| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/27/2004 04:20:25 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
11/27/2004 04:22:59 PM · #2 |
Why would Canon make a new camera that's not compatible with EF-S?
|
|
|
|
11/27/2004 04:27:23 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Why would Canon make a new camera that's not compatible with EF-S? |
why would you wanna use EFS on a full frame huge sensor like that?
|
|
|
|
11/27/2004 04:29:35 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Why would Canon make a new camera that's not compatible with EF-S? |
Because the 1Ds MkII has a full-frame sensor, which means that the huge line of EF lenses work the same on it as they would on a 35mm film camera.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2004 04:33:08 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Why would Canon make a new camera that's not compatible with EF-S? |
The real question is: Why would Canon introduce a line of lenses with such a limited number of camera bodies available?
Of all the camera bodies Canon makes, only 2 (300D & 20D) accept the
EF-S lenses.
Also, the 1Ds mkII is really designed to replace med format film and provide a less expensive alternative to a digital back. The latest digital backs are 22MP and cost around $30K. That does not include the necessary MF or view camera system and lenses, both of which represent a significant expense.
Message edited by author 2004-11-27 16:41:10.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2004 04:34:25 PM · #6 |
| See this thread for another point of view on megapixels. |
|
|
|
11/27/2004 04:41:00 PM · #7 |
The EF-S series of lenses was introduced to compete with Nikon's DX series lenses -- which only work on their 1.5X-crop factor DSLRs -- because they are cheaper to produce.
Canon's reduced crop factor bodies (the 1Ds, 1D, 1Ds Mark II and 1D Mark II) cannot use these lenses because EF-S (and DX lenses) generate a much smaller imaging circle compared to a full-frame 35mm lens -- which is why they are less expensive. But it also means that if you ever upgrade to a reduced crop factor body down the road, these lenses will be useless. (And upgrading a body is much more likely than upgrading your lens collection, since the technology in the body will advance much more quickly.)
The other benefit of using a "regular" lens on a cropped body is that the weakest part the lens -- the edges -- aren't imaged. By using a full-size lens (non-DX, non EF-S), you get to effectively ignore the right side of the MTF graph.
But since the 1Ds Mark II is a 1.0X crop factor (full-frame) camera, it requires regular lenses.
Message edited by author 2004-11-27 16:46:13. |
|
|
|
11/27/2004 04:43:35 PM · #8 |
Makes sense. I was sure there had to be a real reason. :)
M
|
|
|
|
11/27/2004 04:49:12 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
16.7l Jeez! |
My first PC, a Tandy 1000, came with 128K RAM (a HUGE amount at the time). When I upgraded it to 640K (another way of saying .64 MB), which was the max, it seemed like overkill. Now I'm rattling along with 256 megabytes and need more.
Point being, it's all just numbers. I am tickled to death with my 8 MP 20D toy, but would I like to have 16? Of course! And not just for the "badass" factor that I see joked about on DPC. With that kind of resolution, why spend big bucks on high-dollar telephoto "L" lenses, when instead I could use Photoshop as a virtual "digital zoom", cropping heavily with acceptable results.
Didn't see a price on the link you posted, but I'm sure it's expensive. I'll bet, though, that it won't be too many years until 6 or 8 MP will be considered a base level for a consumer digital camera, and 16 won't seem unreasonable. |
|
|
|
11/27/2004 04:51:37 PM · #10 |
|
|
|
11/27/2004 05:00:31 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by nova:
With that kind of resolution, why spend big bucks on high-dollar telephoto "L" lenses, when instead I could use Photoshop as a virtual "digital zoom", cropping heavily with acceptable results. |
Except that your 20D has a 1.6X crop factor already, which means a 75-300mm zoom images an equivalent crop of a 120-480mm zoom. On the 1Ds Mark II, that lens is a 75-300... and to get out to 480mm, you'd need an (expensive) 500mm telephoto lens. So I don't know that wanting more megapixels just for that reason makes a lot of sense. =]
Where it does make sense is large prints, especially in the studio for commercial purposes, and when doing group portraits where you want to see detail in each person in the group, even at large sizes.
The 11MP 1Ds was already considered to produce images that were on-par with medium-format film. The next evolution of Canon's full-frame sensor just raises the bar even higher, blowing away some of the medium format digital backs in terms of price and performance. (For comparison, the PhaseOne P20 back is also 16MP, has a list price of US$16,990 for just the back -- not including the MF camera itself -- and takes one frame every 1.7 seconds, or 0.6 FPS if you'd rather express it that way. The 1Ds Mark II is 16.7MP, the US$7999 price tag includes the camera body, and it shoots 4 frames per second! A bargain for pros already shooting Canon gear.)
Message edited by author 2004-11-27 17:08:23. |
|
|
|
11/27/2004 05:25:49 PM · #12 |
Another way to think about this is that your Canon EF lens projects an image circle about 48mm in diameter. Within that image circle, the lens is capable of resolving a certain total amount of information (detail) which is dependent on the lens, and the settings used (e.g. aperture, focal length for zooms). The only way to take maximum advantage of the available detail is to use a large sensor, one that covers the largest part of the image circle. Now, in order to really capture that detail, you need a pixel pitch that is roughly equivalent to (or slightly smaller than) the resolving power of the lens, which turns out to be in the area of 7-8 microns, which is approximately the pitch being used in the 1DS II (7.2 microns). We can therefore conclude that adding significantly more pixels will probably be of limited use, except with the very sharpest lenses. Perhaps 20-22 Mpx is the reasonable top end for a 35mm full-frame DSLR, without improvement in lens resolution.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2004 06:59:37 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by mavrik:
Why would Canon make a new camera that's not compatible with EF-S? |
The real question is: Why would Canon introduce a line of lenses with such a limited number of camera bodies available? |
Probably because Canon has found out that fullframe sensors are pretty expensive to produce and are unlikely to come down in price soon (say next 5 years). So the future semi-pro EOS models (in the USD1500 pricerange, thus excluding a possible Elan D with a bigger sensor and a higher price) will be EF-S compatible and therefore have a 1.6x sensor (and imho there is nothing wrong with that).
1.6x or DX will always be cheaper to produce than 1.3x (something Canon only uses because the 1.0x readout is too slow for high framerates) or 1.0x and therefore be the biggest market. Given the quality of the 1.6x EOS models and imho the D70 at this moment, they all produce very good prints up to poster sizes; the future of APS for amateur, soccermum and travel shooters is pretty good and creates a market for EF-S/DX lenses.
Pro market is something different, but EF-S never targeted that market anyway, unlike Nikon DX.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2004 07:00:58 PM · #14 |
| Mamiya ZD 22MP medium format camera (sensor is 36x48mm). |
|
|
|
11/27/2004 07:33:44 PM · #15 |
The real question is: Is there a discernible difference in image quality between full frame and smaller sensors, and even between 1.3x and 1.6x sensors?
Also, is technology going to allow smaller sensors that have smaller photodiodes to catch up in quality to the larger sensors that have larger photodiodes? |
|
|
|
11/27/2004 07:34:33 PM · #16 |
DOWN WITH THE MEGAPIXELS!!!
WHO NEEDS THEM ANYWAYS!?!
LETS REVOLT AND ONLY USE TOY CAMERAS!!!
(sorry for yelling)
:-D
|
|
|
|
11/27/2004 07:50:33 PM · #17 |
| Speaking of the size of sensors, the new Mamiya 22MP digital SLR which uses their great 645 lenses is actually twice the size as a full frame 35mm sensor. |
|
|
|
11/28/2004 12:44:10 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The real question is: Is there a discernible difference in image quality between full frame and smaller sensors, and even between 1.3x and 1.6x sensors? |
Oh yes.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Also, is technology going to allow smaller sensors that have smaller photodiodes to catch up in quality to the larger sensors that have larger photodiodes? |
That would require lenses that have higher resolving power to match. Lenses are in fact improving, but that adds cost as well. See my post above for discussion of why full-frame sensors have an inherent advantage in how much total detail can be resolved in an image.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/13/2025 10:05:13 AM EDT.
