TS-E on the cheap? For architectural photography

brightcolours wrote:

Marcos Villaroman wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

Marcos Villaroman wrote:

I would go for the 6D and 24mm TS-E. Full frame and wide glass go very well together. You get other pluses like better high ISO performance.

That is debatable. If you set equivalent -f-ratios to get similar DOF, you need to set the ISO at an equivalent setting too. You will lose 1 1/3rd stop of "high ISO performance" right there. Then the difference is not so big anymore...

Sorry for the delay in replying. I was on vacation.

Could you explain your statement? What are you comparing that you are adjusting ISO?

One chooses an aperture to get a certain DOF. To get the same DOF on APS-S and on FF, you have to use the same aperture size. That means, a different f-value.

If you use for instance f5.6 on the 17mm APS-C combination, you have to use 5.6 x 1.6 = 8.96 = ~f9 on FF.

You can verify this: 24mm / 9 = 2.67mm aperture. 17 / 5.6 = 3mm (slight difference due to not exact equivalence)

If somehow the exposure time needs to be similar, you will have to use different ISO settings on both cameras. If you for instance will use ISO 400 on APS-C for exposure duration purposes, you will need to set 400 x 1.6 x 1.6 = ISO 1024 on FF to get a similar exposure duration.

If exposure time is no factor, the FF camera will have the upper hand more clearly, obviously.

In my post above i was too strict in my formulation. It should have said "..you might need to set....".

Thanks for your explanation.

To me, high ISO performance was a bonus for getting a FF sensor and not necessarily applicable to using a TS-E on tripod.  You probably are shooting static subjects with a TS-E and not be that worried about slower shutter speeds.

As for your assumptions that results in using higher ISO on FF to preserve DOF, I'm not sure if I would agree with them in the first place.  I would start with the same FOV (adjust focal length and/or distance to subject) and figure out how much DOF you want from there.

joger wrote:

Howard S wrote:

But focus via the viewfinder, especially on some crop bodies, is not as easy as using liveview especially in tilt mode as you know

exact tilting is nearly impossible with live view as well - the 3 inch screen is too small to do that - you can take an arbitrary approach and use a table with values instead and alter in slow steps three or four images - that's the way I do it on my 5D II as well - 3 " is simply too small to judge the effect.

If at all the WiFi function on the new Canons will make a difference - use a > 7" tablet and zoom in and you will be able to see something reliable.

This is so true! I have a 10.1 tablet, with the Canon DSLR Controller software, and for cameras with liveview it is so easy to focus, for instance, using the 100L macro wide open. The connection is via USB wire (on my 50D, 7D and 5DII) or WiFi for those camera that have the function. It changes this type of photography.

Miguel

Thank you all for such helpful and knowledgeable responses, which have helped me to come to a properly informed decision on such a big question.

In the end it was the polariser that got me - I really like the crispness of blue skies polarised, and the saturation you can get into concrete, brick or stone colours. Until then I'd been going to go with 17mm TS-E and 650D, because I agree that the body makes less and less difference, and suffers nearly 100% depreciation within a few years.

And having had a first play with the 24mm and the 6D I have to say that I'm STAGGERED by the quality of the lens. With a Manfrotto Junior (no idea why 1.2kg of metal is called "Junior") tripod head I am getting every single line on a gridded building absolutely vertical or horizontal, down to the pixel. And so sharp! Beautiful.

With many thanks and best wishes to you all for your photography.