[Eug Wanker]

I came across this page today:

50 mm:



800 mm:



12800 mm:



The guy accomplished this by adding a bazillion teleconverters to his 800 mm lens:

[The Godfather]

Or she could have the camera adapted in a cheap astronomy telescope, available at Walmart.

[mac128k-1984]

While I'm impressed at the feat, clearly the quality at 12,800 is not there. I'm not sure of the tripod is not stable enough, or manual focus issues or the image is just soft because of the rig being used to get to 12,800

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

While I'm impressed at the feat, clearly the quality at 12,800 is not there. I'm not sure of the tripod is not stable enough, or manual focus issues or the image is just soft because of the rig being used to get to 12,800

Well, no surprise there. I think he's using 8 TCs or something like that, and the pic is at f/128. He had to focus in the dark, too.

[tooki]

He clearly ran into the resolution limits of the lens, plus I think there's some motion blur there, likely just camera shake.

tooki

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally Posted by tooki 

He clearly ran into the resolution limits of the lens, plus I think there's some motion blur there, likely just camera shake.

tooki

Plus each of those teleconverters is introducing its own flaws. And I'm sure it's damn near impossible to focus. Still an interesting experiment.

[tooki]

Yah, good point. Some teleconverters are just tubes, but the ones used all have optics.

tooki

[ghporter]

Still, with the 12800mm of lens, he got weld spatter on a plate that's a LONG way off, not too big and not very large, either. In other words, with some tweaking, that kludge could actually work.

My problem is that all my digital cameras seem to not like even filters-there doesn't seem to be a way to put ANYTHING on my Kodak's fancy Schneider-Kreuznach Variogon lens... My Sony Handycam has threads for filters and such, but not my high-resolution still camera. Humph!

[tooki]

Well, the manufacturers realize that 99.99% of buyers of compact digital cameras will never buy any accessories for them, aside from memory cards. The digital cameras that are targeted at advanced users generally do have filter threads of some sort -- and of course, advanced users are now buying DSLRs.

tooki

[MattJeff]

thats awesome =]

[Eriamjh]

Now he'll be able to watch his neighbor undress with ease.

[marden]

A sunbathing Madonna doesn't stand a chance now even 1,000 yards away!

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by marden 

A sunbathing Madonna doesn't stand a chance now even 1,000 yards away!

At her age , I don't think theres too much call for photos. I can think of others that might be better suited

[MattJeff]

seconded

[GSixZero]

A 100% crop of the 800mm shot probably has more usable detail than the 12800mm shot.

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

A 100% crop of the 800mm shot probably has more usable detail than the 12800mm shot.

I was just going to say, I wonder what a full crop of the center of the 800mm shot would look like, by comparison. I can't tell whether that's a 20D or 30D on the back of the lens(es), but a 10MP image would probably show the limitations of just the 800mm lens alone. Although, I don't know the specifics of the lens, it may be pretty sharp at f/8 (f/128 at 12800mm = f/8 at 800mm, so I assume that's what he had it set to for both shots)

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

... I can think of others that might be better suited

or un-suited.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by tooki 

Well, the manufacturers realize that 99.99% of buyers of compact digital cameras will never buy any accessories for them, aside from memory cards. The digital cameras that are targeted at advanced users generally do have filter threads of some sort -- and of course, advanced users are now buying DSLRs.

tooki

I keep hoping that someone will come out with a digital back that fits my Canon A1 (for which I have a few good lenses), but I'm probably just wishing there. If DSLRs weren't so bloody expensive I'd have one, but then ALL my hobbies are really expensive and I am sadly NOT rich. Drat. My Kodak is a "nice camera" and does everything I usually want it to (it has a 10X optical zoom on top of a 3X digital zoom) but it's much harder to keep up with digital cameras than computers; my DX6490 is obsolete just because Kodak came out with even cooler models.

On the other hand (the one with the other fingers), I've seen articles on how to adapt non-threaded lenses to filters and telephoto/macro lens adapters. Picture tape and rubber bands. It often ain't pretty, but it gets the job done.

[GSixZero]

Getting into DSLR is expensive, but it's much cheaper than rebuying technology over and over again with prosumer point and shoots. Like you said a P&S is outdated a year after you buy it, but good lenses pretty much last forever. (15-20 years easily) You can get into a decent digital body for about $500, (Rebel XT) and start investing in glass.

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

Getting into DSLR is expensive, but it's much cheaper than rebuying technology over and over again with prosumer point and shoots. Like you said a P&S is outdated a year after you buy it, but good lenses pretty much last forever. (15-20 years easily) You can get into a decent digital body for about $500, (Rebel XT) and start investing in glass.

This is true, although a lot of lens makers are now making digital-only lenses (or at least digital-optimized lenses) that are specifically made for DSLR-sized APS-C sensors. I doubt these will have the same longevity as standard 35mm lenses, which have and will probably continue to be the "real" standard for quite a while.

[tooki]

I don't think that getting into SLRs is really that expensive any more, Glenn. I mean, I spent as much on a midrange compact digital in 2003 as will now buy a Nikon D50 with lens and a big memory card. The Nikon D40 kit is $599 list, and is predicted to be available for $450-500 within a few months.

Also, don't even bother mentioning digital zoom, since it's completely, totally 1000% pointless. As for your camera being obsolete: if it does what you need, it's not obsolete for you. The fact that a newer model exists now doesn't diminish your camera at all.

And no, nobody's gonna make a digital back for your A1. Until full-frame sensors become cheap, digital backs for 35mm won't be practical, because focus points and metering would be totally off. On top of it, some TTL flash metering systems would break, since many rely on measuring light reflected off the film surface itself. And of course, the market for such things is probably really small, given that most photographers have long since used autofocus systems and can thus just buy an affordable digital body for.

tooki

[tooki]

Originally Posted by MaxPower2k3 

This is true, although a lot of lens makers are now making digital-only lenses (or at least digital-optimized lenses) that are specifically made for DSLR-sized APS-C sensors. I doubt these will have the same longevity as standard 35mm lenses, which have and will probably continue to be the "real" standard for quite a while.

What makes you think they won't have longevity? It's clear that the APS-C (Canon) and DX (Nikon) size sensors are going to be the standard for a LONG time. I don't expect full-frame cameras to be standard ever, because by the time those cameras become affordable, people will already have collections of digital-only lenses.

By the way, a lens is either digital-only or it's not. Despite what lens makers say, there's really no such thing as a "digital optimized" lens. Digital-only lenses are digital-only simply because they cannot cover the whole frame of 35mm, which makes them much, much cheaper. Any lens that works for 35mm will work for digital, often with superior results because a digital-format sensor cuts off the edges of the image, where distortion is worse; instead, it uses the great center area.

tooki

[GSixZero]

I have a APS-C sensor in my camera, but I only invest in 35mm lenses. (Except I still have the kit lens which is EF-S.) No reason that having a crop camera requires buying the smaller format lenses. It would be weird to move to full frame, as everything would end up seeming 1.6x wider, but adding a few lenses would round out a full frame set up nicely.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

I have a APS-C sensor in my camera, but I only invest in 35mm lenses. (Except I still have the kit lens which is EF-S.) No reason that having a crop camera requires buying the smaller format lenses. It would be weird to move to full frame, as everything would end up seeming 1.6x wider, but adding a few lenses would round out a full frame set up nicely.

All of my lenses are full frame, except for my 10-22.

I have no problems buying EF-S (1.6X crop) lenses, but it seems most of the lenses I want are full frame anyway (including my L lenses).

[jebjeb]

Same for me regarding lenses for crop frame sensors. I personally won't touch them as I envisage I will be going full frame quite soon.

They are quite good price wise though as it is the only way you can get really wide on a crop-frame body for a lowish price.

Tooki - I don't know of any tele-convertors that have no optics in them. The ones that are just tubes are called extension tubes (or rings) which help by increasing magnification (by moving the image circle further away from the sensor/film) and decreasing minimum focusing distances. They are generally used for macro photography.

Also, I don't know how long the crop sensors will be common or in the majority to be honest. Canon seems to be pushing to get full frame down lower into the range. Technology is allowing higher pixel count and reduced noise in smaller sensors but as the cost of the full frame chips come down, I think that many manufacturers will be putting them in more cameras.

I think that we will (continue to) see (very similar to how Canon does it now) a very clear set of two ranges: higher and mid end full frame, and low end cheaper crop frames with "kit" crop frame lenses.

[jebjeb]

I agree with what GSixZero and MaxPower2k3 regarding a simple crop of the 800mm shot. However, that lense should still have a bit of res left in it and it would take something like a 1DSmkII (at 16mp) to reach the or excede the limits of resolution to the lense. Good experiment though!

Going slightly off topic but this is the big issue these days that many people don't realise. Going beyond the upper reachs of the mega-pixel limits of "35mm" sensors these days is pretty much a waste of time. The 1Ds mkII is out perfoming many of the best lenses out there. Hopefully we will start seeing better performing sensors in the areas of noise, sensitivity, dynamic range, speed, power consumption and of course, reduced price.

Imagine a sensor of around 16 megapixels which could deliver the same amount of noise that a 1Ds mk II gives at ISO 400 now but at a sensitivity equivilant of ISO 12800! It will happen and it will change the way we take photos. Even a little less extreme but imagine having an extra 4 or 5 stops to play with at a reasonably amount of noise. It would drastically increase ones shooting opportinities. I did a wedding last year where I did the entire reception by available light (no flash). Luckily about 30% of my shots were keepers but many were not because of motion blur (Image Stabilisation will not allivate this) or, to a lesser extent, camera shake (IS would help here). Most of the shots at the venue were shot wide open or a stop of two down on my 50mm f1.4 at ISO 800 to 3200. Being able to shoot at a couple of shutter speeds higher and a few stops down would drastically drop the motion blur and the out-of-focus shots (due to the shallow depth of field at 1.4).

[Dakar²]

Pretty freakin' cool.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

No reason that having a crop camera requires buying the smaller format lenses.

Well, there is one significant reason: cost. Making a digital-only lens is much cheaper, since it doesn't need to throw as large an image circle. This makes certain lenses much more affordable than they would otherwise be, particularly in wide angle. (This is also why none of the digital-only lenses are long telephotos, because those have no trouble covering the larger image circle.) With this cost reduction also comes weight reduction, because a reduced-frame camera can use smaller optics.

tooki

[Eug]

Originally Posted by jebjeb 

Also, I don't know how long the crop sensors will be common or in the majority to be honest. Canon seems to be pushing to get full frame down lower into the range. Technology is allowing higher pixel count and reduced noise in smaller sensors but as the cost of the full frame chips come down, I think that many manufacturers will be putting them in more cameras.

As full frame chips come down, crop frame chips will be even cheaper.

Canon and Nikon and friends have already made their intentions clear, that crop frame cameras will be the bulk of their unit sales for some time to come.

I think that we will (continue to) see (very similar to how Canon does it now) a very clear set of two ranges: higher and mid end full frame, and low end cheaper crop frames with "kit" crop frame lenses.

The Canon 60 mm crop frame macro lens is apparently a stellar piece of glass. Furthermore, the 10-22 (equivalent to 16-35 mm in full frame terms) is also pretty good.

The "kit" 18-55 apparently sucks though.

Tooki - I don't know of any tele-convertors that have no optics in them. The ones that are just tubes are called extension tubes (or rings) which help by increasing magnification (by moving the image circle further away from the sensor/film) and decreasing minimum focusing distances. They are generally used for macro photography.

Yeah, AFAIK, a tube with no lenses wouldn't even work as a teleconverter. You wouldn't be able to focus.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Eug 

As full frame chips come down, crop frame chips will be even cheaper.

Canon and Nikon and friends have already made their intentions clear, that crop frame cameras will be the bulk of their unit sales for some time to come.

Absolutely. Nikon has so far shown zero interest in producing a full-frame DSLR, instead preferring to have all its DSLRs standardized to exactly the same sensor size.

The Canon 60 mm crop frame macro lens is apparently a stellar piece of glass. Furthermore, the 10-22 (equivalent to 16-35 mm in full frame terms) is also pretty good.

I don't know about the EF-S 60mm macro, but by all accounts, the 10-22mm is an outstanding lens. Digital-only doesn't mean bad, it just means that it was not designed to cover a large image circle. That's unrelated to quality.

The "kit" 18-55 apparently sucks though.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with it being digital-only. Canon's kit lenses have always sucked. I have an old Canon EOS Rebel XS film camera, and I was fully, thoroughly disgusted and disappointed with the lens it came with. Total junk.

That's one of the things I like about Nikon: its kit lenses (even the cheap ones) are optically competent. The lenses included in D70/D70s (18-70mm), D80 (18-135mm) and D200 (18-200mm VR) kits are outstanding. The 18-55mm lenses included with the D50 and D40 feel cheap, but are optically just fine. Their defects are non-optical things like rotating front glass and plastic lens mounts.

The fact that all those lenses are digital-only may help, since the smaller sensor allows smaller lens elements, meaning that those elements can be of higher quality at a given price.

Yeah, AFAIK, a tube with no lenses wouldn't even work as a teleconverter. You wouldn't be able to focus.

I didn't know that. Good to know!

tooki

[marden]

Shakira

[jebjeb]

I do agree that for the next few years we will see mostly crop-frame sensors but I believe we will see more full-frame sensor cameras turn up. Maybe my opinion is a bit of a hold over from film days though. I guess many people who are buying (particularly the entry and mid level) DSLR's will not be converting what a lense looks like on a 35mm body compared to the shiny new crop-frame body. They just think that 35mm or so is now a "normal" lense where it "used" to be a 50mm.

I quite like the advantages that a smaller sensor provides like the ability to make the body and the pentaprism/mirror smaller, less weight and the rest. However, I really do miss the ability to go truly wide but most of all, I'm tired of the small and dim viewfinders. Yes, they have managed to make these better over the past few years but there is still nothing like bringing your eye up to a full frame cameras viewfinder. Most people don't know what they are missing though.

As for the camera makers deciding to stay with crop-frame sensors, there is obviously a big difference between Canon and Nikon here. Canon has three different sensor sizes (1.6x, 1.3x [1D mkII], and 1x [fullframe]). Nikon has the one format which does make things simpler but not necessarily better. I guess you could nearly say that they have 1.1 formats as the D2X has the high speed crop factor of 2x rather than the normal, full res DX crop-factor of 1.5.

Nikon is still releasing non-crop only lenses, particularly their higher end offerings, which says to me that they have not yet made the decision to permanently stay with the DX format. I don't think it is a very strong argument to say they are doing it for the old film cameras as I can't see this being a big influence to their business model. Maybe I'm wrong. I think they are waiting for the right sensor to come along.

I will revise my earlier comment and say that Canon's range will look quite similar to what it does now for a little while longer but with obvious price drops (making full frame cameras like the 5D even more affordable). As for Nikon, I think we will see a full frame camera from them in the next 18-24 months. If they were serious about staying with crop-frames, where are the crop-frame only "pro" lenses? Think of how much smaller, lighter and cheaper a 80-200 f2.8 DX lense would be? Or what about a DX only 400mm f2.8?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by tooki 

I don't think that getting into SLRs is really that expensive any more, Glenn. I mean, I spent as much on a midrange compact digital in 2003 as will now buy a Nikon D50 with lens and a big memory card. The Nikon D40 kit is $599 list, and is predicted to be available for $450-500 within a few months.

Also, don't even bother mentioning digital zoom, since it's completely, totally 1000% pointless. As for your camera being obsolete: if it does what you need, it's not obsolete for you. The fact that a newer model exists now doesn't diminish your camera at all.

And no, nobody's gonna make a digital back for your A1. Until full-frame sensors become cheap, digital backs for 35mm won't be practical, because focus points and metering would be totally off. On top of it, some TTL flash metering systems would break, since many rely on measuring light reflected off the film surface itself. And of course, the market for such things is probably really small, given that most photographers have long since used autofocus systems and can thus just buy an affordable digital body for.

tooki

Well at the moment a $400 price point is out of the question, and it'll stay that way until after I graduate and get a job. On the plus side, that job should be quite lucrative, so if I have time to attend to hobbies, then I should be able to afford them.

As for digital zoom, my RAZR offers digital zoom, and I can use that as all three strikes against using digital zoom at all. Any zoom at all reduces the size of the image so badly that it's not worth using-my DX6490's 10X optical zoom is so clean and smooth that I can't imagine needing to use the digital zoom. My Handycam has a 20X optical zoom, which is really amazing too. Optical is THE way to go. Now I just need to get that job... The thing with "obsolete" and my camera is that it's hard to find some accessories for it. The battery is still available, but I worry about things as simple as replacement lens caps (another knock at the non-threaded lens).

I am resigned to the fact that my A1 is strictly a film camera, but it has its uses. Portraiture is (I think) better on film, and the 35mm negative still has huge resolution advantages over most digital cameras. It's just depressing that I seem to get comfortable with one system just in time for it to be displaced by something else.

[Eug Wanker]

However, I really do miss the ability to go truly wide

Huh? If anything, 1.6X cameras make going truly wide easier.

I now have a Canon 10-22 mm lens, which is quite a bit lighter than the 17-40.

Canon has three different sensor sizes

I suspect they will have two soon. 1.0X and 1.6X.

1.3X will likely be EOL'd.

[jebjeb]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker 

Huh? If anything, 1.6X cameras make going truly wide easier.

I now have a Canon 10-22 mm lens, which is quite a bit lighter than the 17-40.

The 10-22 is a nice lense but not of the same quality as the 17-40. On a full frame sensor camera, the 17-40 will have the same field of view (actually a little longer) as your 10-22 but with better quality. Now of course it is heavier and more expensive but I guess these are optiions one must weigh up.

How do you get wider than your 10-22 on a 1.6x camera? The widest you can go is the equivilant of 16mm on a full size 35mm sensor. With a full frame camera you can go to 14mm with a non-fish eye fixed lense or down to 12mm with Sigmas 12-24 zoom. Now I know this is quite a specialised requirement but the current offerings do not allow you to go any wider than the equivilant of 16mm on a crop frame.

Plus there is the issue that a crop-frame camera can not get full use out of a 180 degree circular fish eye lense (again quite specialised).

I guess what I am saying is that it is not easier for a 1.6 camera to go wider it just means that it is easier to manufacure a reduced image circle short focal length lense. A crop frame camera makes the complete opposite true in the sense that you can get a much longer effective focal length than full frame due to the crop factor. One has to buy extremely short focal length lenses to compensate for the crop factor.

I suspect they will have two soon. 1.0X and 1.6X.

1.3X will likely be EOL'd.

Agree. I wonder what they are going to do with replacing the 1D mkII? Will they go with a super fast 1.6 or full frame chip? Obviously the cropped sensor will be easier but I am sure if that will go down well with the pros.

[jebjeb]

I guess my biggest thing against the crop frame format is where is the lense that, at the quality level I want and need, can cover a real usable focal length? Where is the lense that can cover the classic 24-70mm (35mm) range?

Canon does:

- 16-35 f2.8 = 25.6 - 56mm (35mm equiv.) - reasonably wide but no where near long enough to do some nice classic portraits
- 17-40 f4 = 27.2 - 64 (35mm equiv.) - not that wide but nearly there on the long side
- 17-55 f2.8 (Crop frame only) - 27.2 - 88 (35mm equiv.) - looks great (except for the wide end) but restricts me to not using it on a full frame camera.

Not going to comment on Nikon to much as I am not as familiar with their product line but they have lenses in the same range (some a little longer on the tele end).

My other gripe is (Eug - I trust you will know about this due to your love for the 70-200 lenses as well, particularly when you get your new IS one [bastard ]) that it messes up a lot of use of the 70-200 type of lense. When I am doing a wedding now, the 70mm end is just a bit too long for many shots as it is now the equivalent of 112mm! So instead of being able to do a full length shot and then zoom into a bust or head shot, I now either have to work further away from the subject or start swapping lenses.

I guess I could just stop my whining and get a full frame camera (which I plan on doing anyway) but what if I was a Nikon man?

There is a reason that there are some classic focal length ranges of zooms. These have evolved over time as they are the really useful ranges to have (plus I imagine it has a bit to do with the techniques of making them as well). What I am supprised about is that these have not yet been fully replicated by the makers to compensate for the crop factors of most digital SLR's. Whereas you can cover a hugely useful range from 24mm to 200mm with two top quality lenses (24-70 and 70-200) on a full frame camera, one would need at least three lenses (at a similar quality) to cover nearly the same range (not as wide but a fair bit longer). I just want them to make up there mind. If they are going to stick with cropped frame sensors, then they had better start producing some high quality lenses that cover those ranges.

Sorry for getting off topic and my never ending babbling!

[Eug Wanker]

How do you get wider than your 10-22 on a 1.6x camera? The widest you can go is the equivilant of 16mm on a full size 35mm sensor. With a full frame camera you can go to 14mm with a non-fish eye fixed lense or down to 12mm with Sigmas 12-24 zoom. Now I know this is quite a specialised requirement but the current offerings do not allow you to go any wider than the equivilant of 16mm on a crop frame.

Plus there is the issue that a crop-frame camera can not get full use out of a 180 degree circular fish eye lense (again quite specialised).

Well, that's what full frame cameras are for of course. That's why both lines exist.

By the way, I'd hazard to guess than less than 0.1% of SLR owners have a 14 mm full frame lens or a fish eye 180. I personally have zero need for either lens.

P.S. The Sigma 12-24 apparently sucks on a full frame.

- 17-55 f2.8 (Crop frame only) - 27.2 - 88 (35mm equiv.) - looks great (except for the wide end) but restricts me to not using it on a full frame camera.

Yeah but if your camera is a 1.6X crop, that is irrelevant, unless you want 2 or 3 camera bodies, which again suggests a more specialized segment of the market.

My other gripe is (Eug - I trust you will know about this due to your love for the 70-200 lenses as well, particularly when you get your new IS one [bastard ]) that it messes up a lot of use of the 70-200 type of lense. When I am doing a wedding now, the 70mm end is just a bit too long for many shots as it is now the equivalent of 112mm! So instead of being able to do a full length shot and then zoom into a bust or head shot, I now either have to work further away from the subject or start swapping lenses.

I much prefer having the 24-105 and the 70-200 on a 1.6X crop actually.

I prefer having the extra (pseudo-)reach. 200 mm always seemed too short on my full frame film SLR camera. And it's simply awesome having a walkaround 24-105 zoom that is effectively 38 mm to 168 mm. It's a very powerful range. It can be argued that one can simply crop full frame pix to get the same effect, but that's not how I take my pix.

I do agree the 24 mm is a limitation on the wide end, but for my usage is not as big of a deal, especially since I have the option of using the 10-22 when I need it (which is like 1% of the time).

It's possible that I may eventually get a full frame body. However, the reason will NOT be to adjust the zoom ranges, cuz like I said, I prefer the ranges as they are now on my 1.6X body. THe reason I'd upgrade is to get the better quality sensor. That said, I'm quite happy with my 20D right now. ISO 200 is superb, and ISO 400 is very good. ISO 800 is noisy, but is more than usable. I don't actually care about the resolution that much. If my next camera had only 12 MP, but superb low light performance, I'd be overjoyed.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by jebjeb 

Nikon is still releasing non-crop only lenses, particularly their higher end offerings, which says to me that they have not yet made the decision to permanently stay with the DX format. I don't think it is a very strong argument to say they are doing it for the old film cameras as I can't see this being a big influence to their business model. Maybe I'm wrong. I think they are waiting for the right sensor to come along.

I will revise my earlier comment and say that Canon's range will look quite similar to what it does now for a little while longer but with obvious price drops (making full frame cameras like the 5D even more affordable). As for Nikon, I think we will see a full frame camera from them in the next 18-24 months. If they were serious about staying with crop-frames, where are the crop-frame only "pro" lenses? Think of how much smaller, lighter and cheaper a 80-200 f2.8 DX lense would be? Or what about a DX only 400mm f2.8?

The reason for not releasing DX-only telephotos is that it's simply not necessary. Wide angles is where the small format permits more economical designs; by about 60mm, that advantage has vanished. If you take a Nikon 18-70mm lens and mount it on a 35mm camera, you only get vignetting below about 50mm (IIRC). I don't think that it's actually possible to make a telephoto for a digital camera that doesn't cover the 35mm frame, and I don't think it could be any lighter.

As for pro-level DX lenses: uhhh, they have them. The 12-24mm DX is a great example, almost as much as the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX. The 10.5mm f/2.8 DX Fisheye is certainly a pro lens, and the 18-200mm VR DX teeters on the brink of prosumer-pro. (Many, many pros use it.)

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I am resigned to the fact that my A1 is strictly a film camera, but it has its uses. Portraiture is (I think) better on film, and the 35mm negative still has huge resolution advantages over most digital cameras. It's just depressing that I seem to get comfortable with one system just in time for it to be displaced by something else.

You still think that? I thought that people had measured the resolution of low-ISO 35mm film to be around 10-12 megapixels, and that of high-ISO film is much, much lower. Digital cameras now have far more detail in high ISO than 35mm film.

Originally Posted by jebjeb 

1. How do you get wider than your 10-22 on a 1.6x camera? The widest you can go is the equivilant of 16mm on a full size 35mm sensor. With a full frame camera you can go to 14mm with a non-fish eye fixed lense or down to 12mm with Sigmas 12-24 zoom. Now I know this is quite a specialised requirement but the current offerings do not allow you to go any wider than the equivilant of 16mm on a crop frame.

2. Plus there is the issue that a crop-frame camera can not get full use out of a 180 degree circular fish eye lense (again quite specialised).

3. I guess what I am saying is that it is not easier for a 1.6 camera to go wider it just means that it is easier to manufacure a reduced image circle short focal length lense. A crop frame camera makes the complete opposite true in the sense that you can get a much longer effective focal length than full frame due to the crop factor. One has to buy extremely short focal length lenses to compensate for the crop factor.

1. Well, it took a LONG time for those ultra-ultra-wide rectilinear lenses to come out for 35mm, and since the cropped-format sensors make ultrawide easier, I expect we'll be seeing some digital-only ultrawides at 8mm or so.

2. If you use a 35mm fisheye. Nikon makes a digital-only 180˚ fisheye.

3. Well yes, that's exactly it. Cropped formats make ultrawide lenses much more economical.
Look at this phenomenon taken to its extreme in camcorders and compact digital cameras, where the sensor is the size of your pinkie fingernail: they sell camcorders with 30x optical zooms (possible because video's low resolution doesn't require anywhere near as sharp a lens as still photography). You can get compact digitals with 10x optical zooms for one third the price of just an 11x lens for a DSLR. It's all because the image circle those lenses must cast is only around 1cm. They often achieve 35-350mm equivalent zoom ranges (usually weighted towards telephoto because consumers see a bigger number and think it's better -- and it's cheaper), but the actual focal lengths are tiny. For example, Samsung's 15x zoom Pro815 camera has a 28-420mm equivalent focal length, but the actual focal length is just 7.2-108mm. Canon's SD800 IS pocket digital has a 28-105mm equivalent lens, but the real focal length is 4.6-17.3mm. Building those focal lengths for smaller image circles is cheap and practical.

Originally Posted by jebjeb 

I guess my biggest thing against the crop frame format is where is the lense that, at the quality level I want and need, can cover a real usable focal length? Where is the lense that can cover the classic 24-70mm (35mm) range?

Canon does:

- 16-35 f2.8 = 25.6 - 56mm (35mm equiv.) - reasonably wide but no where near long enough to do some nice classic portraits
- 17-40 f4 = 27.2 - 64 (35mm equiv.) - not that wide but nearly there on the long side
- 17-55 f2.8 (Crop frame only) - 27.2 - 88 (35mm equiv.) - looks great (except for the wide end) but restricts me to not using it on a full frame camera.

Not going to comment on Nikon to much as I am not as familiar with their product line but they have lenses in the same range (some a little longer on the tele end).

My other gripe is (Eug - I trust you will know about this due to your love for the 70-200 lenses as well, particularly when you get your new IS one [bastard ]) that it messes up a lot of use of the 70-200 type of lense. When I am doing a wedding now, the 70mm end is just a bit too long for many shots as it is now the equivalent of 112mm! So instead of being able to do a full length shot and then zoom into a bust or head shot, I now either have to work further away from the subject or start swapping lenses.

I guess I could just stop my whining and get a full frame camera (which I plan on doing anyway) but what if I was a Nikon man?

There is a reason that there are some classic focal length ranges of zooms. These have evolved over time as they are the really useful ranges to have (plus I imagine it has a bit to do with the techniques of making them as well). What I am supprised about is that these have not yet been fully replicated by the makers to compensate for the crop factors of most digital SLR's. Whereas you can cover a hugely useful range from 24mm to 200mm with two top quality lenses (24-70 and 70-200) on a full frame camera, one would need at least three lenses (at a similar quality) to cover nearly the same range (not as wide but a fair bit longer). I just want them to make up there mind. If they are going to stick with cropped frame sensors, then they had better start producing some high quality lenses that cover those ranges.

Sorry for getting off topic and my never ending babbling!

Your post seems to imply that Nikon is making the same zooms as Canon, implying that Nikon digital users are up sh*t creek; we're totally not. (It doesn't seem to me that Canon digital users are badly positioned, either.)

For the regular 28-70 range, Nikon makes the following digital-only lenses:
- a budget 18-55mm (=27-82) f/3.5-5.6
- a pro 17-55mm (=26-82) f/2.8
- a midrange 18-70mm (=27-105) f/3.5-4.5
- a budget-midrange 18-135mm (=27-202)
- a high-midrange 18-200mm (=27-300) with optical stabilizer.

To cover the 70-200 range, the aforementioned 18-200mm does it, of course, and there's a budget digital-only 55-200mm (82-300) designed to pair with the 18-55 to give complete coverage. (The 18-70 was designed to pair up with the existing 35mm 70-300 for seamless coverage.)

All of them are optically "good" or better -- none of them (even the budget 18-55) are of Canon kit lens junk quality in terms of optics (the 18-55 and 55-200 are definitely plasticky kit lenses, but they're optically sound).

They also have a pro 17-35mm zoom that's for 35mm, but that doesn't go that far on the long end (I'm not sure it's possible to design an ultrawide-to-telephoto zoom for 35mm that's small enough to be practical and affordable).

My dream lens would be an 8-200mm f/2.8 with optical stabilization and 1:1 macro. I doubt if it's even possible to design that, but if they could, it would take care of all my photo needs! One can dream...

tooki

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by tooki 

My dream lens would be an 8-200mm f/2.8 with optical stabilization and 1:1 macro. I doubt if it's even possible to design that, but if they could, it would take care of all my photo needs! One can dream...

Not quite what you wanted, but Canon sells a 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 full frame L lens with optical stabilization.

It's only $2200 and 3.7 lbs.

[tooki]

Yeah, not quite!

What I really want is an all-purpose zoom that goes into ultrawide. I'm not so interested in telephoto.

tooki

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by tooki 

You still think that? I thought that people had measured the resolution of low-ISO 35mm film to be around 10-12 megapixels, and that of high-ISO film is much, much lower. Digital cameras now have far more detail in high ISO than 35mm film.

Pixel for pixel resolution for fast ISOs, 35mm is indeed somewhat lower than some available digital cameras, but "resolution" (at least to me) is more than the raw number of pixels. A good 35mm color negative stock (either Kodak or Fuji) tends to be better at reproducing color detail than most high end digital cameras, unless the digital picture is massaged. Of course the high end cameras do that-you can program some for what kind of film stock you're trying to emulate-but those are the REALLY high end ones. And for portraiture, you don't need resolution in a raw sense as much as color resolution.

But you can tell I'm really passionate about this because I completely forgot to qualify my statement about resolution!

[Eug]

A good 35mm color negative stock (either Kodak or Fuji) tends to be better at reproducing color detail than most high end digital cameras

Who has a drum scanner anyway?

[jebjeb]

Firstly, Tooki, I will take one of your dream lenses as well. Could you kindly make it in a Canon EF fitting please! With the progressions that have been made in these hunks of expensive glass lately, I think something like this may be closer than we think.

As I said, I am not as well versed in the Nikon range but I don't think I was too wrong. The pro end of the scale has a bit more length (the 17-55) and is a bit faster as well. Too be honest, I am quite jealous of many of Nikons lenses compared to Canon at the moment.

I know that the budget to mid end part of the range is where the volume is but for me, that is not of so much importance. What I have read comparing the "kit" lenses between Canon and Nikon agrees with what you say but too be honest, I personally wouldn't touch any of them.

As I have said before, I have no doubt that they will eventually release wider and great range zooms for crop-factor sensors in the future, but we are in a time where the options are more limited. Maybe I am too caught up in today's culture of having everything we need right now and looking at the big picture, the three or so past years have seen an enormous amount of change and new products and this will only continue.

The reason for not releasing DX-only telephotos is that it's simply not necessary.

I disagree. You have basically said it yourself further down your post, with a smaller sensor, a smaller image circle is needed. This means the focal length is reduced. The reason long lenses are expensive is not because of their long focal length, but rather what is required to get the high apertures. A 400mm f2.8 lense has to have a huge objective and lots of glass to gather the required amount of light to spread over an image circle to cover 35mm. If that image circle is 2/3rds the size, what does that do to the amount of light hitting that area? It is brighter of course as it is concentrated over a smaller area. This is shown with some of those built-in lenses you have mentioned. Some of those have objective diameters of less than 50mm or so but at telephoto lengths, they have very high apertures. They can do this because of the small sensors.

It is just the opposite of a tele-converter. One looses 1 stop with a 1.4x TC because it is spreading a smaller percentage of the image circle out over a larger area, making it less bright. Even more dramatic with the 2x TC. Obviously there are other smaller factors for loss of brightness such as additional glass elements and such but these have a minor impact.

I wonder if someone could make a negative tele-convertor? Say it was a 0.6x TC. This would reduce the image circle size, thus making it only work on a crop-frame sensor. It would also concentrate the same amount of light on a smaller area thus making the image brighter and effectively increasing the maximum aperture (without the DOF effects). It would also pretty much cancel out the crop-factors effect on the focal length so one would get what it says on the tin (or lense in this case ).


Eug - I agree that going that wide is very specialised but it is still a requirement to some. As I said above, I am sure we will see some wider lenses in the near future.

Yeah but if your camera is a 1.6X crop, that is irrelevant, unless you want 2 or 3 camera bodies, which again suggests a more specialized segment of the market.

This is an issue though. Canon obviously hasn't decided to standardise on crop-frame sensors. So if you do decide in the future, as you said you may, to go full frame (for the quality etc), if you had the 17-55 crop only lense, you would be buggered. After spending £650 on a piece of glass, one would not be able to use it on their new full frame camera. You would have to buy a new lense that covered the the same equivalent range.

I can understand why you like the added reach, I used to think the same as well. However, for the work I do, I miss the shorter ends of some of my lenses. I agree that with the crop-factor, the 24-105 is a cracking walk-around lense as that added length really does help in those situations. Also agree when you say that it doesn't go wide enough. If I'm travelling light, I won't be carrying that extra lense on me so I would miss the shot.

You should be happy with your 20D, it is a fantastic camera. I'm actually still reasonably happy with my 10D but the speed of operation/buffer has been getting to me for a while plus the better noise performance of the newer bodies will suit me well.

[Eug]

This is an issue though. Canon obviously hasn't decided to standardise on crop-frame sensors. So if you do decide in the future, as you said you may, to go full frame (for the quality etc), if you had the 17-55 crop only lense, you would be buggered. After spending �650 on a piece of glass, one would not be able to use it on their new full frame camera. You would have to buy a new lense that covered the the same equivalent range.

So what's the big deal? I buy what I want to use. I don't buy a lens because I might buy a new camera body 4 years from now. It's not as if the same lens would cover the same range on a full frame and a crop camera anyway.

BTW, I got my 70-200 f/4L years ago, and it's full frame. I've replaced it now with an IS version, also full frame. My 70-200 non-IS will be sold into a good home, despite the fact the much more desirable IS version is available now.

Needs/wants change. If you need full frame bodies and/or full frame lenses now or in the very near future, then fine, get them. However, if you don't, then it's a wasted worry to tailor your purchases around full frame.

[jebjeb]

I completely agree, Eug. If one can see they may want to go full-frame soon then they should cater for that (much like myself).

If people want to buy something that will restrict their reasonable and foreseeable options in the future then they can go right ahead. It may be all the ever need.

I would still like to see a 0.6 teleconvertor though