Is the 1D Mark IV better....

[Roberto Lequeux]

I got the solution... well, I didn't make the lens, but I can point you in the right direction.
I really don't understand why people don't talk about it more in fact: the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (which was already mentioned!)

At 16mm it covers FF35 which is pretty wide. Isn't that enough? You are talking about getting a 20mm+ so I suppose so.

16mm on a x1 sensor makes it a narrower FOV than the 14mm on the 5D. Bus if it is the 1D you want for "non-suicidal skew" then the Tokina should cover a bit wider than 16mm.... I have no clue but I'd guess you'd get to about half way, right? Maybe not half way since FOV isn't linear so let's guess 15mm and call it safe-ish bet. So now you got a 19.5mm FF35 equivalent on the 1D which is better than you were looking into, it is f/2.8, and I think it costs ~$600! You'd save almost $2,000 over the 14mm Canon, same speed, just don't get a 5D.... the only reason to get a 5D is cheaper low-light than the 1D, by several grand though.

JUST WAIT FOR EPIC!! Get a $1,700 7D till then, the skew is about the same if not identical to the 1D as far as I understand and remember seeing. Your ISO ceiling is about ISO2500 with lots of light, or ISO1250/1600 underexposed. ISO800 is very clean under almost any circumstance. That is a crap load of sensitivity for superspeed lenses, even f/2.8. Put your money into Canon glass, and use it later with a Red Canon mount!!!! ))

Also worth mentioning is that at 15-16mm the only thing the Tokina lacks a bit is better flare handling. It is a fantastic lens. Super sharp... a killer bargain! Even at 13mm distortion is very low, but you might need a 7D for that. You will find 11mm is very useful and extremely acceptable so long as you are not shooting a grid and on the 7D you still get an equivalent to 17.6mm FF35! Which is f'ing wide.

When I see a 24mm lens I think FOV, which is what is important.

It just seems really stupid to say that the lens is always a 24mm when I think the majority of people think FOV.

Ignoring the abrasive comments that upset you and others, I believe that people are right in trying to point out this out. When you pick a lens you don't just pick it based on FOV.

I believe it might be what you find yourself doing more than not, perhaps because you spend a lot of time shooting cityscapes and astrophotography where you find yourself using infinity or close. One of the other factors is therefore mostly canceled out, dealing with OOF due to thin DoF on close subjects.

But the other all important factor is compression. Which I am certain you are very aware of, and conscious.

Their (somewhat tainted) effort to keep things in perspective is actually a great thing! Especially these days, when we are talking about x1, x1.3, x1.6 sensors for motion, and moreover RED!

Not too far in the future we'll finally have a F35+S35+2/3" sensor!! Add aspect ratios to that and we are all over the place in terms of sensor areas!

We really need to get out of FOV, which really only worked if you only shot S35, or S16, or S8, or 2/3"... smaller sensors didn't let you switch lenses, unless you got an adapter, but then you had to decide how big of a 16:9 area you were going to record on the GG! lol...

I guess if you worked a lot as a DP or in a camera dept you knew all these things. Not my case.

I'm confused now...if a wide angle lens has a certain degree of angle of view on a FF sensor and less on a cropped sensor then moving the camera away from the subject to a determined distance will give you the same 'look"?

No.

I doubt it, surely the perspective will be different?

Yes.

And that is how you play with perspective.

I was trying to distill the origin of perspective on my own (sorry if that makes me not worthy) but I must have been too tired or too hungry and ended up blurting out a pair of poorly worded posts. Formal school might have helped. I like this better...

What I was trying to say was that perspective isn't really tied to the focal length. (let me get full circle)

It is a factor of both camera placement (distance to the subject) and the compression of a given focal length, right?

I also wanted to point out that sensor areas don't factor into perspective, they only let you know if you'll record X subject in Y part of the frame or not (or if you need a lens with a bigger imaging circle).

BUT, I also wanted to point out to our scholar friends, that it makes perfect sense that people do consider sensors to factor into perspective, because they do in a practical way. Right? If you have a x1.3 1D you might have money and you might want to buy the 14mm in case you need it for a 5D or Mostro in the future. The 14mm has a specific compression of depth and field (depth and field compression? does that sound right?). The 14mm and the x1.3 sensor put together give you a specific FOV when combined, equivalent to an 18.2mm on a FF35 x1. But I have a 7D for instance, so I'll use the Tokina at 11mm, which has much lower compression...

So I have 11mm "optical compression" (?) onto a smaller x1.6 sensor area, which ends up in the same 16:9 TV as your 14mm compression but in a larger recorded sensor area of x1.3, but it ALSO gets turned into a 16:9...

So... the x1.6 image needs to be expanded more than the x1.3 image to fit the same screen... it is a wash... right? Isn' that what happens with negatives, same for digital, optics to screen size, or optics to print size, projection size, etc... it is all the same.

Is that right?

Hey Jens, how bout them apples? No student loans either. And don't even think to make fun of my language or any mistakes cause I ain't no DP. I just wanted someone to explain this to me but since all of you are so busy flinging poo at each other I had to talk myself through it... hope I got it right.

Now can we get along people? I am asking questions to learn, and not looking for a soap. My wife watches enough bad drama on TV as it is. Please.

 

[Gary Blake]

I havent followed this topic, but check out the sweet new AF system in the 1DIV
http://manginphotography.net/2009/12/finally-canon-gets-it-right-with-mark-iv/

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Let me tell and also to show you something more about 1DMK4 compared with 7D:

Moire issue is a big problem at video with all Canon HDDSLRs.

BTW, I don't believe in a huge difference at high ISO between all three 7D, 5D and MK4.

Have a look at my examples.

Below are the attachments that can show you what I'm talking about.


The picture numbers are by order at the attachments:

1. Canon 1DMK4 moire example at the house wall taken from Vincent Laforet's "Nocturne" @ 1080p.

2. Canon 1DMK4 noise example 1 from Singapore NightDrive @ 1080p

3. Canon 1DMK4 noise example 2 from Singapore NightDrive @ 1080p

4. Canon 7D noiseless example 1 from my shot at available light to the cupola of Palais Hofburg, Vienna (outdoor) ISO 6400, 720p blown up to 1080p.

5. Canon 7D noiseless example 1 from my shot at at available light to the cupola of Palais Hofburg, Vienna (indoor) ISO 6400, 720p blown up to 1080p.


The point is that you have to bring enough light to the sensor and only you can do with a fast lens at available light.

My shots are done handheld with Nikkor 55mm f/1.2 at wide open @ f/1.2 on 7D.


BRING ENOUGH LIGHT TO THE SENSOR AT ANY HIGH ISO THEN YOU WILL AVOID A LOT OF NOISE.


This is the main rule for every CMOS sensor either Canon Digic 4, RED Mysterium, Mysterium-X, upcoming Arri Alev III or any similar in the future or today...
.....

 

[Michael Hastings]

With a suitable lens the angle of view issues can be fixed as this affects the wide end for practical purposes.

Its a very interesting adaptor but seem only to work with some lenses. On wiki it reports the Lens throat diameter is the same for both mounts at 54mm so I guess its less than that so will only work with a few lenses. I don't know why its only advertised for the 7D though.

Dave: you were headed in the right direction. Even though the throad is the same as FF35 - the mirror is much smaller on APS-C cameras so there are more cine lenses that won't hit the mirror.

As far as the thrust of this thread it seems to me the crux of the matter is that APS-H is an oddball format. APS-C was for awhile too, but there were so many of them that Canon, Sigma, etc. came out with wide lenses specifically for APS-C the 10-22, 11-16, and even full circle fisheye 4.5 (and therefore S35/RED since they are nearly identical.) They could do the same for APS-H but I doubt if the numbers justify it - most of the intended market for it can handle not having superwide (think shooting basketball without a flash).

The other issue is the f2.8 limitation. I think this has primarily been a size/speed tradeoff for stills since you usually have the option of highpowered flash in still photography - so physical size was more important. However, now that movies have become such a big part of the vDSLR equation, I think you will see F2 or better lenses for both APS-C and FF35 either through increased size or heavy use of aspherics as reportedly leica? has done on their new cine Mystery lenses - but still probably nothing specifically for the APS-H.

 

[Dave Blackham]

Dave: you were headed in the right direction. Even though the thread is the same as FF35 - the mirror is much smaller on APS-C cameras so there are more cine lenses that won't hit the mirror.

I guess the throat diameter of the adaptor is about 50mm (PL is 54mm). This I guess is a practical limitation of building the mount as Canon EF is also 54mm diameter and some material is needed just to hang the thing together. I do have use for one for one of these adaptors as we have PL mount Leica Telephoto lenses that I would like to use on a Canon 5D mk2 for wildlife work.

As far as the thrust of this thread it seems to me the crux of the matter is that APS-H is an oddball format.

I completely agree. We have enough to contend with with Optics and sensor size as it is let alone another non standard sensor size.

The other issue is the f2.8 limitation. I think this has primarily been a size/speed tradeoff for stills since you usually have the option of highpowered flash in still photography - so physical size was more important. However, now that movies have become such a big part of the vDSLR equation, I think you will see F2 or better lenses for both APS-C and FF35 either through increased size or heavy use of aspherics as reportedly leica? has done on their new cine Mystery lenses - but still probably nothing specifically for the APS-H.

For some of our applications which include underwater which I know you work also. We have a big demand for long zoom range in a sensible physical size rather than very fast lenses, or thats what some of the guys are discussing here. Given Jim and the team are doing great work with fast sensors this may help us shooting in low light. To accommodate the long zoom ranges needed we may be forced back to smaller sensors like it or not as there's more available glass for 2/3, but ideally these will need to be f2 to provide any sort of reasonable match to cutting with S35 sensor sized cameras if shooting at f4/5. Id be interested in your views on smaller sensors too. Sorry for going of topic a bit.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

SJ, you are right. ISO4000 can give great results with lots of light, the problem is in low light as demonstrated here.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39244&page=4