M user buys dSLR, but misses wide angle views

[photowritejames]

This post was inspired by Roger Michel's thread about digital audio

and film. I strongly agree that there are plenty of reasons and

opportunity to stay with film, specifically 35mm film that most here

like and use, IF enough consumers decide to do so.

 

Although I could have bought digital equipment in recent years, I read

and watched closely from the sidelines, getting CDs made of my rolls

of negative film has been my only taste of 'digital' photography. I

use a Contax T3 (my everywhere camera) a Leica M system, and Canon

film EOS cameras for that the others don't do well.

 

Last week before Christmas I took the plunge and purchased a Canon

20D, and a couple extra primes, a 20mm f/2.8 and a 50mm f/1.4 (Thanks

Rich Pinto/Photo Village). The 50mm was an 'extra' lens as I wanted

something fast to compliment the fast ISO abilities of the 20D sensor

(I'm not a fan of slow zoom lenses and I have a couple of good tele

EOS lenses already). But the 20mm f/2.8 is to be my main 20D lens as I

wanted something in the 35mm range; 35mm lenses are my 'normal' on

both my M6TTL (f/1.4) and my Canon EOS5 (f/2).

 

With the 1.6x crop factor of the 20D sensor I have an angle of view of

roughly 32mm which should be fine. What I don't care for is that

looking through the Canon 20D with the 20mm lens mounted is still like

looking though a 20mm lens. Meaning the view is small and a little

distant BUT without the benefit of actually being wide angle. (I use a

21mm f/4 CV lens often). I'm surprised I have not read of this

experience from other reviews/users (or maybe I missed it when the

1.6x crop came out years ago?).

 

I'm not faulting the cameras abilities or potential (the pros and cons

of most digitals are well known and argued often), but the user

interface is poor on this wide end which is not really very wide

because of the crop factor. I knew that the dSLRs with sensors smaller

than 35mm film were not great for wide angle lenses but I was not

prepared for the poor, tunnel-like view through the viewfinder

(because I obviously didn't think it through... that I would still be

looking through a cropped 20mm lens). This is one consequence of mail

order shopping.

 

The 20D is surely a camera I have yet to really learn and explore, and

has great potential. I must say that it was easy to understand as a

bengining dSLR user because of my EOS Canon film experience. Using the

20D around family over Christmas I mostly used my 35mm and new 50mm

lenses. Not only because they are better for taking pictures of people

with, but because they are nicer to look through. Having said all of

the above, I will never be sorry I bought the 20mm EF lens as I put it

on my film SLR and was treated to a proper 20mm view of the world :-)

 

The solution of course is to use the 20D for normal to tele work

(which I do less of, maybe I will do more now with the 20D) and to get

a EOS 1Ds with the full frame sensor, about $6,000.00 now that the 1DS

Mark II is out. There is some appeal to this thought, money aside, but

do I really want to stop using my little rangefinders and totally jump

to a camera system as big as a canon? I'm glad I 'only' spent $1450.00

on the 20D as I was actually considering the EOS 1D Mark II with its

1.3 crop factor. This would have been better BUT I would like to have

the ability to use wide angle lenses as wide angle lenses and think

that waiting to buy a full-frame sensor dSLR would be preferred next

time (cost and size aside). Two bodies, one for tele and one for

normal/wide sounds fine if I want to carry that much gear big gear

(which I really don't).

 

As I noted above I use a CV 21mm often. There have also been many

times when I would have liked a faster 21mm lens... so I just

purchased a Leica 21mm f/2.8 ASPH from Samy's. My M6 will probably

continue to be my wide angle camera for another 1-2 years, maybe much

longer :-)

[Brad_]

ok.

[socke]

I agree on the viewfinder, the 20d's finder is even smaller and darker than that on the older Canon dSLRs.

So my D60 stays on duty until there is an EOS 3 type dSLR. If it weren't for portability I'd go Contax 645 with a used Kodak DCS Pro back.

[robert_dermer]

james, I think I might need to hear at least two or three more whole paragraphs of your whistful looks for acceptance and congrats on your purchase before you actually ask a question. Would you console me with a few more?...pahhlease?

 

Your questions have been answered many times in these forums so please try a search before purpoting to ask anything thing that is original. Thanks.

[james_h]

Mr. Robert Dermer:

 

I've been around a while... don't post often... think it is nice to share thoughts (both for me and you/others), pardon me for using too many words.

 

Happy New Year :-)

[________1]

How many more accounts do you have?

[james_h]

Unfortunately I have two accounts. Years ago I registered using my full name. I thought I had changed it to James H but apparently I didn't, as after I posted above I saw it was 'James Langan', not the 'James H' I have been using. I already emailed Photo.net asking them to combine the two.

 

Sincerely,

 

James H. Langan

PhotoWrite, Inc.

[pppp]

"Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here"

[david j.lee]

it`s very nice to see that the holiday season turns the otherwise nasty leica

forumers into social and polite individuals.

[godfrey]

With the smaller format of the 20D, the field of view of a 20mm lens is closer to that of a

normal lens, that's all. If you want more field of view, you need a shorter focal length lens.

Between Canon, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina, you have choices down to 12mm, the

approximate field of view equivalent of a 19mm lens on 35mm format.

 

I don't know what about the "crop factor" and the look of a 32mm field of view equivalent

lens is bugging you from your long commentary. The viewfinder of an SLR, whether film or

digital, does not change its aspect when you go from a wide angle lens to a telephoto. It's

like looking at a television screen, unlike looking through a rangefinder's optical

viewfinder. The 20D viewfinder is not as bright as a 24x36mm SLR viewfinder because

there's not as big a glowing screen in there, but it provides excellent eye relief and a good

reflex view. Plenty to focus and frame with. '

 

I also missed the field of view of a 21mm lens on 35mm film. The problem is now solved: I

bought a 14mm f/2.8 lens. That's all it takes.

 

Godfrey

[markci]

<i>The solution of course is to use the 20D for normal to tele work (which I do less of, maybe I will do more now with the 20D) and to get a EOS 1Ds with the full frame sensor, about $6,000.00 now that the 1DS Mark II is out.</i>

<p>

Cripes, the solution is to buy the 10-to-whatever-it-is zoom and stop boring us with this stuff.

[james_h]

I obviously didn't make myself clear, I will try again.

 

I'm well aware that there are shorter (and often slow) lenses available that can give a wider field of view with the 1.6x sensor, but the appearance and user interface of looking thought-the-lens is still that of looking through a 10 or 16mm lens.

 

I stressed 'crop factor' because that is exactly what is occurring, a 35mm lens is being cropped so the cameras sees less than the lens is capable of. I believe 'crop' is a correct statement compared the the 'magnification' factor that is sometimes purported. Nothing is magnified, image is missing from the edges instead.

[EricM]

"I'm well aware that there are shorter (and often slow) lenses available that can give a wider field of view with the 1.6x sensor..."

 

I'm well aware that you are discussing a Japanese digital camera on a German film camera biased forum. Carry on...

[markci]

Well the second half of my suggestion still stands.

[abufletcher]

James, the solution is simple: Tokina 12-24/4. This is simply an outstanding

lens in all ways. I've been using this for about a month now and have no

complaints whatsoever. I consider it the other half of my D70.<div></div>

[jury]

what brad said.

[fotografz]

You didn't know this going in?

 

There is no solution right now. Canon makes a 10-22 (16-35) f/3.5-4.5 EFS zoom that's

received decent reviews. But it's usable only on the 20D and D Rebel, and it's to slow for

you.

[brunom]

James

 

What you are experiencing is, as you put it, the 1.6x crop factor, which is often expressed as a magnification. It really is the same as looking through an M viewfinder and using say the 50mm finder but wanting it ,and the scene it encompases, pulled back to fill the screen. This may be an advantage for rangefinder digitals as you don't look through the lens, but see what the viewfinder shows. C/V have introduced individual finders showing [ fully ] the new field of view from their [cropped view].

 

To be honest what I don't undestand is [ forgetting the sensor, which is behind the mirror, and its size for a moment] if you put a 20mm lens on an SLR and look through the viewfinder you should still see what the lens sees[not what the sensor records] Do they make the mirrors smaller or mask it in some way??

You can see I don't use digital!

 

Regards

 

Bruno

[kevin m.]

Well, if Canon introduced a 22mm f2.0 EF-S prime tomorrow, I'd order one. But there are other options that don't weigh and/or cost much more than the 20 f2.8 you're using now. Canon's 24mm f1.4; Sigma's 20mm f1.8 and 24mm f1.8 for example. But for now, anyway, you can choose between a limited range of fast prime lenses, or a whole slew of zooms that top out at f2.8.

[runkel]

So what the sensor "sees" is not magnified to fill the viewfinder and thus does not look as the same as the equivalent focal length does through the viewfinder of a 35mm SLR? Not only did I not realize this, it seems counterintuitive. I suppose there is a sound reason why this must be, but it's not obvious to me. I am also "surprised I have not read of this experience," because I read these forums often.

 

Thanks to this thread I will now "know this going in" when/if I am in the market for a DSLR. I will also have the benefit of these reflections from an M user (and paid-up photo.net subscriber) who took the time and trouble to detail them in a thoughtful and sincere posting.

 

This thread is quite something: a mix of pleasant responses, vaguely peevish comments (ironically from people who read carelessly and concluded that the concern was crop factor), and just plain obnoxious responses. Robert Dermer seems to be responding to a posting that exists only in his imagination.

[brunom]

James

 

To answer [i hope] my own question about what you see through a DSLR viewfinder I guess that it has to be the focussing screen that is masked or made smaller to accommodate the crop factor.

 

Leica has said that with the DMR a separate focussing screen will be issued with it with frame lines [as on the M cameras] showing the reduced area due to the smaller than full frame sensor used.

 

Regards

 

Bruno

[erin.e]

Stop your whinging and buy the 1Ds and then you can post on tne Canon forum! On the 1Ds, your Canon 20mm 2.8 will realise its full potential. (And show up all its optical flaws.)

[godfrey]

The focusing screen in a Canon 20D is slightly smaller than the sensor being used to

record the light, just like the focusing screen in a Canon EOS 3 is slightly smaller than the

24x36mm film frame. So a 20D shows you through the lens approximately 94-95% of

what will be recorded, just as the EOS3 does.

 

There's nothing unusual going on here. It has nothing to do with "crop factor" or any such

malarkey. It's simply a smaller than 35mm format camera. Lens focal lengths do not

change. The field of view changes because the format is smaller. Period.

 

Godfrey

[brunom]

Godfrey

 

I understand what you are saying, just can't get out of the habit of comparing to 35mm cameras! helped by the advertisers always giving 35mm equivalents. Of course the fact that there are many sensor sizes doesn't help, but actually thinking of them as a smaller than 35mm format cameras does remove a lot of the fog.

 

Regards

 

Bruno

[ben z]

James: I get what you're saying, you're not complaining about not having wide-angle coverage on the 20D you're complaining that when you are getting 35mm coverage angle on your 20D you're also getting the same expanded foreground/reduced background and extensive depth of field as with a 20mm just as it would be on a full-frame. Yep, that's true and nothing you can do about it. A similar thing happens in a way when you use a Leica M. The compression of a 135 or the expansion of a 28 are not evident in the finder, because it merely frames the coverage, it doesn't zoom, but the results on film have a different look than in the finder. In the case of the M you've just got to have experience and imagination. With the 20D and what you're experiencing you're at the mercy of the laws of optics and the whims of the manufacturer. Accept the pitfalls of the 1.6 crop or ante up for a full-frame body.