DSLR users, why so wide?

[handicap18]

On my last trip to WDW with my D50 I bought 3 lenses: 18-70mm, 70-300mm and 50mm f/1.8.

I downloaded a program that will analize the exif data. Of the 1382 photos I kept more that half were taken between 18mm and 30mm including 390 shots at 18mm. That was more than double the next highest focal lenght (70mm) and only 6 less than the next two focal lenghts combined (70mm & 300mm. they totaled 396, 150 & 146 respectively).

1155 between 18mm & 70mm including about 30 or so with the 50mm f1.8. Only 227 with my 70-300mm. Mostly at Animal Kingdom, though I did take a dozen or so closeup shots of the castle when it had all its bling. Actually I may have taken more with the 70-300 because both lenses I used have the 70mm focal length so some of the 150 images were taken with both lenses at 70mm.

The next trip it will be harder to distinguish how many I shots I took with each lens. I'll be using an 18-135 along with the 70-300. Big overlap between 70 & 135.

 

[Metallicat]

I have the Canon Rebel XT (SLR) plus the Canon S3 IS as my purse camera. so I have a little experience with both.
all I can say is that my SLR with the kit lens takes a 10x better picture than my S3. sure, the zoom stinks on the kit lens, but my goodness, the quality in the photos are like night and day in my opinion. I've tried taking bird pictures with my S3 on full zoom and they are just so grainy. maybe I'm spoiled by the SLR. I don't know. while the S3 takes a good picture, I find them no better or worse than photos made with my Kodak Easy share. but the SLR pictures are amazing.

I have the Sigma 18-200mm OS lens on my camera most of the time. its wide enough plus has a great zoom. not as much zoom as the S3, but to me, its the quality of the picture that counts. maybe I'm doing something wrong with the S3. but I'm just about ready to sell it because I'm spoiled by my SLR.

I love wide angle pictures. IMO, the wider the better esp. at WDW. I love pictures with crowds and buildings. about the only thing I use the zoom for is animals at AK.

 

[handicap18]

Also with a Canon dSLR, the crop factor on a 70-300mm lens will give you the field of view of a 112-480mm lens which is longer than the current longest field of view on your S3 (or S2 I forget which one you said).

With Nikon & Pentax it would be 105-450mm field of view.

Kit lenses for their price are very good.

 

[MICKEY88]

On my last trip to WDW with my D50 I bought 3 lenses: 18-70mm, 70-300mm and 50mm f/1.8.

I downloaded a program that will analize the exif data. Of the 1382 photos I kept more that half were taken between 18mm and 30mm including 390 shots at 18mm. That was more than double the next highest focal lenght (70mm) and only 6 less than the next two focal lenghts combined (70mm & 300mm. they totaled 396, 150 & 146 respectively).

1155 between 18mm & 70mm including about 30 or so with the 50mm f1.8. Only 227 with my 70-300mm. Mostly at Animal Kingdom, though I did take a dozen or so closeup shots of the castle when it had all its bling. Actually I may have taken more with the 70-300 because both lenses I used have the 70mm focal length so some of the 150 images were taken with both lenses at 70mm.

The next trip it will be harder to distinguish how many I shots I took with each lens. I'll be using an 18-135 along with the 70-300. Big overlap between 70 & 135.

what program did you use..

 

[YEKCIM]

Like you, I tend toward the long end of my zoom, most of the time, and spent most of my time at the max 380mm equivalent with my Fuji S5200. I have to say, though, that I really missed the ability to "go wide" with the Fuji, since the widest it would go is 38mm, which I do not consider wide angle.

Since moving to a DSLR, I still spend a lot of time in long tele territory and most of the shots I like best come from that focal length range. However, I have really enjoyed the ability to go wide..REALLY wide in some cases, with the 10-20mm lens (15-30mm equivalent) with just a lens change.

Different subjects, different lenses, different "looks".

~Ed

 

[handicap18]

what program did you use..

You would of course have to ask that.... I'll have to check my other computer. I don't have the software on the computer I'm on now.

This was passed around somtime last summer. If someone else doesn't post the info, I'll find it later tonight.

 

[dqpowell]

The reason I settled on the S3 was that it seemed to have the best IQ at the long range of its zoom (432mm) of the "superzoom/bridge" cameras. [...] I am, at this time, 100% certain that I wouldn't be happy with less zoom on a DSLR than my S3. I wouldn't expect the same 36mm-432mm in a single lens, of course, but not having at least the 432mm was be disappointing.

FYI, if you were to get a DSLR with an APS-C sized sensor (DRebel, 40D), you wouldn't actually need a 432mm lens to match the field of view/reach you get with your S3. The S3's lens is a 432mm "equivalent," with "equivalent" being the focal length necessary to achieve the same FOV on a full-frame 35mm SLR or DSLR. To match that FOV on an APS-C sensor camera, you'd need a lens that reached 270mm.

You could easily do this on a DRebel or 40D with two lenses, and you wouldn't have to spend a ton of money either. I'm thinking the 17-85 IS and 70-300 IS would cover it for you. The 70-300 IS (not the older 75-300 IS) delivers excellent image quality for the price, and will surely outperform the lens on the S3 at full extension.

HTH,
David

 

[handicap18]

what program did you use..

Sorry it took so long.....

ExposurePlot is the name of the program. Freeware. I remember it took me more time than I thought to get the right paramaters in for the focal length. There were a bunch of different choices. Actual, crop factor and different things. Pretty easy to use though.

 

[figment52]

I guess I'll be the one to point out the value of a good zoom at WDW.. Iin the past I've carried 2 cameras one with a 35-105 the other with a 100-300,


they both have value, one thing a good zoom allows you to do is get great candid character shots without getting close, and without having to wait for people to movve out of your way,

the first 2 were character meet n greets, the 3rd, my 35-105 got me a good shot of the whole float, the 100-300 was great for the frame filling shot of one of my favorite villains..

That is really cool that you can see Cruella's real eye brows. Very Nice.

What camera did you use for that shot (sorry if you mentioned it earlier)?

 

[Groucho]

LPZ_Stitch, I think the problem is that you're assuming that every time we aim a camera with a wide lens on it, we're going to get shots of just people. There are, indeed, still places to aim at Disney parts that aren't full of people.

16mm (and a cropped fisheye, so wider than the "normal" 16mm):

Also 16mm, same as above:

And sometimes, people can make for, IMHO, an interesting shot - here's one at 18mm:

I did the ExposurePlot thing after my trip, also... mine is skewed very heavily towards the 50mm F1.4 lens, but you can still see the wide vs tele spread is very lopsided.

Gokenin, not all kit lenses are created the same. Olympus and Pentax have quite sharp ones. In fact, I did not notice a big difference in real-world image quality going from my kit 18-55mm to the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 which is known for its sharpness - though the Tamron obviously has better low-light ability. Other kit lenses are generally pretty decent too though they tend to cheap out with build quality, and unfortunately that means that they don't have distinct focus rings, you actually rotate the front of the lens itself, which makes the use of some filters (like a circular polarizer) more difficult. But if they're stopped down, any of 'em can produce decent shots.

I'll be bringing mine along to Disneyland along with the Tamron, for when I need wider angles but not so wide as to use my 10-17mm fisheye.

 

[MICKEY88]

I guess I'll be the one to point out the value of a good zoom at WDW.. Iin the past I've carried 2 cameras one with a 35-105 the other with a 100-300,


they both have value, one thing a good zoom allows you to do is get great candid character shots without getting close, and without having to wait for people to movve out of your way,

the first 2 were character meet n greets, the 3rd, my 35-105 got me a good shot of the whole float, the 100-300 was great for the frame filling shot of one of my favorite villains..

That is really cool that you can see Cruella's real eye brows. Very Nice.

What camera did you use for that shot (sorry if you mentioned it earlier)?

these were shot with my 2 Minolta 9000 film cameras

 

[extreme8]

Not to make this another exposure plot thread (we went through this about a year ago, didn't we?), but I found that I skewed way to the wide end during my last trip.
Never would have expected these results. I was shooting an 18-200 and also had my 28-300 along with some decent prime stuff, so these results are accurate and not corrupted by my unwillingness or inability to change lenses for a particular shot.

That said, when shooting sports even my 300 f2.8 with 1.7 teleconverter isn't long enough sometimes.

Right tool for the job and all of that.

 

[jann1033]

three pages into the discussion i'll add my .5 cents, i like to fill the frame as well

( mickey 88: great shots btw, really show the character's "character" better than most full figure shots imo)

and so usually use my longest zoom but sometimes i want a different perspective,ie yesterday (if i had had my camera with me) there was a great farm scene, old barn, hay stacks, great sky that wouldn't have worked at all with probably even 50mm but if i had used my new wide lens would have been great...course today when i could go back the sky stinks( usual ne Oh gray)... so that's what i wanted a wide angle for. i also think many urban shots might be interesting with the wider angle (and liked groucho's mob scene with the car btw)...it just gives a different perspective