Will EF-S Lenses Become Obsolete In A Couple Of Years?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Matt, Nov 15, 2004.

  1. Matt

    Matt Guest

    Do you think the Canon EF-S lenses will become obsolete in a couple of
    years?

    Surly Canon will be looking to go for full size sensors soon, like they have
    done with the EOS 1-Ds II? Which would mean that it is possible that the
    lenses will not fit, and you will be forced into buying more lenses.
    Matt, Nov 15, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Matt" <> writes:

    > Do you think the Canon EF-S lenses will become obsolete in a couple of
    > years?
    >
    > Surly Canon will be looking to go for full size sensors soon, like they have
    > done with the EOS 1-Ds II? Which would mean that it is possible that the
    > lenses will not fit, and you will be forced into buying more lenses.


    My perception is that Canon is dividing their digital SLRs into pro
    (1D series), subpro (20D), and consumer (300D) series. I think they
    are striving for large sensors in the pro cameras, but standardizing a
    smaller sensor size for the other series. Notice that the 1D Mk. II has
    a bigger sensor than the 20D, despite the similar pixel count. But the
    20D has the same size sensor as the 300D (and 10D, D60, D30). I would
    bet that the 1D Mk. III will have a full-frame sensor. Don't know if it
    will encompass the 1Ds line with double-digit megapixels, or if it will
    just slot in as a lower-resolution camera with a higher frame rate for
    sports.

    So I would guess that the EF-S lenses will be around for a while, but
    will never offer L-series lenses. Unless the market rejects the whole
    concept, which seems unlikely given Canon's success to date.

    --
    -Stephen H. Westin
    Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
    represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
    Stephen H. Westin, Nov 15, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Matt" <> wrote in message
    news:cnaqkj$udd$...
    > Do you think the Canon EF-S lenses will become obsolete in a couple of
    > years?


    No. Small sensors will be here for a while (relatively speaking, of course),
    and the only reason Canon would disco such a product is if it becomes
    commercially unsuccessful- so far, the 17-85mm and 10-22mm have proven a
    hit, IME.

    > Surly Canon will be looking to go for full size sensors soon, like they
    > have
    > done with the EOS 1-Ds II? Which would mean that it is possible that the
    > lenses will not fit, and you will be forced into buying more lenses.


    Always possible, I suppose. As it is, if Canon continue down the full-frame
    path they will have to redesign some of their lenses to be optimised for
    such a sensor anyway. Running with with small sensors is more
    cost-effective; as by now all the manufacturers (and the government of
    European nations, too) are coming to realise, sometimes what the vocal
    majority want and what they get are very different things- and those moaning
    codgers who use familiarity as an excuse for remaining stagnant will just
    have to adjust to the new system.

    IMO, R&D people should be looking into an APS-C sized sensor in a compact
    point-and-shoot. As the Canon Ixus/Elph has proven, fantastically small
    cameras can be built around this format, and the quality will blow away the
    current crop of digital compacts at the sacrifice of wide aperture zoom
    lenses.

    --
    Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
    "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
    no, and yes...."
    Martin Francis, Nov 15, 2004
    #3
  4. Matt

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Matt wrote:

    > Do you think the Canon EF-S lenses will become obsolete in a couple of
    > years?


    I think they'll be here for a while.

    First, it has to cost many millions to design, build and market a lens from
    the ground up. They've got three on the market now.

    Second. Canon has added a feature in it's latest flash (the 580EX)
    where it communicates with the body to deterimine the sensor crop,
    then adjust the beam spread to compensate. (This only works with the
    20D for now).

    I can't see Canon doing so much to acommodate the APS-C sized
    sensors if they plan to change to larger ones soon.

    > Surly Canon will be looking to go for full size sensors soon, like they have
    > done with the EOS 1-Ds II? Which would mean that it is possible that the
    > lenses will not fit, and you will be forced into buying more lenses.


    Who knows.. Even the EF lenses might be replaced in the next few years...
    It's not impossible.
    Jim Townsend, Nov 15, 2004
    #4
  5. Matt

    Mark B. Guest

    "Matt" <> wrote in message
    news:cnaqkj$udd$...
    > Do you think the Canon EF-S lenses will become obsolete in a couple of
    > years?
    >
    > Surly Canon will be looking to go for full size sensors soon, like they
    > have
    > done with the EOS 1-Ds II?


    Not anytime soon for the prosumer series. Their full-frame DSLR is $8 grand
    right now. No way are they introducing a full-time sensor in the consumer
    line in the near future. I think the EF-S is here for the next few
    iterations of the 10D/20D and 300D.

    Mark
    Mark B., Nov 15, 2004
    #5
  6. "Matt" <> wrote in message
    news:cnaqkj$udd$...
    > Do you think the Canon EF-S lenses will become obsolete in a couple of
    > years?
    >
    > Surly Canon will be looking to go for full size sensors soon, like they
    > have
    > done with the EOS 1-Ds II? Which would mean that it is possible that the
    > lenses will not fit, and you will be forced into buying more lenses.


    I posted this eariler:

    "From: "Charles Schuler" <>
    Subject: Are Canon EF-S lenses a dead end?
    Date: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 5:06 PM

    I am not happy with the price of the EF-S 10-22. I have been waiting for a
    lens like this but can't justify the cost. It might be a great lens, but my
    concern is that camera sensor size will grow over the next two years and
    leave EF-S lens owners out there dangling in the "history of digital
    photography land." What do you think?"

    It generated a long thread yet did not much appease me. This seems to be a
    time of spend today and weep tomorrow. The technology is evolving so fast
    now, that folks like you and me are becoming extremely frustrated. I like
    to spend a bit more, if need be, to be satisfied for a lot longer. Not
    always possible these days. Back on track ... the full frame (35 mm)
    sensors will be affordable in about 2 to 3 years and the EF-S lenses will be
    worth next to nothing (my best guess). I am backing away from this EF-S
    scenario.
    Charles Schuler, Nov 15, 2004
    #6
  7. Matt

    Mark B. Guest

    "Charles Schuler" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    >
    > I posted this eariler:
    >
    > "From: "Charles Schuler" <>
    > Subject: Are Canon EF-S lenses a dead end?
    > Date: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 5:06 PM
    >
    > I am not happy with the price of the EF-S 10-22. I have been waiting for
    > a
    > lens like this but can't justify the cost. It might be a great lens, but
    > my
    > concern is that camera sensor size will grow over the next two years and
    > leave EF-S lens owners out there dangling in the "history of digital
    > photography land." What do you think?"
    >
    > It generated a long thread yet did not much appease me. This seems to be
    > a time of spend today and weep tomorrow. The technology is evolving so
    > fast now, that folks like you and me are becoming extremely frustrated. I
    > like to spend a bit more, if need be, to be satisfied for a lot longer.
    > Not always possible these days. Back on track ... the full frame (35 mm)
    > sensors will be affordable in about 2 to 3 years and the EF-S lenses will
    > be worth next to nothing (my best guess). I am backing away from this
    > EF-S scenario.
    >
    >
    >


    If that's true, then doesn't it stand to reason that the 1.6x crop sensors
    will be even more affordable? Surely then they will still have a very
    strong market presence. Perhaps 1.6x crop sensors & EF-S SLR bodies will
    become the high-end point 'n shoots of today.

    Mark
    Mark B., Nov 16, 2004
    #7
  8. Matt

    Skip M Guest

    "Mark B." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Charles Schuler" <> wrote in message
    > news:eek:...
    >>
    >> I posted this eariler:
    >>
    >> "From: "Charles Schuler" <>
    >> Subject: Are Canon EF-S lenses a dead end?
    >> Date: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 5:06 PM
    >>
    >> I am not happy with the price of the EF-S 10-22. I have been waiting for
    >> a
    >> lens like this but can't justify the cost. It might be a great lens, but
    >> my
    >> concern is that camera sensor size will grow over the next two years and
    >> leave EF-S lens owners out there dangling in the "history of digital
    >> photography land." What do you think?"
    >>
    >> It generated a long thread yet did not much appease me. This seems to be
    >> a time of spend today and weep tomorrow. The technology is evolving so
    >> fast now, that folks like you and me are becoming extremely frustrated.
    >> I like to spend a bit more, if need be, to be satisfied for a lot longer.
    >> Not always possible these days. Back on track ... the full frame (35 mm)
    >> sensors will be affordable in about 2 to 3 years and the EF-S lenses will
    >> be worth next to nothing (my best guess). I am backing away from this
    >> EF-S scenario.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > If that's true, then doesn't it stand to reason that the 1.6x crop sensors
    > will be even more affordable? Surely then they will still have a very
    > strong market presence. Perhaps 1.6x crop sensors & EF-S SLR bodies will
    > become the high-end point 'n shoots of today.
    >
    > Mark
    >

    I've said before, I think that the 1.6x crop, or thereabouts, are Canon,
    Pentax and Nikon's answer to the 4/3 sensor crowd. Look at how similarly
    sized the *istD and 20D are to the Oly E-1, and only the lack of a pentroof
    keeps the E-300 from actually being larger than the 20D. And I'll bet you
    dollars to donuts that the D70 successor will be close to that size, too.
    I have a feeling that the EF-S mount is going to be with us for a while.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Nov 16, 2004
    #8
  9. "Skip M" <> wrote:
    > >

    > I've said before, I think that the 1.6x crop, or thereabouts, are Canon,
    > Pentax and Nikon's answer to the 4/3 sensor crowd. Look at how similarly
    > sized the *istD and 20D are to the Oly E-1, and only the lack of a

    pentroof
    > keeps the E-300 from actually being larger than the 20D.


    Uh, except that the 1.5/1.6x cameras predate the 4/3 idea by several years.

    The 4/3 idea is intended to split the difference between 1.5/1.6 and the
    consumer cameras.

    > And I'll bet you
    > dollars to donuts that the D70 successor will be close to that size, too.
    > I have a feeling that the EF-S mount is going to be with us for a while.


    Yes. Full-frame is probably a long way off. The silicon is just too
    expensive.

    If (and only if) Canon figures out how to mass produce the 1Ds mk2 sensor at
    under US$2,000 a pop, then they'll have a big incentive to come out with a
    US$3,000 or so full-frame camera. I figure that about the time the 1Ds mk2
    saturates the market they should have optimized the fab line about as much
    as possible, and will have a need of a market for its output. I hope.

    But for now, Canon is vehement in saying that they are not going to be
    producing an affordable and liftable full-frame "tweener" (between 20D and
    the pro line).

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 16, 2004
    #9
  10. "Matt" <> wrote in message news:<cnaqkj$udd$>...
    > Do you think the Canon EF-S lenses will become obsolete in a couple of
    > years?
    >
    > Surly Canon will be looking to go for full size sensors soon, like they have
    > done with the EOS 1-Ds II? Which would mean that it is possible that the
    > lenses will not fit, and you will be forced into buying more lenses.


    One can only hope....
    Uranium Committee, Nov 16, 2004
    #10
  11. Matt

    Skip M Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:cnbqgf$klf$...
    >
    > "Skip M" <> wrote:
    >> >

    >> I've said before, I think that the 1.6x crop, or thereabouts, are Canon,
    >> Pentax and Nikon's answer to the 4/3 sensor crowd. Look at how similarly
    >> sized the *istD and 20D are to the Oly E-1, and only the lack of a

    > pentroof
    >> keeps the E-300 from actually being larger than the 20D.

    >
    > Uh, except that the 1.5/1.6x cameras predate the 4/3 idea by several
    > years.
    >
    > The 4/3 idea is intended to split the difference between 1.5/1.6 and the
    > consumer cameras.
    >
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >
    >

    I know they predate 4/3, but the mini flurry of EF-S lenses doesn't, nor
    does the diminishing size of the 20D vis a vis the 10D. And the *istD came
    after the announcement of the 4/3 format.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Nov 16, 2004
    #11
  12. "Matt" <> writes:
    > Do you think the Canon EF-S lenses will become obsolete in a couple
    > of years?


    No.

    > Surly Canon will be looking to go for full size sensors soon, like
    > they have done with the EOS 1-Ds II?


    I think that was Canon's original plan - and that this is the reason
    that the EF-S came /after/ the D30, D60 and 10D. In the meantime,
    Canon has discovered that Moore's law apply to circuit complexity,
    /not/ chip size - and that it is unlikely that they'll be able to
    produce a "full frame" sensor at a cost point where it can be put
    in a prosumer segment camera in the foreseeable future - if ever.

    Hence their late investment in the EF-S series of lenses.
    I interpret this move as a sign that Canon probably will
    stay with 1.6X in the prosumer segment forever.

    > Which would mean that it is possible that the lenses will not fit,
    > and you will be forced into buying more lenses.


    I believe that the sub APS-C size (i.e. 1.5X, 1.6X) is the new
    "standard" that will be for digital what 35mm was for film
    (i.e. the preferred format for advanced amateurs, PJs and a
    sizeable segment of the "pro" population).

    "Full frame" digital (like in EOS 1Ds and Kodak DCS 14/x) will be
    there for a minority - amateurs and pros - that have very special
    requirements, and the money to match them - just like MF and LF film
    is today used only by a minority with special requirements.

    There is nothing magical about the 35mm format - and as we learn to
    use the smaller format, we will be able to make the same type of
    photographs, with the same control of DOF, etc. as we've done with
    35mm film in the past.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ========================================================================
    When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
    Gisle Hannemyr, Nov 16, 2004
    #12
  13. "Gisle Hannemyr" <> wrote:
    >
    > I believe that the sub APS-C size (i.e. 1.5X, 1.6X) is the new
    > "standard" that will be for digital what 35mm was for film
    > (i.e. the preferred format for advanced amateurs, PJs and a
    > sizeable segment of the "pro" population).


    Agreed.

    > "Full frame" digital (like in EOS 1Ds and Kodak DCS 14/x) will be
    > there for a minority - amateurs and pros - that have very special
    > requirements, and the money to match them - just like MF and LF film
    > is today used only by a minority with special requirements.


    Agreed. I'm hoping that the "money to match" will be on the order of
    US$2,500 or $3,000 at some point in the next 2 or 3 years. If I buy one body
    every other year, I can afford it assuming I already have everything else
    (lenses) I need. The consumer camera fans who complain about the cost of
    dSLRs really do have a point: lenses really run into serious money quickly,
    so it really is hard to make the jump.

    > There is nothing magical about the 35mm format


    Well, there very much is something special about the 35mm format: it's got
    2.56 times the area of the 1.6x format, and as such will look slightly
    better at A4, and a _lot_ better at A3 and larger. This is exactly the
    difference between 35mm and 645.

    > - and as we learn to
    > use the smaller format, we will be able to make the same type of
    > photographs, with the same control of DOF, etc. as we've done with
    > 35mm film in the past.


    DOF isn't substantially different in the 1.6x format as it is in 35mm: it's
    1.6x times larger. That's about a single stop. Noise is so much lower in
    dSLRs than film that you can use twice the ISO in the dSLR, getting the
    whole difference back.

    Also, since DOF changes with the _square_ of the focal length, the effect of
    focal length is so much larger that for practical purposes, there's not a
    lot of difference. That is, changing from a "normal" lens to a slightly wide
    angle lens doubles the DOF, but futzing with the f stop would require
    stopping down _two_ stops to make the same difference.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 16, 2004
    #13
  14. Matt

    pioe[rmv] Guest

    Matt wrote:

    > Do you think the Canon EF-S lenses will become obsolete in a couple of
    > years?


    No, most certainly not. Both the EF-S and the EF-series will coexist
    in the future, and so will the 24 x 36 mm sensors and the 22.5 x 15.5
    APS-C ones.

    > Surly Canon will be looking to go for full size sensors soon, like they have
    > done with the EOS 1-Ds II? Which would mean that it is possible that the
    > lenses will not fit, and you will be forced into buying more lenses.


    Canon will surely go for both 24 x 35 mm sensors and APS-C size
    sensors, in order to satisfy different users' requirements. This is a
    Good Thing, and it is sensible market strategy. We are definitely
    not talking about an either/or situation where all sensors must be of
    one size.

    The "full-frame" sensors will be chosen by those who have higher
    requirements, that is the advanced amateurs and professionals who need
    the maximum performance, whereas the APS-C can be expected to be the
    more common size in the consumer and prosumer segments - for obvious
    reasons of cost. I also cannot see any reason why for example
    photojournalists should not use the APS-format. For more demanding
    types of photography, the better performance of larger sensors give
    them an edge.

    Canon is very well aware of these factors, and they know that larger
    sensors like 24 x 36 mm are likely to remain relatively expensive in
    comparison to APS-C varieties. However, the bigger chips will also
    provide better performance than smaller ones. It is hardly possible to
    predict what exact proportion of photographers will choose one sensor
    size or the other, but it stands to reason that if "full frame"
    cameras of a build quality on the level of the 1D series (or the film
    based 1V) can be profitably sold for $3000 or preferably less they are
    more than likely to meet a market which is considerably larger than
    the former MF users.

    There seem to be two basic misunderstandings here, both rooted in the
    doubtful premise that one must have one single sensor size. The first
    misunderstanding is to believe that all cameras are soon going to use
    24 x 36 mm sensor chips. The other and no less serious
    misunderstanding is to think that the smaller sensors - 22.5 x 15.5 or
    similar - will satisfy the entire market, and that the only ground for
    using larger sensor is compatibility with older optics. Neither
    assumption hits the mark. Even if it is true that a digital sensor
    does not have to be of any particular size, there is no free lunch in
    this case either. Thus, even if it can be said that the existense of a
    film format is in itself no reason for sticking to sensors of that
    size, the relative supplantation of film by digital sensors is in
    itself no reason for making digital sensors /smaller/ than the film
    format. Whether or not we consider present and future compatibility
    with film bodies a significant advantage, it remains that if we want
    optimum quality it is an unwise strategy to standardize on smaller
    sensors or lock ourselves to systems that mandate the use of them.

    To conclude, it seems that the best approach is to do what Canon is
    actually doing now: Offering a full series of EF lenses that are
    compatible with both "full format" and the smaller APS-C, and in
    addition produce the EF-S series with wide angle lenses tailored to
    the latter. This way everyone can have the most possibilities to
    choose from, and buyers who have purchased cameras with APS-C sensors
    can have the options to stay with that format or later add a camera
    having a larger sensor without risk of the whole lens collection
    becoming obsolete.

    The worst thing that can happen is that one or two EF-S lenses have to
    be sold if one changes completely to a camera with a 24 x 36 mm
    sensor. Since we can be reasonably sure that these formats are going
    to co-exist, this should be no problem.

    Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
    pioe[rmv], Nov 16, 2004
    #14
  15. "Matt" <> wrote:

    >Do you think the Canon EF-S lenses will become obsolete in a couple of
    >years?


    no

    >Surly Canon will be looking to go for full size sensors soon, like they have
    >done with the EOS 1-Ds II?


    Why would they do that? The large sensor is expensive. If Canon want to
    compete in the entry level segment - and I'm certain they want that -
    they'll need a cheap sensor. Currently they have 3 sensor sizes. There
    is no reason to introduce yet another size, so I think the APS-C size
    sensor is here to stay. I would rather think that the 1.3 sensor will
    disapear.

    Peter
    Peter Rongsted, Nov 16, 2004
    #15
  16. "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
    > "Gisle Hannemyr" <> wrote:


    >> There is nothing magical about the 35mm format


    > Well, there very much is something special about the 35mm format:
    > it's got 2.56 times the area of the 1.6x format, and as such will
    > look slightly better at A4, and a _lot_ better at A3 and
    > larger. This is exactly the difference between 35mm and 645.


    A pixel has no size.

    With digital, it is /mainly/ the pixel count, not the sensor size,
    that determines how large quality prints one can produce.

    Of course, all things being equal, a larger sensor will produce
    a cleaner and crisper bitmap, but the very /strong correlation/
    between negative size and the ability to make enlargements that
    is a result of the physics of film does not exist for digital.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ========================================================================
    When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
    Gisle Hannemyr, Nov 16, 2004
    #16
  17. In article <>,
    Gisle Hannemyr <> wrote:
    >"David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
    >> "Gisle Hannemyr" <> wrote:

    >
    >>> There is nothing magical about the 35mm format

    >
    >> Well, there very much is something special about the 35mm format:
    >> it's got 2.56 times the area of the 1.6x format, and as such will
    >> look slightly better at A4, and a _lot_ better at A3 and
    >> larger. This is exactly the difference between 35mm and 645.

    >
    >A pixel has no size.


    Okay. Now demonstrate that a given lens design has no resolution limit,
    and you'll have proven most of what you think you've proven.

    (Hint: neither peak resolution nor MTF, even for the same lens design at
    the same aperture, scale linearly with focal length, because only _some_
    aberrations decrease with decreased focal length)

    --
    Thor Lancelot Simon
    But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common
    objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp! You towel! You
    plate!" and so on. --Sigmund Freud
    Thor Lancelot Simon, Nov 16, 2004
    #17
  18. Matt

    DHB Guest

    On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:53:15 +0100, "pioe[rmv]"
    <"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org> wrote:

    >Matt wrote:
    >
    >> Do you think the Canon EF-S lenses will become obsolete in a couple of
    >> years?

    >
    >No, most certainly not. Both the EF-S and the EF-series will coexist
    >in the future, and so will the 24 x 36 mm sensors and the 22.5 x 15.5
    >APS-C ones.
    >
    >> Surly Canon will be looking to go for full size sensors soon, like they have
    >> done with the EOS 1-Ds II? Which would mean that it is possible that the
    >> lenses will not fit, and you will be forced into buying more lenses.

    >
    >Canon will surely go for both 24 x 35 mm sensors and APS-C size
    >sensors, in order to satisfy different users' requirements. This is a
    >Good Thing, and it is sensible market strategy. We are definitely
    >not talking about an either/or situation where all sensors must be of
    >one size.
    >
    >The "full-frame" sensors will be chosen by those who have higher
    >requirements, that is the advanced amateurs and professionals who need
    >the maximum performance, whereas the APS-C can be expected to be the
    >more common size in the consumer and prosumer segments - for obvious
    >reasons of cost. I also cannot see any reason why for example
    >photojournalists should not use the APS-format. For more demanding
    >types of photography, the better performance of larger sensors give
    >them an edge.
    >
    >Canon is very well aware of these factors, and they know that larger
    >sensors like 24 x 36 mm are likely to remain relatively expensive in
    >comparison to APS-C varieties. However, the bigger chips will also
    >provide better performance than smaller ones. It is hardly possible to
    >predict what exact proportion of photographers will choose one sensor
    >size or the other, but it stands to reason that if "full frame"
    >cameras of a build quality on the level of the 1D series (or the film
    >based 1V) can be profitably sold for $3000 or preferably less they are
    >more than likely to meet a market which is considerably larger than
    >the former MF users.
    >
    >There seem to be two basic misunderstandings here, both rooted in the
    >doubtful premise that one must have one single sensor size. The first
    >misunderstanding is to believe that all cameras are soon going to use
    >24 x 36 mm sensor chips. The other and no less serious
    >misunderstanding is to think that the smaller sensors - 22.5 x 15.5 or
    >similar - will satisfy the entire market, and that the only ground for
    >using larger sensor is compatibility with older optics. Neither
    >assumption hits the mark. Even if it is true that a digital sensor
    >does not have to be of any particular size, there is no free lunch in
    >this case either. Thus, even if it can be said that the existense of a
    >film format is in itself no reason for sticking to sensors of that
    >size, the relative supplantation of film by digital sensors is in
    >itself no reason for making digital sensors /smaller/ than the film
    >format. Whether or not we consider present and future compatibility
    >with film bodies a significant advantage, it remains that if we want
    >optimum quality it is an unwise strategy to standardize on smaller
    >sensors or lock ourselves to systems that mandate the use of them.
    >
    >To conclude, it seems that the best approach is to do what Canon is
    >actually doing now: Offering a full series of EF lenses that are
    >compatible with both "full format" and the smaller APS-C, and in
    >addition produce the EF-S series with wide angle lenses tailored to
    >the latter. This way everyone can have the most possibilities to
    >choose from, and buyers who have purchased cameras with APS-C sensors
    >can have the options to stay with that format or later add a camera
    >having a larger sensor without risk of the whole lens collection
    >becoming obsolete.
    >
    >The worst thing that can happen is that one or two EF-S lenses have to
    >be sold if one changes completely to a camera with a 24 x 36 mm
    >sensor. Since we can be reasonably sure that these formats are going
    >to co-exist, this should be no problem.
    >
    >Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway


    Lots of good points made here & by others, but nobody seems to
    be considering a different advantage to the APS-C sensor & why it's
    very likely to retain long term appeal.

    Namely good performance & the 1.6x crop factor. For many the
    1.6x crop factor alone is a significant "plus". It allows the use of
    physically smaller lenses to generally act much like longer focal
    length lenses. Thus, fast, fixed focal length 50mm & 100mm lenses act
    much like 80mm & 160mm lenses respectively. "If" as another post
    indicated the physical sensor differential of a "full size" sensor is
    2.56x larger than the 1.6x crop factored sensor, than the full size
    sensor would need to be 16.1MP to match the resolution if you post
    edited to a 1.6x crop factor.

    So for many, the smaller 1.6x crop factor sensor provides most
    of the benefits of a full size sensor DSLR at a much lower price &
    always will. Bigger may be better for most things but not everybody
    needs, wants or can afford the biggest or the best. Canon seems to
    clearly understand this & with it's latest 2 new EF-S lenses, the
    10-22mm (16-35.2mm) & the 17-85mm (27.2-136mm), which show that you
    can have your cake & eat it too!

    With the introduction of the new 20D & the new 580EX flash
    which takes the crop factor into consideration to advance the flash
    focus to fully accommodate the 1.6x crop factor, it should be clear
    that they have placed considerable engineering efforts into cameras,
    lenses & flashes. All of this for a size format that is going to be
    short lived? I seriously think not!

    The only point I wish they would have corrected would be to
    offer deeper custom lens hoods for existing EF lenses when used on a
    1.6x crop factored camera. My solution to this on some of my lenses,
    is to use a filter extension tube as a lens hood, either alone or in
    conjunction with a HOYA rubber lens hood on the end. This certainly
    makes my humble EF 50mm f1.8F II lens look strange with a 1.5" long
    extension tube on it but it works great. Also it allows me to easily
    use the lens cap with out need to remove the lens filter extension
    tube (lens hood). Yes this is all used on my humble Digital
    Rebel/300D but looks is not everything, I am more concerned with
    results & this is inexpensive & it works very well.

    Just the opinion of an amateur photographer with 25+ years
    with 35mm film SLR & 3+ years with digital cameras. As my friends
    often remind me, if there is a strange but effective way of doing
    something, I usually find it, (I think that's a compliment). Hope
    something I have offered is of value to somebody.

    Respectfully, DHB

    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
    or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
    is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
    to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
    DHB, Nov 16, 2004
    #18
  19. Matt

    Mr Jessop Guest

    The main reason for larger sensors is more megapixiels. Given individual
    photosites of a fixed size the only way to get more pixels is to lay them on
    a larger sensor. Decreasing the photosite size has the problem of increased
    noise. Last years crop of 8mp bridge cameras are an example of that. This
    years 7 megapixel suffer from noise issues too. This years 8mp sensors are
    on aps sized sensors not the fingernail sized ones of the bridge cameras and
    compacts. What we will see is a continuing increase in megapixels. The pro
    machines will have larger sensors and so more pixels. The prosumer and
    consumer cameras will have the same number of pixels per square inch as the
    pro models but probably a year later. They will of course also have less
    square inches.

    The difference in sensor size will be the major factor between pro and the
    lower bracket cameras. The focusing systems and image processors are
    percolating down quickly. The 20d now has the digic II processor for
    example. You now have 5 fps now that the top models have gone up to 9.
    Next year we will either have

    a). noisy 10 and 12 mpixel cameras
    b). new noise reduction technology and/or a breakthrough in chipdesign with
    lower noise to begin with
    c). more 8mp aps c sensors with varying degrees of success controlling
    noise.

    Canon have so far pushed the individual sensors closer together and
    increased the size of the micro lenses. Olympus have a different chip
    design which is supposed to reduce the amplifier noise in the e300. We will
    have to wait and see. The canon technique has so far been successful. I
    for one think 8mp aps size is adequate for all but the anally retentive and
    the hardened professional. I like the 20d over the 10 for its better
    focusing, flash system, a brighter focusing screen and frames per second.
    The other main advantage is that with a smaller sensor you can also get a
    smaller mirror. Which means the lens can reach further back into the
    camera. This is the essence of twin rangefinder design. A leica
    rangefinder lens is only 30.5mm across. They can do this because the
    distance between rear of lens and film plane is so small. The further a
    lens has to project the image the more correction and original light is
    required. Look at medium format lenses they are huge! I'd rather these
    areas were concentrated on rather than sensor design. They are equally
    important.

    Not only that the ultra compacts are making use of a transparent ceramic
    rather than glass. This has a higher refractive index and thus allowed the
    creation of far smaller lenses. I would like to see slr lenses make use of
    this. Finally all those cheaper full frame lenses that may have suffered
    vignetting will be fine when put on a dslr cos the covering power is now
    more than adequate.
    Mr Jessop, Nov 16, 2004
    #19
  20. (Thor Lancelot Simon) writes:
    > Gisle Hannemyr <> wrote:
    >>"David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
    >>> "Gisle Hannemyr" <> wrote:


    >>>> There is nothing magical about the 35mm format

    >>
    >>> Well, there very much is something special about the 35mm format:
    >>> it's got 2.56 times the area of the 1.6x format, and as such will
    >>> look slightly better at A4, and a _lot_ better at A3 and
    >>> larger. This is exactly the difference between 35mm and 645.


    >> A pixel has no size.
    >>
    >> With digital, it is /mainly/ the pixel count, not the sensor size,
    >> that determines how large quality prints one can produce.
    >>
    >> Of course, all things being equal, a larger sensor will produce
    >> a cleaner and crisper bitmap, but the very /strong correlation/
    >> between negative size and the ability to make enlargements that
    >> is a result of the physics of film does not exist for digital.


    > Okay. Now demonstrate that a given lens design has no resolution
    > limit, and you'll have proven most of what you think you've proven.


    I am not "proving" anything, and you ignore the little word "mainly".

    > (Hint: neither peak resolution nor MTF, even for the same lens
    > design at the same aperture, scale linearly with focal length,
    > because only _some_ aberrations decrease with decreased focal
    > length)


    Sure. And I know well that all optical systems has finite
    resolutions. But /at the moment/ the sub-APS-C sized sensor in the
    EOS 20D 8.2 Mpx resolves (at its theortical best) around 77 lp/mm
    (in practice it is probably less). This is a lot less than the peak
    resolution of a good lens. As long as the lens out-resolves the
    sensor, it is the pixel count that limits maximum resolution - not
    the optical system.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ========================================================================
    When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
    Gisle Hannemyr, Nov 16, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    Did Canon just make my future 35mm SLR lenses obsolete?

    Steven C \(Doktersteve\), Sep 8, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    681
    Monica Krowley
    Sep 10, 2003
  2. Alan Browne

    DVD's obsolete in 10 years?

    Alan Browne, Jul 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    2,561
    Big Bill
    Jul 17, 2004
  3. Replies:
    19
    Views:
    867
  4. harry

    Music CDs obsolete within five years

    harry, Jan 25, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    83
    Views:
    1,538
    harry
    Feb 1, 2004
  5. RichA

    Nikon determined to obsolete old lenses

    RichA, Dec 27, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    910
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jan 6, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page