[powerbook867]

Here's a preview:

http://www.ifa-show.com/2005/canon_r...on_eos_5d.html

Looks like it will be here in September. 12 megapixel w/ Full frame CMOS!!

No announcement on US pricing yet...

Might have to upgrade my 10d!

[iMOTOR]

It will only cost elevendy billion dollars®

I can't wait.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by powerbook867

12 megapixel w/ Full frame CMOS!!

You do realize that Canon already has a 16.7 megapixel full-frame CMOS DSLR, the EOS 1Ds Mark II?

This is not some new record or anything. (Though it will presumably be cheaper than the 1Ds Mark II, which is $8000.)

tooki

[MaxPower2k3]

i think it's supposed to be $3300. Not bad.

[pathogen]

The good news: a cheaper full frame CMOS. regular EF lenses
The bad news: 50 and 3200 ISO are extrapolated and not true.

I don't know what's worse, that digital cameras are just as expensive and prone to being obsolete as quickly as computers, or that for all this money you're still buying technology that can't reproduce some classic film looks well yet: really long exposures, heavy studio lighting, black and white silver, etc. It'll come, but the upgrade cycle is grand robbery for most enthusiasts!

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by pathogen

or that for all this money you're still buying technology that can't reproduce some classic film looks well yet: really long exposures, heavy studio lighting, black and white silver, etc.

My Olympus C-8080 handles long exposures and studio flash very well, just as good as any film I've ever used.

[powerbook867]

I'm happy because I don't want to spend 8k! That is bad news pathogen...missed that in teh write up...

[Axo1ot1]

That article is one astonishingly bad piece of writing.

[Eug Wanker]

I have the 20D and have basically zero interest in the 5D, cuz I don't want a full frame dSLR.

I do have a lot of interest in the new EF 24-105 f/4L lens with Image Stabilizer however.

[rickey939]

I'm happy with my Canon S410 Digital Elph.

[Salty]

Personally... my 2 megapixel finepix 2600 is... uhh... still... anyone wanna buy me a new camera?

[budster101]

Haha... Salty, good one.

---

I'd love a nice 10D with some fine Glass over a 5D. If you can't do anything worth looking at with a 10D the 5D ain't going to help. Many Professionals I know use the 10 and 20D with great results.

Full frame will come into the prosumer market with affordable pricing soon enough but not soon enough to justify paying out $3,300 for that camera alone.

You can get a Leica with a digital back... ok maybe not.

4,500 Euro for the Digital Back alone, then you have to get the R8 or R9... would be nice though...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0306/03...adigitalr9.asp

[JustAnOl'Broad]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I have the 20D I do have a lot of interest in the new EF 24-105 f/4L lens with Image Stabilizer however.

Me too; but it's eleventy billion dollars.
$1249 MSRP is too high for me right now.
But , boy would that be a sweet lense!

[AB^2=BCxAC]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I have the 20D and have basically zero interest in the 5D, cuz I don't want a full frame dSLR.

I do have a lot of interest in the new EF 24-105 f/4L lens with Image Stabilizer however.

Granted, it's an interesting lens, but is the stabilizer going to do all they say it will?

Once you use an Image Stabilizer you will never work without it. The Image Stabilizer (IS) reduces image blur and gives you almost 3 stops extra, a fact that is very valuable in the field where working conditions can vary by the minute. Gyro sensors inside of the 24 - 105mm F4.0L IS USM lens detect unwanted vibrations, triggering the corresponding movement of a correcting lens group perpendicular to the optical axis. This alters the light path, returning the image to its correct position on the sensor or film plane.

How can it add three stops (!!!) when the physics of any additional "correcting lens" system usually slows the light? F4? What is the bokeh going to look like?

[legacyb4]

The 17-40 F4 and the 70-200 F4 (which I both have) are incredibly nice lenses for the price you pay. Contrast is good, colors are good, and the best thing is the lenses are light enough to carry all day without breaking your back. And yes, the bokeh on the lenses is quite acceptable; not quite as soft as F 2.8, but that is to be expected...

This was a handheld on the 70-200 F4 shot for fun.

Originally Posted by AB^2=BCxAC

F4? What is the bokeh going to look like?

[AB^2=BCxAC]

Those are nice lenses and that's a very nice pic. There's a neat photoblog called Daily Dose of Imagery you might like. I read recently that those are his lenses, too. Take a look at his on-the-go kit: Gadget gear bag. I have severe gadget envy, even though I'm not sure I would stuff that much love in one bag, even if was carry-on.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by AB^2=BCxAC

Granted, it's an interesting lens, but is the stabilizer going to do all they say it will?

Yes. IS rocks. (I have an IS lens already - EF-S 17-85 IS.)

How can it add three stops (!!!) when the physics of any additional "correcting lens" system usually slows the light?

I don't know what you mean by "slows the light", but it does indeed add 2-3 stops of hand holdability. It will do nothing for high-speed action shots though of course.

F4? What is the bokeh going to look like?

Well, it's not going to be as blurred as f/2.8, but the smoothness will of course depend on the specific lens. Here is the bokeh of a 70-200 f/4L taken at 188 mm f/4:

[removed oversize inline image. Feel free to resize appropriately or replace with a link. --tooki]

P.S. In the meantime I have just ordered the MR-14EX ring flash for macro shots.

[DeathToWindows]

It is kind of scary that the dSLRs are being supplanted so quickly... however, I am extremely happy with my D70. Great for when I want rapid turnaround, but there are some things that I can't really do with it... mostly the B&W effects that I love. So, I'll still shoot with my F4 and Pentax 645 for quite a while yet.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I don't want a full frame dSLR.

Why is that ? I can't think of any reasons why you would really want a non-fullsize.

*Sigh*, I wish Nikon made full frame digital cameras. No way in hell that I'm buying a Canon

I'll stay with my F5+film scanner for the comming years. There is no digital camera that I could like at the moment. Except for the D2X but the price is ridiculous and still...

F5 forever !

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Why is that ? I can't think of any reasons why you would really want a non-fullsize.

Cuz I get 1.6X magnification on my tele lenses.

My 70-200 mm f/4L now gets magnified to the equivalent of a 112-320 mm f/4L. If I add a 1.4X TeleExtender, I've now got a 157-448 mm f/5.6 (with almost L quality). The other bonus is I don't suffer the same edge softness that the FF cameras suffer with some FF lenses.

I save money, and I save weight.

[powerbook867]

thanks for the info about the 17-40. I was recently looking it over on onecall.....all the reviews have been

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Cuz I get 1.6X magnification on my tele lenses.

My 70-200 mm f/4L now gets magnified to the equivalent of a 112-320 mm f/4L. If I add a 1.4X TeleExtender, I've now got a 157-448 mm f/5.6 (with almost L quality). The other bonus is I don't suffer the same edge softness that the FF cameras suffer with some FF lenses.

I save money, and I save weight.

Well if you buy decent glass you won't have any edge softness. And what about wide angle ? You have to buy extreme wide angle lenses that distort (even in the middle) if you wan't a normal wide angle. Wide angle on small frame dSLRs is awefull IMHO.

I like wide angle so that's one of the factors that make me say "no" to dSLRs. You probably like using long lenses a lot.

[Demonhood]

they make lenses that take into account the smaller frame now. i have an 18-125 that is a true 18.
and my 70-300 is a "normal" lens, so it's now a 112-480.

not saying i prefer one over the other. just sayin'.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Demonhood

they make lenses that take into account the smaller frame now. i have an 18-125 that is a true 18.
and my 70-300 is a "normal" lens, so it's now a 112-480.

not saying i prefer one over the other. just sayin'.

I know but, those lenses only cut off the glass that isn't used AFAIK. The 18 is still like a 28 mm in full frame. A 28mm with 18mm distortion. No such thing as a real 18mm for DSLRs at the moment.

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure of it. I'm not really into DSLR since the ones I can afford don't interest me a bit. I'm an old school photographer

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Well if you buy decent glass you won't have any edge softness.

How decent do you want? Edge softness is a common problem even with some of Canon's pro L series zoom lenses. Those are generally big and bulky lenses for $$$.

And no, I'm not about to carry 10 prime lenses around with me.

And what about wide angle ? You have to buy extreme wide angle lenses that distort (even in the middle) if you wan't a normal wide angle. Wide angle on small frame dSLRs is awefull IMHO.

I like wide angle so that's one of the factors that make me say "no" to dSLRs. You probably like using long lenses a lot.

Indeed I do like using teles a lot.

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

I know but, those lenses only cut off the glass that isn't used AFAIK. The 18 is still like a 28 mm in full frame. A 28mm with 18mm distortion. No such thing as a real 18mm for DSLRs at the moment.

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure of it. I'm not really into DSLR since the ones I can afford don't interest me a bit. I'm an old school photographer

You're wrong. There is a dedicated 10-22 mm wide angle Canon EF-S lens. It can NOT be used by Canon FF cameras. By all accounts, the 10-22 is very good quality lens. And yes, it's much smaller than you'd expect.



To cut the chase, I must say that I am very impressed by the lack of barrel and pincushion distortion in the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens. It is not perfect, but very good for this extreme wide angle focal length range. There is a slight barrel distortion at 10mm moving slowly to a slight pincushion at 22m. Slight enough distortion for me to be happy with the results.

On the sharpness issue, I found the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens to be a good performer. Keep in mind that when shooting at these focal lengths, details tend to get extremely small. Our DSLR sensors struggle to produce sharp results when details get down to the pixel or couple-of-pixel size.

The Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens is a little soft at 10mm with some softness in the corners. Sharpness at 10mm improves slightly when stopped down, but the corners retain some of their softness. At 16mm, the Canon 10-22 has nice sharpness wide open and improves little when stopped down. Corners retain some softness until stopped down beyond f/4 or so. Sharpness at 22mm was good and again, improved little stopped down. Corner sharpness was best at 22mm. Resulting images take post-process sharpening well.

At 10mm, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens showed slight vignetting, but not nearly as significant as that of the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L USM Lens.

Flare is another common enemy of an ultra wide angle lens. An wide front element combined with an ultra wide focal length can spell flare problems when the sun is out. The good news is that the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens controls flare very well. Usually, if the sun was not in the frame, flare did not exist.

CA (Chromatic Aberations) are a common lens quality differentiatior. Although some CA is present in the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens (most notable at 10mm in very high contrast situations), it is very well-controlled.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Yes. IS rocks. (I have an IS lens already - EF-S 17-85 IS.)

I don't know what you mean by "slows the light", but it does indeed add 2-3 stops of hand holdability. It will do nothing for high-speed action shots though of course.

Well, it's not going to be as blurred as f/2.8, but the smoothness will of course depend on the specific lens. Here is the bokeh of a 70-200 f/4L taken at 188 mm f/4:

[removed oversize inline image. Feel free to resize appropriately or replace with a link. --tooki]

P.S. In the meantime I have just ordered the MR-14EX ring flash for macro shots.

Take a look at Tokina and Sigma, they make very good lenses, but a lot cheaper. No need to stick to Canon to buy good glass.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

I like wide angle so that's one of the factors that make me say "no" to dSLRs. You probably like using long lenses a lot.

My cousin is quite happy with his fisheye. He used it for a long time with his D30 which is basically in retirement now.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Take a look at Tokina and Sigma, they make very good lenses, but a lot cheaper. No need to stick to Canon to buy good glass.

Yeah, there are some good ones, but each time I look at them I end up coming back to Canon.

One reason though is that one experience I had with a Sigma lens put a bad taste in my mouth. My ancient EOS EF lenses worked fine on my 20D, but my Sigma EOS-mount 24 mm prime didn't.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

I know but, those lenses only cut off the glass that isn't used AFAIK. The 18 is still like a 28 mm in full frame. A 28mm with 18mm distortion. No such thing as a real 18mm for DSLRs at the moment.

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure of it. I'm not really into DSLR since the ones I can afford don't interest me a bit. I'm an old school photographer

Sigma has a 10-20 mm Zoom, which would be 15 mm (Nikon) or 13/16 mm Canon (depending on the camera). But you're right, the depth of field is different and I can see that with my camera, too. Although its aperture starts at 2.2 (I have a 2/3" ccd), it's not comparable to the 2.8 on film.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

How decent do you want?

Nikkor j/k

Yeah, maybe I'm used to the quality of prime lenses. I never liked zooms. Quality is my prime interest so I use primes.

You're wrong. There is a dedicated 10-22 mm wide angle Canon EF-S lens. It can NOT be used by Canon FF cameras.

I'm not sure if I'm wrong. They are "dedicated" in the sense that the unused piece of glass is cut off. If you put a lens like that on a full frame or film camera you just get an image in the centre and a black border. Hence my "cutting off the glass" comment. But AFAIK the view angle is still the same as 16mm-35mm on a 35mm frame but, WITH higher distortion than a "full-frame" 16-35 zoom would give you. Mind you that 16-35 will already show distortion. They never mention anything about field of view in reviews.

*sigh* I don't get why they even had the idea of producing non-full frame chips.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Nikkor j/k

Well, I've not been as big of a fan of Nikon. The Nikkor lenses are good, but I don't like the Nikon bodies as much. But that's mainly just personal preference.

I'm not sure if I'm wrong. They are "dedicated" in the sense that the unused piece of glass is cut off.

Not really, but sort of. An EF-S lens can effectively be created by scaling down (in a sense) a FF lens.

If you put a lens like that on a full frame or film camera you just get an image in the centre and a black border.

It won't physically fit. In fact some of them would even hit the mirror, even if you modified the mount somehow to try to make it fit.

But AFAIK the view angle is still the same as 16mm-35mm on a 35mm frame but, WITH higher distortion than a "full-frame" 16-35 zoom would give you.

Incorrect. The view angle is the same, with the same amount of distortion. The depth of field increases with EF-S lenses however.

Though build quality and features are nice, for 800 bucks you want really good image quality and fortunately, the 10-22 delivers. The lens yields very good sharpness throughout its focal range though it softens up a bit at extreme apertures, as one would expect. However, you’ve got to look real close for softening below f5.6, and you can probably take care of this with a simple unsharp mask.

Distortion is surprisingly low, although when shooting at 10mm, images are inherently a little weirdly distorted. However, I was very surprised to find that you’ve really got to look hard to discern distortion, even at the extremes of the camera’s zoom range.

The 10-22 delivers excellent sharpness throughout its focal range. Click to view full-size image.

Most surprising, though, are the lens flares. Surprising in their absence, that is. It’s downright hard to get this lens to flare. The flatter front element helps, and when compared to any other super-wide angle lens I’ve used, the 10-22 wins hands down, flare-wise.

Color rendition is very accurate, though different from what I’ve been used to, as we’ll see below. Packing an almost completely round iris, the 10-22 yields very nice bokeh, although shallow depth of field can be a little difficult to achieve with a lens of such short focal length. Overall contrast is also excellent.

*sigh* I don't get why they even had the idea of producing non-full frame chips.

Because they cost less and there is demand for them?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

I'm not sure if I'm wrong. They are "dedicated" in the sense that the unused piece of glass is cut off. If you put a lens like that on a full frame or film camera you just get an image in the centre and a black border. Hence my "cutting off the glass" comment. But AFAIK the view angle is still the same as 16mm-35mm on a 35mm frame but, WITH higher distortion than a "full-frame" 16-35 zoom would give you. Mind you that 16-35 will already show distortion. They never mention anything about field of view in reviews.

*sigh* I don't get why they even had the idea of producing non-full frame chips.

No, those are lenses specifically designed for digital cameras (Sigma labels them DC, but Nikon, Canon et. al. have them, too). The difference is two-fold: they are specifically designed for the smaller area and more importantly, the incident rays are `more parallel' compared to their analog counterparts. CCDs apparently are very sensitive to light that impinges on the sensor at an angle.

So in this sense, a full-frame sensor can be a disadvantage; the tests I've read show that (i) for these high MP cameras (double-digit MP) absolutely need top-notch glass. So IMHO buying a 20D with the entry-level 18-55 mm lenses is pretty much non-sense. This is even more important for full-frame sensors as it is obviously easier to design lenses -- lighter and higher in optical quality lenses -- for a smaller CCD/CMOS sensor.

Canon lenses often show a decay in image quality for full-frame sensors towards the edges. This is not `Canon's fault', but a consequence of their larger sensor. Conversely, Olympus is able to build relatively compact lenses with excellent quality. (Obviously full-frame sensors have other big advantages, higher depth-of-field range, wide-angle shots, less noise, etc.)

I'm not sure what you mean by higher distortion, though.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Well, I've not been as big of a fan of Nikon. The Nikkor lenses are good, but I don't like the Nikon bodies as much. But that's mainly just personal preference.

Personal preference it is indeed.

I never liked Canons. I don't really have a problem with the bodies altough their ergonomics used be quite bad, but they fixed that. My problem with Canon lies with the lenses. They aren't as sharp as Nikkors and they have this yellowish tint which I don't like (Nikkors have a blueish tint).
Older Canons used to over expose really slightly as well. Rumor is that they did that because paparazzi liked that and Canon was the number one choice for paparazzi. Don't know the real reason. Probably just bad meters. Exposure of modern Canons is excellent tough. Another plus for Nikon is that I can use all my old manual lenses on any modern camera, even 50 year old lenses.

It won't physically fit. In fact some of them would even hit the mirror, even if you modified the mount somehow to try to make it fit.

Didn't know that. Nikon makes special Nikkors like that as well and they do in fact fit on a standard F-mount.

Incorrect. The view angle is the same, with the same amount of...The depth of field increases with EF-S lenses however.

Ok, I stand corrected.

Because they cost less and there is demand for them?

Well, to me non full-size chips are an half assed attempt just to please the press and luckily a lot of prosumers like them as well. Now what I really don't get is that Canon has non-FF in their low to middle end DSLRs and now full frame in their mid to high end. That's non-FF and FF in the same middle of the lineup. Say that you have a 20D and have invested a fortune in EF-S glass. But you want to upgrade to a 5D (or whatever camera it will be in the future). You'll be stuck. You can't use that glass anymore.
At least Nikon is consistent and uses non-full frame in their entire lineup. Altough I don't like that either.

Cost is indeed a logical factor but they could just get those small size chips out the press and wait untill full frame becomes cheap and give everyone full frame and let the press upgrade to full frame again afterwards. The press doesn't really care about cost. They get their cameras cheap or for free (Canon used to, and maybe still does, give away cameras and those superexpensive tele primes just to boost their image. They did succeed in the press photography business because of that, I'll give them that).

[Eug Wanker]

I see Canon scrapping 1.3X crops altogether, and going with both FF and 1.6X to cover everyone.

FF is the new medium format. 1.6X is for everyone else.

Fortunately, many lenses can now do both the new "medium format" and 1.6X. I suspect most (if not all) pro "L" Canon lenses will fit this category.

[MrForgetable]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Cuz I get 1.6X magnification on my tele lenses.

My 70-200 mm f/4L now gets magnified to the equivalent of a 112-320 mm f/4L. If I add a 1.4X TeleExtender, I've now got a 157-448 mm f/5.6 (with almost L quality). The other bonus is I don't suffer the same edge softness that the FF cameras suffer with some FF lenses.

I save money, and I save weight.

you can't really say 1.6 magnification. the image is cropped on the sensor compared to a full frame (35mm) sensor. you can crop an FF image to a 1.6x image and get the same field of view. so essentially, it is just a "cropped" image.

it's nice if you want the extra "reach" on the telephoto lenses, but for wide angle it's a pain. a normally wide angle 28mm lens now has a not-so-wide 45mm FOV.

so this is why people WANT full frame. the EF lenses will be what they say on the lens, no need to do decimal multiplication to find the 35mm equivalent FOV.

The only bad thing about FF is that most of their EF (the L line too) lenses just do not have enough resolution to keep up with the sensor, especially Canon's wide angle lenses. So you need Canon's best, most expensive lenses to extract the most out of the FF sensor, and even then you might experience some not so sharp areas.

I personally like the 1.3x sensor of the 1D Mark II. but i feel like it'll be gone soon.

the 5D is a great accomplishment by Canon though.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by MrForgetable

The only bad thing about FF is that most of their EF (the L line too) lenses just do not have enough resolution to keep up with the sensor, especially Canon's wide angle lenses. So you need Canon's best, most expensive lenses to extract the most out of the FF sensor, and even then you might experience some not so sharp areas.

Well, the other bad thing about the EF lenses is that you cannot use them with full-frame or analog Canons, because they would damage the mirror.

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

FF is the new medium format. 1.6X is for everyone else.

Fortunately, many lenses can now do both the new "medium format" and 1.6X. I suspect most (if not all) pro "L" Canon lenses will fit this category.

No, not true. Digital lenses have other boundary conditions that have to be satisfied. So old-school lenses (pro or non-pro) will result in lower quality images. The reason is, as outlined above, that sensors are sensitive to light which is incident at an angle. Lenses designed for digital systems keep the light rays more parallel to the sensor. Here's something on that on Olympus' site, but the physics behind it is the same for all manufacturers.

Also, I think it is an advantage to keep a specific factor as Nikon does: `all cameras multiply the focal length by 1.5', no matter if you are using a D50 or a D2X.

[fhoubi]

Just nit-picking:

EF-S mount:
Optimized for Digital SLRs with APS-C size sensors, the EF-S mount enables economic wide-angle solutions often required by advanced photographers.

The ‘S’ in the EF-S nomenclature stands for the term ‘short back focus’. This describes the system that allows the rear lens element of EF-S lenses to be positioned closer than normal to the image sensor of APS-C sensor cameras. A white lens mount index differentiates the lenses from other EF lenses, which retain their traditional red marking. A rear rubber ring prevents any damage in the event that an inadvertent attempt is made to mount the lenses on non-compatible cameras.

[MrForgetable]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Well, the other bad thing about the EF lenses is that you cannot use them with full-frame or analog Canons, because they would damage the mirror.

I believe you are thinking about the EF-S lenses. Those are the "digital only lenses" that only work on the 1.6x sensored cameras.

Any plain old EF lens will work on a EF mount 35mm camera or FF digital camera.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by MrForgetable

I believe you are thinking about the EF-S lenses. Those are the "digital only lenses" that only work on the 1.6x sensored cameras.

Any plain old EF lens will work on a EF mount 35mm camera or FF digital camera.

Yes. I'm not so familiar with Canon's acronyms, but yeah.

[tie]

Originally Posted by MrForgetable

so this is why people WANT full frame. the EF lenses will be what they say on the lens, no need to do decimal multiplication to find the 35mm equivalent FOV.

I don't think people want full frame just to avoid decimal multiplication. It isn't rocket science.

[Eug Wanker]

I just spent the evening at a trapeze class. It was very nice to have my 5 fps Canon 20D there with me. I went thru well over 200 pix in a very short period of time.

Unfortunately, the 5D, as nice as it is, has a ways to go yet. It can do only 3 fps. 3 fps isn't very useful for sports photography.

That said, most of the pix sucked anyway, cuz the place was so dark. Even at f/4 and ISO 3200, most of the pix suffered motion blur. The noise introduced by using ISO 3200 certainly didn't help either.

You can't really say 1.6 magnification. the image is cropped on the sensor compared to a full frame (35mm) sensor. you can crop an FF image to a 1.6x image and get the same field of view. so essentially, it is just a "cropped" image.

Yes and no. To get the same magnification with a FF camera, you have to have a much higher resolution sensor. ie. The real magnification of an 8 MP 1.6X sensor is much higher than an 8 MP full frame sensor over the same area.

If we're talking about a 12.8 MP sensor, an image cropped to an area of a 1.6X crop sensor would only yield 5 MP. ((12.8/1.6)/1.6 = 5 MP) So in other words, the Canon 20D has a pixel density that is 160% that of the 5D. To get equal resolution of the 20D over that area, a full frame camera would need to have 20.5 MP.

Mind you, that's not what I was talking about anyways. What I was talking about was the fact that it's just a pain in the ass to think that way. It's easier just to frame the picture the way you prefer to begin with.

Well, the other bad thing about the EF lenses is that you cannot use them with full-frame or analog Canons, because they would damage the mirror.

EF-S you mean. Anyways, it's irrelevant, since you can't mount an EF-S lens on an EF mount.

No, not true. Digital lenses have other boundary conditions that have to be satisfied. So old-school lenses (pro or non-pro) will result in lower quality images. The reason is, as outlined above, that sensors are sensitive to light which is incident at an angle. Lenses designed for digital systems keep the light rays more parallel to the sensor. Here's something on that on Olympus' site, but the physics behind it is the same for all manufacturers.

I think we have a (little) ways to go yet before we max out the limits of the pro lenses.

I don't think people want full frame just to avoid decimal multiplication. It isn't rocket science.

Heheh, agreed.

Actually, I think much better in 1.6X crop terms now. With 35 mm film, I would take 200 pix maybe in 3 weeks of vacation time. Now I'm happy to take more than that in an evening. I am learning much more quickly than I used to and don't natively think in 35 mm terms anymore. Unfortunately, the photo books are still written with 35 mm in mind.

[MrForgetable]

Originally Posted by tie

I don't think people want full frame just to avoid decimal multiplication. It isn't rocket science.

i didn't say that people want full frame just to avoid decimal multiplication

should have rephrased it as the lens will be what the lens advertises i guess.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by MrForgetable

i didn't say that people want full frame just to avoid decimal multiplication

should have rephrased it as the lens will be what the lens advertises i guess.

A 10-22 mm lens, is just that, a 10-22 mm lens. That the FOV is different on cameras with different sensor sizes is a different issue. Not everyone thinks in 35 mm terms anymore.

The 5D types can think in 35 mm terms. The 20D types can think in 22.5 mm terms.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

EF-S you mean. Anyways, it's irrelevant, since you can't mount an EF-S lens on an EF mount.

No, it's not irrelevant. You can't use EF-S lenses on full-frame cameras. So if you have invested some money in a 10D and bought some EF-S lenses, you can't upgrade to a 5D without buying a whole bunch of lenses.

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I think we have a (little) ways to go yet before we max out the limits of the pro lenses.

No, for digital sensors are more sensitive to bad lenses, which includes lenses that weren't designed for dslrs. It really shows now already as even the latest Canon lenses do not perform well towards the corners compared to - say - Olympus 4/3 lenses.

[PB2K]

so what did I buy today?

wow, a canon EOS 350d XT

and a seperate lens too : Tamron XR DiII LD 18-200 (1: 3.5-6.3)

I am so happy with my first dSLR

[Eug Wanker]

5D and 24-105 f/4L IS sample images here

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

No, it's not irrelevant. You can't use EF-S lenses on full-frame cameras. So if you have invested some money in a 10D and bought some EF-S lenses

The 10D is not compatible with EF-S lenses, so that's still irrelevant.

you can't upgrade to a 5D without buying a whole bunch of lenses.

In my case, a 5D would be a downgrade. 3 fps? Lower magnification? No thanks.

Anyways, I've already said that I am not interested in FF. I much prefer 1.6X crop. If I were to upgrade, I'd upgrade to another 1.6X crop camera.

No, for digital sensors are more sensitive to bad lenses, which includes lenses that weren't designed for dslrs. It really shows now already as even the latest Canon lenses do not perform well towards the corners compared to - say - Olympus 4/3 lenses.

Sounds like you've gotten caught up in the hype. Judging by the photo forums I frequent, that's just theoretical mumbo jumbo which doesn't really apply in the real world. The same corner softness that exists with dSLRs existed before with film. If you're going to have zooms, no matter how high end they are, you're going to have some compromises. Similarly, all the lenses that were crisp all the way on film to the edges are still crisp all the way to the edges on digital too.

BTW, in case you're wondering, I don't have a bias against Olympus. I use a Olympus research microscope, with two Olympus camera setups. The camera setups are not high end, but the microscope is, and I do love Olympus ergnomics. I specifically chose the Olympus setup over Leica. The Leica had slightly better optics, but the Olympus was better in almost every other way.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

5D and 24-105 f/4L IS sample images here

The 10D is not compatible with EF-S lenses, so that's still irrelevant.

But you get my point. Lenses are incompatible between cameras (because of the different sensor sizes) and you have the rather odd situation that you have less lenses available on your new shiny full-frame camera.

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

In my case, a 5D would be a downgrade. 3 fps? Lower magnification? No thanks.

For other fields it might be worth the upgrade (landscape, fashion).

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Sounds like you've gotten caught up in the hype. Judging by the photo forums I frequent, that's just theoretical mumbo jumbo which doesn't really apply in the real world. The same corner softness that exists with dSLRs existed before with film. If you're going to have zooms, no matter how high end they are, you're going to have some compromises. Similarly, all the lenses that were crisp all the way on film to the edges are still crisp all the way to the edges on digital too.

I'm not caught up in marketing hype at all. What you mean by real world, I don't know. In the real world, the 4/3 lenses are much lighter at at least comparable quality. The standard zoom lenses is very small (compared to -- say -- my former Tokina standard zoom also rated at 2.8). Also, they are much cheaper than other original manufacturer lenses, because they are easier to construct (less material, smaller imaging area). This is not mumbo-jumbo, you can see (weight, relative compactness) and feel the difference (in your wallet after paying).

However, the thing about construction of dslr lenses vs. analog slr lenses has a physical background, as I tried to elaborate above. Unfortunately, I don't know any links on that subject in English, but I'm sure it's covered in US magazines as well. And at least according to those magazines, digital sensors are more sensitive to bad lenses.

Since I also don't believe in theoretical brag fests, we can stop right here. The only thing that counts is the picture you end up taking. And as you can see from one of my posts above, I don't think Canon makes bad lenses at all.


PS I was using a microscope like that the other day (slightly different model, I think) to take a look at mircometer-sized structures. Really, really nice. It's been quite a while (more than ten years) that I used a Leica microscope, but I had no objections about the way to use them. I'm not a professional, my only tools are computer, pen and paper

[Eug Wanker]

But you get my point. Lenses are incompatible between cameras (because of the different sensor sizes) and you have the rather odd situation that you have less lenses available on your new shiny full-frame camera.

IIRC, Canon has more FF lenses available than Olympus does.

I know what you're talking about of course, but personally I don't think it's really a big deal. That Canon sells more 1.6X crop cameras than all dSLRs from Olympus and Minolta combined suggests that most consumers don't care either.

For other fields it might be worth the upgrade (landscape, fashion).

Yes, I agree. But if I did that for a living, I'd would have already had a FF or 1.3X crop Canon, and all L lenses.

And at least according to those magazines, digital sensors are more sensitive to bad lenses.

Real world usage doesn't bear this out, at least with Canon lenses. You have already said that you respect Canon lenses, so the argument that crappy lenses would be problematic is moot. If anything, people are getting more out of their EF lenses with dSLRs, simply because the dSLRs offer so much more flexibility.

PS I was using a microscope like that the other day (slightly different model, I think) to take a look at mircometer-sized structures. Really, really nice. It's been quite a while (more than ten years) that I used a Leica microscope, but I had no objections about the way to use them. I'm not a professional, my only tools are computer, pen and paper

The TV show CSI has an Olympux BX51... as a prop. They sure don't scrimp on the budget for that show...

[tooki]

Nah, it's probably product placement. Most likely they got it for free.

tooki

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

IIRC, Canon has more FF lenses available than Olympus does.

I know what you're talking about of course, but personally I don't think it's really a big deal. That Canon sells more 1.6X crop cameras than all dSLRs from Olympus and Minolta combined suggests that most consumers don't care either.

I think you misunderstood me here. I'm not making an Olympus-specific argument. Rather a non-Canon argument, more specifically, I was thinking of Nikon's strategical decision to sell cameras with a 1.5x crop factor across the line. I wasn't trying to be an Olympus zealot. So in this sense, Nikon's sales figures matter a lot more than that of Olympus and Minolta.

The only reason I would probably buy Olympus instead of the other Nikon or Canon are cheaper lenses. Although I must say, a D70s would be tempting … if it weren't for the money (or rather the lack thereof).

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Yes, I agree. But if I did that for a living, I'd would have already had a FF or 1.3X crop Canon, and all L lenses.

Real world usage doesn't bear this out, at least with Canon lenses. You have already said that you respect Canon lenses, so the argument that crappy lenses would be problematic is moot. If anything, people are getting more out of their EF lenses with dSLRs, simply because the dSLRs offer so much more flexibility.

And more to the point, any reasonably recent professional lenses from any manufacturer will beat their entry-level lenses in terms of quality.

So for all practical intents and purposes, you're right. The only thing I was trying to correct is your statement that professional lenses have headroom for new sensors. You can measure differences in the lab: using lenses which were not designed for digital slrs does have an impact on the quality. Not that this matters much in the real world, I think.

The TV show CSI has an Olympux BX51... as a prop. They sure don't scrimp on the budget for that show...

Product placement?
(This actually looks closer to the microscope I `worked' with. A friend of mine uses it for his thesis and he showed me around, although it's not the most expensive microscope he's working with. The electron microscope he uses cost a few squids more, I guess (even though I don't know the prices for that baby).)