Tokina 10-17 vs Full Frame digital

There is no shortage of gushing Tok 10-17mm users here on Wetpixel at the moment, posting great shots taken with their new lens. I hope to join them and have some to post soon. Anyway this lens made me wonder...

For me the big question now is. Which is more desireable for underwater photography, a full frame DSLR or the Tokina 10-17mm. Unfortunately you can't have both.

Alex

I'm a relative newby to the photography world, but as i understand the full frame vs cropped frame discussion, the 35mm reference size is only an arbitary reference size left over from film. so there's really no advantage to different sized sensors except some of the older lenses (non DX for nikon) don't have the same properties.

so the 17-35mm lens is now not useful because the wide end isn't as wide, and the 60mm is now and a little longer on the cropped frame, so there is some value in having a standard size sensor.

As long as I know what to expect from a lens before I buy, I see no real advantage to a particular sensor size. Now if I had already invested in a suite of lenses for my 35mm film camera, I might be thinking a bit different.

So in the end, I suppose that all else being equal, it would be nice to have a standard sensor size across the board, and I guess that's where the 35mm "full frame" comes in, but I perfer the Nikon cropped sensor size now since I have invested in DX glass.....

Please correct me if I am off base on my assumptions,

Take care,

John

Why can't you have both?

It mounts on full-frame cameras to provide a FOV greater than 180deg, and while it doesn't fill the frame entirely until ~15mm, there's always the option of cropping to reduce that wide, wide view (especially with the many megapixels of the Canon 1DsII). Not as practical, true, but ultimately still useful.

I still haven't got over the fact I couldn't take a 10x8 Sinar and 20,000 joules of flash with me underwater! What's a cropped sensor? (That was a joke!)

I still haven't got over the fact I couldn't take a 10x8 Sinar and 20,000 joules of flash with me underwater!

Where there's a will, there's a way.

Oh...you don't want to be broke. Well, nevermind then .

Why can't you have both?

 

It mounts on full-frame cameras to provide a FOV greater than 180deg, and while it doesn't fill the frame entirely until ~15mm, there's always the option of cropping to reduce that wide, wide view (especially with the many megapixels of the Canon 1DsII). Not as practical, true, but ultimately still useful.

You are right, but I don't think there's much point to doing that. Just use a 15mm FE and crop away until you get to a cropped sensor size image. You'll have the equivalent of about a 10-15 on a cropped sensor, and you can have verticals without rotating the camera.

When the FE zoom was announced, I was sad that it was not full-frame. I don't like zoom lenses so I probably would not have bought it even it were FF, but the lens definately sounds interesting and lessens the lens gap between FF and 1.5x. And I'm sure that in the not to far future, the 1.5x lens line up will be as at least as good as the FF lens lineup. But that does not negate all of FF's benefits.

Larger sensors will always have ( at least some to some degree) an advantage of image quality. Resolution, high ISO, and dynamic range. Though we may soon if not allready reach the point where the improvents are small and perhaps not particularly meaningful.

Though there is one FF advantage that is optical not technological and will allwasy be true. At any given (diffraction limited) resolution, a full frame sensor permits a greater depth of field.

I was just faced with this decision recently. The 10-17 is a lens unique to DX but there are other differences. I have to agree, though, that wide angle comes down to better FE choices for DX versus better primes for FF. FF suffers from edge softness and vignetting more than DX but current FF bodies allow smaller apertures via superior ISO performance. Which system performs better UW with a WA zoom would be an interesting exercise especially with the improved 16-35.

For macro, larger sensors mean either higher resolution or more tolerance of diffraction (or some combination). In exchange, FF shooters have to come up with 1.5x more magnification so they have to use bigger, heavier lenses and more frequently use diopters and teleconverters. I was recently told by a FF shooter that they had to resort to cropping more often than they'd like. In the end, one could argue the merits of FF for macro but it's clear that it comes at a cost and I would understand why someone would prefer DX.

Ultimately it was the ease of use of DX for macro that drove me to choose it. The 10-17 will be what I plan to use for WA although I'd love a rectalinear zoom option as well. I didn't like the Nikon 12-24 too much underwater so it'd be nice if the Sigma 10-20 worked well. Lens choices such as the 10-17, housing ergonomics and port performance contribute just as much as the sensor size does to an effective system.

Once I committed to DX, I have to admit that I began to feel the FF envy again. On the bright side, they don't get to use my lenses. ;-) It will be interesting if Nikon indeed introduces the rumored FF D3. While DX lenses will be useless or usable only at reduced resolution, even my beloved 70-180 micro would likely lose much of its value with the loss of apparent magnification.

best would be a FF we a DX compatible cropping mode (like the D2X high speed crop mode) ! B)

Claude

Though there is one FF advantage that is optical not technological and will allwasy be true. At any given (diffraction limited) resolution, a full frame sensor permits a greater depth of field.

This is the opposite of what I thought I understand it to be. I thought that to obtain the same angle of view, a larger sensor would require a longer focal length lens and the depth of field would be smaller.

Can some clever person help me out?

Thanks.

Andy

Alex, I don't personally like using fisheye lenses so clearly I'd prefer FF!

But I'd also say that it IS the smaller, reduced frame image circle which has now allowed manufacturers to actually design useful fisheyes such as the 10.5 Nikon and the 10~17 Tokina! Trying to build zoom fisheye lenses for FF sensors and retaining the required image quality across a larger image circle would probably be prohibitively expensive. For anyone who is interested in lens design and digital sensors there is some interesting information available on the luminous landscape about Leica's M8 10MPixel 1.3x crop sensor camera and Leitz M lenses - which discusses that their lens designs now incorporate aspheric elements in order to produce quality images sufficient for 35mm film or for this sensor.

Can I clear up one point about FF which is about its image quality and characteristics? I recently read a fascinating piece about the original 1D Canon - not FF but a 1.3x crop camera - which produced very clean and smooth files indeed (I can vouch for this as I had one) relative to most other 3 MPixel cameras! The reason given was that each individual pixel sensor was relatively 'huge' and as a simple consequence it gathered more light per pixel. It is the larger pixel size OR in more recent FF cameras, the size and/or the sheer number of pixels, which can produce smooth clean images - although this is MOST noticable when using them at high ISOs (when the lower noise becomes most apparent) and is subject dependent. All this is probably to do with the increased information capacity which FF is able to utilise and is a purely physical attribute of a larger sized sensor.

But noise/tonal gradation is most noticable in areas of gradual changes of colour and density (such as out of focus backgrounds) and fisheye lenses are less likely to be used in situations where this will occur as they have the ability to produce sharply focussed images throughout their full image when used underwater - although mid-toned blue water has the capacity to reveal sensor weaknesses if at all underexposed. So to come back to your question, I would say that for anyone for whom the 10~17 fisheye zoom is a lens that they really like using underwater, the other attributes/differences of FF are probably of less relevance and at this stage in the development of digital cameras and they may well be better off sticking to cropped sensor cameras which have other characteristics better suited to such a lens in any case.

For the future who knows what we will see happen? My guess (based on discussions with a lens designer amongst others) is that we'll see 1.5x sensors top out at ~15 MPixels due to lens constraints (Nikon have - well one of their designers has - after all stated that MPixels have matured), but who knows what developments will take place in the future.

This is the opposite of what I thought I understand it to be. I thought that to obtain the same angle of view, a larger sensor would require a longer focal length lens and the depth of field would be smaller.

 

Can some clever person help me out?

 

Thanks.

 

Andy an

No, it is true. The key is "At any given (diffraction limited) resolution". When a shorter focal length is used on a smaller sensor, the physical aperture gets smaller to maintain the same f-stop. This produces a larger depth of field thus the confusion. Meanwhile, the smaller sensor, given identical resolution, requires a larger aperture to maintain the same diffraction limit because of its smaller pixel pitch. In order to compare like resolutions with like image quality and the same perspective, the larger sensor should use a proportionately smaller aperture. When the proper comparison is done, a FF sensor will never have less DOF than a cropped one. Unfortunately, even the most experienced "experts" consistently get this wrong. They always compare different sensors with different focal lengths but at the same exposure, thus fixing the f-number. Doing that is completely wrong as an objective comparison, though it may well be what you do when you shoot wide angle since you aren't typically diffraction-limited. It would be a fair generalization to say that smaller sensors have greater DOF in practice for WA but less DOF for macro.

This was discussed long ago in this thread: http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showt...=depth+of+field

Also, see here

The reason given was that each individual pixel sensor was relatively 'huge' and as a simple consequence it gathered more light per pixel. It is the larger pixel size OR in more recent FF cameras, the size and/or the sheer number of pixels, which can produce smooth clean images - although this is MOST noticable when using them at high ISOs (when the lower noise becomes most apparent) and is subject dependent. All this is probably to do with the increased information capacity which FF is able to utilise and is a purely physical attribute of a larger sized sensor.

It's really SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio) that's the concern. Canon did two things well; it controlled noise while increasing signal with large pixel sizes. Today, the 5D has pixel capacity that exceeds the dynamic range of its converter. That means it has identical sensor performance at ISOs higher than base. It also means that Nikon's DX sensors, which also max out the performance of their converter, essentially match the Canon's at base ISO. Current Nikon models have tonality that matches Canon FF at base ISO.

Any talk of increased pixel count improving IQ is just clouding the issue. Increasing pixel count increases resolving power but it does not improve noise or increase tonality. Making such a claim requires comparing images viewed at different dpis which is inherently unfair.

...the other attributes/differences of FF are probably of less relevance and at this stage in the development of digital cameras and they may well be better off sticking to cropped sensor cameras which have other characteristics better suited to such a lens in any case.

The attributes referred to, i.e. better tonality, don't exist for reasons I've stated above and in another thread. It did exist at the time of the 1D, it does exist for higher ISOs, and it may exist again with the upcoming 14 bit converters, but it does not exist with current cameras at ISO 100 where most UW shooting occurs. I've linked to this article before but I'll do it again. It's an in-depth discussion of the issues involved including tests of relevant cameras including the D200 and 5D. The entire article is good but Fig. 5 shows exactly what I'm talking about. Reading the article will clear up a lot of myths and it's written by a Canon guy to boot. ;-) Some feel that the 5D's high ISO performance is its great advantage; I consider it it's achilles heel. How much greater would the 5D have been for us if it had offered 14 bit converters?

For the future who knows what we will see happen? My guess (based on discussions with a lens designer amongst others) is that we'll see 1.5x sensors top out at ~15 MPixels due to lens constraints (Nikon have - well one of their designers has - after all stated that MPixels have matured), but who knows what developments will take place in the future.

I agree, and that means that Nikon and others will inevitably have to increase sensor size or conceed the resolution advantage to those that have/do. It appears that there's at least one more stop, maybe more, in performance to be had at current pixel sizes, but with Canon raising ADC resolution to 14 bits, Nikon is not likely to be able to shrink pixel sizes and keep pace unless they skip 14 bit. That means FF is inevitable for those application where IQ is most important and I'm convinced UW wide angle shooters will want 14 bits. Current rumors have Nikon introducing FF in the D3 model. There are good reasons why that could happen.

I'm certain a fisheye zoom could be made for FF. The real question is how much it would cost and how many would buy it. I want an updated zoom macro with modern focus and 1:1. I'm certain they could make it but I doubt there is a market.

can someone post a land shot at 17mm? preferable a landscape type shot, not a close up. interested in how fishy it looks at that length

thanks

If you can overlook that it's Ken Rockwell, you can look here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/10-17mm.htm

At 17mm it's not too fishy.

Leave alone the FF vs DX sensor from the technology aspect for a moment, for me, the reason for having a Nikon FF D3, not counting the desire to have the biggest, newest toy on the block , would be the abililty to use the 17-35mm at FF coverage. Lately i start to be less satisfied with my 12-24mm DX (probably more my fault rather than the lens, but it is better to blame the lens ) and wish that I can have better rectilinear wide angle zoom lens. I have not try the 10-17mm yet but if it is really just about as good as the 10.5mm then I probably would miss not being able to use it with FF too.

can someone post a land shot at 17mm? preferable a landscape type shot, not a close up. interested in how fishy it looks at that length

 

thanks

Mike

I did that on another thread here (Napolean Maori wrasse) with two shots, one at 10 and one at 17, plus detail. What's a land shot?

JB

I am not sure you are allowed to post land shots on Wetpixel!

... or mention He Who Must Not Be Named- Ken Rockwell.

Ken who?

Craig, we'll simply have to agree to disagree! My problem is that I can SEE differences between images I have shot on FF and smaller sensors. I have to admit though that I still think that my 1DSs produce an image quality which I prefer above anything else I've seen - warts and all, and yes 1DSs do have some pretty big warts!

As a companion to the Tokina it might we worth trying Nikon's old 43~86 zoom which was a revelation in its day. Today its barrel distortion (easily visible through the viewfinder) might rival the Tokina's (at one end of its range anyway, it pincushioned equally badly at the other). Makes you think that we are a bit spoilt for choice and quality today really.

So Alex, do half and half pictures count as landscape or underwater? Or should only half be published on wetpixel?