Getting used to the DSLR crop

[boku]

picked a 50mm lens where I'd normally use an 85mm but it wasn'tthe same

Well, from a perspective standpoint, the 50 x 1.6 is pretty close to the 85, no?

You were likely experiencing the greater depth of field the 50 provides over the 85 for the same given aperture.

Obviously, if you had that cache of film cameras you are accomplished enough to know all of this.

Do you suppose the different tactile feel of the 50mm lens in the palm of your hand was an issue?

I'm not sure many folks go to full-frame digital unless their work and output demanded it (and budget affords it). Try getting used to it unless you have $8000 to avoid it.

[Nigelfrommanchester]

I appreciate the DoF issue, but I was more interested in perspective itself. To give another example, I often take indoor shots of children with a 35mm so I've used the 350D with a 20mm. To me a cropped 20mm view doesn't look like a 35mm view on full frame.

That said, I've no intention of buying a full frame camera at current prices. However, I'm hesitating about buying the Canon 10-22mm EFS until I feel confident there isn't a 1D MkII with my name on it somewhere.

So, I'm sure there are lots of people here shooting with 1.6 crop cameras that used to shoot 35mm film. Was it just a question of time to get used to it?

Nigel
nigelatkinson.biz

[Ray]

Well, all the replies to the original question are true. Perhaps more needs to be made of differences in lens quality in general. Nigelfrommanchester (I'm from Manchester, but in the UK - the original Manchester   ), does not make clear in what way the 50mm lens is different from the 85mm lens. Bokeh perhaps? Resolution?

If the FoV is not exactly the same it's because 85mm is not exactly equivalent to 50mm on a 350D.

When you start going more wide angle, differences may become more noticeable. It's difficult to get a 30mm lens of comparable quality to a standard 50mm lens.

[Ben Rubinstein]

That's 3 of us, I'm in Salford...

[Ray]

A 50mm/1.4 on the 20D is equivalent to around F2.2 with 85mm on 35mm format. This is the trade off. More DoF with the smaller format for an equivalent Fl.

Some photographers disagree with this, but I can't see it.

[Nigelfrommanchester]

I've just taken the digital plunge, and its gone remarkably well. I bought a 350D to dip my toe in the water as was so astounded by the results that I'd sold an EOS 1v and EOS 3 within two weeks. (The last EOS3 will be going soon with all the film I'm never going to use.)

HOWEVER, I'm finding it hard to live with the crop factor. I did a head shot the other day and picked a 50mm lens where I'd normally use an 85mm but it wasn'tthe same. In the end I used the 85mm and went back further.

Does lens selection get easier with time?

All advice appreciated!

Nigel

[Jonathan Wienke]

Well, from a perspective standpoint, the 50 x 1.6 is pretty close to the 85, no?

You were likely experiencing the greater depth of field the 50 provides over the 85 for the same given aperture.

Bob's hit the nail on the head here. Smaller-format cameras will deliver greater DOF than a larger format one when both are at the same f-stop, because of the difference in physical aperture size. f/2 on a 50mm lens is 25mm, with the 85mm lens, f/2 is 42.5mm.

[Jonathan Wienke]

Perspective (as opposed to barrel/pincushion distortion) is a simple function of camera-to-subject distance. If you have 2 10cm spheres, and one is 2m from the camera and the other is 3m from the camera, the apparent size difference between the two will be constant, no matter what lens you use, as long as the distances remain the same. If you're shooting from the same distances you were before with film, the only differences are DOF and changes in barrel/pincushion distortion. Try playing with the Lens Correction filter in PSCS2 to see if that helps.

[Nigelfrommanchester]

Ray - you mean there's another Manchester! ::

As you mention, and backed up by many posts from other 1.6 crop users, the issue is going wide.

My experience with the 350D is still limited, but I took some sports shots with the 135mm f2 recently that astounded me. The 35mm f1.4 has also revealed more of its quality. However, 20mm is currently the widest I own and I probably will buy the 10-22mm while I have a rebate voucher.

Thanks also to Jonathan for giving me another excuse for buying PSCS2 ::

Nigel (from Manchester, England, UK)
nigelatkinson.biz

[Ray]

I grew up in the Manchester area, but am now in Australia where the weather's finer and the petrol cheaper.  

[lester_wareham]

Well, from a perspective standpoint, the 50 x 1.6 is pretty close to the 85, no?

You were likely experiencing the greater depth of field the 50 provides over the 85 for the same given aperture.

Bob's hit the nail on the head here. Smaller-format cameras will deliver greater DOF than a larger format one when both are at the same f-stop, because of the difference in physical aperture size. f/2 on a 50mm lens is 25mm, with the 85mm lens, f/2 is 42.5mm.

This is very true. With my old film system my favourite lens was the FD 85mm f1.8, I found it excellent for isolating detail whilst retaining a natural perspective.

When I got the 20D I expected to find the 50mm f1.4 would have them same appeal. In fact I found I am happier with the 100mm f2.8 Macro. I guess it must be DOF.

[lester_wareham]

A 50mm/1.4 on the 20D is equivalent to around F2.2 with 85mm on 35mm format. This is the trade off. More DoF with the smaller format for an equivalent Fl.

Some photographers disagree with this, but I can't see it.

Yes I agree, I did all the maths and deduced it should be almost equivalent, it's not for some reason that is asthetic and not analytical. The effect is visible to be through the viewfinder, perhaps its just me.....