the focal range) lens would cost $1600.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that a great number of people who use the 1D use it for sports. The vast majority of sports related pictures are taken with a telephoto lens. If you take away effective focal length from then, they have to spend considerably more money buying longer, brighter lenses.

10mm Fisheye lenses are niche. I cant see Canon neglecting 99% of the market just to cater to the 1-2% who might use a 10mm fisheye regularly for sports.
dogmatic said:
I know I am.
Due to the nature of my main photographic work (skateboarding) I
need to be able to use a fullframe fish-eye...
If only I could put the Nikon 10.5mm FE on the 1DmkII, huh...
--
remember, they're tools, not toys.
Click to expand...
 
dogmatic said:
let's say that about 30% of
all skateboarding photos are made with fisheyes; ... pity 'bout the crop
Click to expand...
With a fisheye lens on a 1.3x camera you can still create some seriously fishy shots!



(15mm Sigma FE on 1D)

Ciao
Stefan

--

»We've experienced the fact that the perceptions of an expert surpass the precision of measuring instruments.« Nakabayashi-san of Canon, Inc.
 
Hi dogmatic,

You might want to try the x.42 Adorama WA converter on a 20 or 24mm lens. It's cheap, a piece of junk, but it might give you the image you want. The center is pretty sharp and it has LOTS of distortion. The soft edges might even enhance the shots.
 
no i might not want to.
i wouldn't even use such a piece of junk for video.

i know what kind of image i want and i've been getting that for over 10 years so i know for some things only a real non-cropped frame-filling fisheye will do.

untill canon makes a fisheye/fast-motor-drive-dslr combo that works i'll have to stick to film.
Ronald Schroeder said:
Hi dogmatic,

You might want to try the x.42 Adorama WA converter on a 20 or 24mm
lens. It's cheap, a piece of junk, but it might give you the image
you want. The center is pretty sharp and it has LOTS of
distortion. The soft edges might even enhance the shots.
Click to expand...
--
remember, they're tools, not toys.
 
That one looks very thin,i have an older one that's a little thicker that i used a nikon85/1.8 on eos bodies with no problems.If you need[e-mail me] i'll look up reciept for make[not on unit]and number
Edward
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top