| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/11/2005 11:39:12 AM · #1 |
I know that they are the newest craze right now. Canon has them in EF-S, Tokina has it for the 12-24, Tamron's Dii series, Sigma's DC series, and I've not kept up with other makers, but they all seem to be making lenses for the APS sized sensors.
I didn't think I'd upgrade but when I did, I find that I cannot use my Tokina on the new camera. I like the lens, don't get me wrong, but with talks of Canon slowly moving to FF sensors except the Rebel should be a warning to anyone getting a lens made for cropped sensors as your lens may be incompatible/cause vingetting as you upgrade to a FF sensor (which may be the only option in a few years).
Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 11:59:18 AM · #2 |
| What makes you think that FF will be the only option in a few years? Won't there be a market for the APS sized sensor and lenses to match? |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 12:02:38 PM · #3 |
i'm really hoping for at least 1 more 1.25x crop camera... :-D
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 12:20:51 PM · #4 |
I'd love for the 30D to come out with stats similar to the old 1DmkII and the 20D bodystyle. Say 5-6FPS with 8MP and 1.3x crop factor. I'd pay for that. I have been considering saving up for a 2nd hand 1dMk2 (saw a mk1 in the shop a few weeks ago - sold :() instead of a 20D as I like the idea of a 1.3x. It can't use EF-S, but I don't have any lenses on my dream list that are.
I heard that the Tokina 12-24 was EF compatible, not EF-S only.
Edit. Read your original post a little closer. Perhaps the person who told me this was mistaken, but perhaps it is another chipping issue. 3rd party lenses are often incompatible with newer cameras until they get a new chip upgrade. Did you email Tokina on this issue?
I don't think they are a craze, they are just filling the market gap. Really wide lenses usually don't work with 1.6 crop cameras for reasons related to chipping and physical dimensions. The combination of a need for really wide options plus the lack of current options means a bunch of new lenses are coming out.
The Canon line carries the 10-22 and the 60mm f2.8 macro that are notable.
I posted a thread before asking about the 12-24 and was told that it was usable on a FF or a 1D series. I will see if I can find it.
Message edited by author 2005-10-11 12:24:13. |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 12:30:04 PM · #5 |
For Nikon users, as I understand it the likelihood that Nikon will go for FF sensors in the future is small. The size of the front opening on the body in Nikon cameras is much smaller than that on Canon bodies and I was told that it would be difficult (if not impossible) to have a FF sensor on Nikon bodies. If that's the case then this obsolesence issue is unlikely to affect Nikon users.
I have no idea if any of this is correct. Just passing on what the B&H people said to me.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 12:33:43 PM · #6 |
I believe the 1.x crop cameras will be a thing for quite a few years to come (and even longer for digicams) but that for DSLR use they will eventually fade into relative obscurity, just like the Pentium II has in the computer world. My guess is that within 10 years or so, reduced frame lenses and the cameras that support them will slowly become collectors items.
Seriously.
Once upon a time I wasn't sure if FF made sense for digital. Image quality is plenty good for most purposes at 3mp. But the push for FF was made and now with a consumer model on the market the die is cast and reduced frame 35mm sensors are destined to slowly fade away into sunset.
Does this mean you should not buy a reduced frame lens? Well, that's up to you. It's a throw-away world when it comes to electronics (and these days, lenses ARE electronics--without they become junk for most folks) so what the heck. |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 12:43:02 PM · #7 |
I would lean toward a FF compatible lens, IF such a beast exists for my needs. I have a Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC that is for APS size sensors only. It was some $250 cheaper (and faster, more range) than my other choise, the canon 17-40 4L.
Might i regret this in the future? Could be, who knows. I think the 1.6 sensor will be around a while, so i will get several years use from this and perhaps sell it for some money in the end.
Also, i figure the rebel i have will be a backup camera one day and not be sold off, or well, not until it is probably worth $100, and then if it still works i'll keep it rather than get $100 for it anyway. |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 12:48:23 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
I heard that the Tokina 12-24 was EF compatible, not EF-S only.
Edit. Read your original post a little closer. Perhaps the person who told me this was mistaken, but perhaps it is another chipping issue. 3rd party lenses are often incompatible with newer cameras until they get a new chip upgrade. Did you email Tokina on this issue?
I posted a thread before asking about the 12-24 and was told that it was usable on a FF or a 1D series. I will see if I can find it. |
I understand that this lens is EF mount, as opposed to EF-s, so it can, indeed, be used on a FF camera. The problem appears to lie in the fact that this lens has a smaller imaging circle than that required for FF (i.e. optimised for the 'crop' cameras), so vignetting occurs on a camera with a bigger sensor than APS.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 12:49:22 PM · #9 |
I was aware of this issue when I bought my two ef-s lenses. The extraordinary quality of the optics in the 10-22mm canon lens coupled witht he very reasonable price was sufficient reason to buy it even knowing I could not carry it upward if I ever did go full frame in the future. It won't be for at least a couple years, and I'll have gotten my use out of the lens to justify having bought it.
With the 60mm macro the tradeoff was in weight/portability. Plus I find the 60mm a better walkaround focal length than 100mm, on the cropped camera.
Remember, there's a REASON they are designing these EF-S lenses, and that is that by decreasing the size of the image circle theya re able to significantly improve the quality of the image withing that circle, especially on the extreme wide angle end.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 01:02:29 PM · #10 |
| While the cost of FF image sensors may come down in price, camera bodies may not because you still will need a fairly large body to house it in, and the prices of those large and heavy lenses will not come down in price. So the overall cost of the system will still be pretty high. By far, the largest segment of the new to buy a DSLR will come not from professionals, but from consumers and hobbyists that don't want to pay an arm and a leg, and don't want to carry around huge glass. They may prefer the streamlined forms of a more portable system and reduced costs. Image quality will not be that much better with FF as noise reduction is pretty much under control as evidenced in APS sensors by the C 20D (APS sized sensor). YOu may gain at the lens short end, but sacrifice at the long end. Ever see the size and feel the weight of a 700mm-L lens? Besides, you're going to need a very sturdy tripod to carry around to hold one of those. And only the best glass will be able to take advantage of the corners and edges of FF sensors. |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 01:19:43 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by joezl:
For Nikon users, as I understand it the likelihood that Nikon will go for FF sensors in the future is small. The size of the front opening on the body in Nikon cameras is much smaller than that on Canon bodies and I was told.... (snipped a bit by Azrifel) Just passing on what the B&H people said to me. |
Kodak built two fully functioning 35mm sensor cameras for the Nikon F-mount, using a non-pro Nikon body as the basis (14N and SLR/n).
Here is Dpreview's 14n conclusion, with in the cons no mention about vignetting, corner softness or lens incompatability as problems. The main problem was the sensor itself (moiré and noise).
There is no problem with the mount to use a 35mm sensor in a Nikon body.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 01:23:11 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by joezl:
For Nikon users, as I understand it the likelihood that Nikon will go for FF sensors in the future is small. The size of the front opening on the body in Nikon cameras is much smaller than that on Canon bodies and I was told.... (snipped a bit by Azrifel) Just passing on what the B&H people said to me. |
Kodak built two fully functioning 35mm sensor cameras for the Nikon F-mount, using a non-pro Nikon body as the basis (14N and SLR/n).
Here is Dpreview's 14n conclusion, with in the cons no mention about vignetting, corner softness or lens incompatability as problems. The main problem was the sensor itself (moiré and noise).
There is no problem with the mount to use a 35mm sensor in a Nikon body. |
why go through that much trouble in explaination... NIKON MAKES FILM CAMERAS.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 01:24:43 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by joezl:
For Nikon users, as I understand it the likelihood that Nikon will go for FF sensors in the future is small. The size of the front opening on the body in Nikon cameras is much smaller than that on Canon bodies and I was told.... (snipped a bit by Azrifel) Just passing on what the B&H people said to me. |
Kodak built two fully functioning 35mm sensor cameras for the Nikon F-mount, using a non-pro Nikon body as the basis (14N and SLR/n).
Here is Dpreview's 14n conclusion, with in the cons no mention about vignetting, corner softness or lens incompatability as problems. The main problem was the sensor itself (moiré and noise).
There is no problem with the mount to use a 35mm sensor in a Nikon body. |
why go through that much trouble in explaination... NIKON MAKES FILM CAMERAS. |
Yeah, but he's referring to the Nikon digital bodies, which are smaller than the FF canon bodies.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 01:34:39 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
There is no problem with the mount to use a 35mm sensor in a Nikon body. |
I think part of this is because of this interview with Nikon R&D Director Tomino Naoki at Photokina 2004 (which took place from 27/Sep - 3/Oct). Quoting a particularly relevant question here:
R: You said during Photokina 2004 press release that a full frame product can be developed if there is customer requirement. Specifically, is there a related research going on?
TN: Regarding 35mm full frame we are going through a study of possibility. However, full frame is definitely not cheap. How many customers are going to purchase such over 1 million Yen camera? This is a business issue. Thus we want to wait for a while. Last year we release DX lenses, now we announce the intention of "at least three year development with DX standard", that's what we are going to...
Notice he says that they are "going through a study of possibility", which could be interpreted several ways. Some have pointed out that what may have been acceptable for Kodak's full-frame implementation may not necessarily meet the same quality levels that Nikon has.
Message edited by author 2005-10-11 13:37:05. |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 01:35:01 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
why go through that much trouble in explaination... NIKON MAKES FILM CAMERAS. |
True, but some people think that Nikon's smaller mount will cause the light to hit the sensor at a to low angle in the corners. To low angles might be a problem for sensors and not for film, but good microlenses on the photodiodes solve that and the angle is not that low.
I don't care if the above theory has some truth in it; Kodak did it, so can Nikon.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 01:42:12 PM · #16 |
Did a little backchecking manually through the forums. I think it was you who I remembered as saying they had that lens and the 1d MkIIn. I therefore assumed it was cool. Oops.
Leaf, a 10d user mentioned that the 12-24 is ok on the 10d, which is not EF-S compatible. That is hardly conclusive when considering if it is usable on 1.3x, however, I still think you are looking at a chip issue. Still recommending an email to Tokina first.
What errors did you have when trying it on your 1d?
Regarding the Nikon makes Film comment, that was my first thought as well because we are talking about the size of the nikon lens mount and the distance to and actual size of film in comparison with a Full Frame sensor.
I think it was in that actual review though that mentions the reason they are concerned with this issue is that Digital sensors suffer from a little more angle of reflectivity issues than film itself does. With the microlenses and photosites, I believe there is a slight drop in ability when light is coming in from more extreme angles. This makes digital sensors more susceptible to loss of quality at really wide angles, made worse when the sensor is bigger and therefore closer to the lens.
35mm and FF are the same size and distance from the lens, but do not share other physical characteristics.
Edit: was a bit slow in posting this. Others have said basically the same thing. Wasn't trying to double up.
Message edited by author 2005-10-11 13:45:09. |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 01:43:37 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
(Azrifel has cut off the quote)
Notice he says that they are "going through a study of possibility". And what may be acceptable for Kodak may not necessarily be the same level that Nikon would accept from a quality perspective. |
True, the sensor in the Kodak was not what one would expect for 'pro' use (Kodak said it was a Pro camera).
I think (without any prove) that Nikon has the technique and knowhow to make/co develop a good pro FF sensor, but because of their smaller market have much higher costs compared to Canon. The study of possibility imho refers more to market acceptance of price vs what you get. But I got the feeling that that was what you wanted to say with that interview quote.
Message edited by author 2005-10-11 13:45:12.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 01:53:55 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Leaf, a 10d user mentioned that the 12-24 is ok on the 10d, which is not EF-S compatible. That is hardly conclusive when considering if it is usable on 1.3x, however, I still think you are looking at a chip issue. Still recommending an email to Tokina first.
|
I don't think that this is a chipping issue, it's an issue to do with the imaging circle of the lens. It will, indeed, mount on any EF camera and not cause any physical problems (EF-s lenses, after all, protrude into the camera more). The problems that will be encountered will be vignetting due to the smaller image circle. The Sigma 12-24 will do FF (plenty of samples at DPReview). I'd like to claim that I was clever when I bought mine and realised this, but the truth of the matter is that I bought it before the Tamron came out.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 02:19:53 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
I believe the 1.x crop cameras will be a thing for quite a few years to come (and even longer for digicams) but that for DSLR use they will eventually fade into relative obscurity, just like the Pentium II has in the computer world. My guess is that within 10 years or so, reduced frame lenses and the cameras that support them will slowly become collectors items.
Seriously. |
I respectfully disagree 100%. APS-C cameras outsell FF cameras by 30 to 1 according to dpchallenge.com. (And I even counted the 1.3x cameras with the FF) APS-C is the new 135 format, 135 is the new medium format. Nikon has 12MP 1.5x crop camera, Olympus will have 11MP 2x crop camera next year. And while the 16MP 135 Canon 1Ds is still the king resolution-wise, people are starting to ask how many MP the do really need?
We all know that bigger is almost always better, when it comes to film/resolutioin, medium format always delivered much better output than 35mm, but 135 was still the most sold SLR format in the world ever since the introduction of the 35mm SLR in 1949.
Message edited by author 2005-10-11 14:21:34.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 02:24:42 PM · #20 |
With regard to Nikon and FF cams, it's my view that they will be forced by the market to go there sooner or later. I don't think Nikon will be satisfied with just the consumer/prosumer DSLR market, and that is where the 1.5/1.6 crop (APS-C) cams will dominate.
The APS-C format will continue to provide a very attractive alternative for lower cost and smaller size/weight. Unlike APS-C film cameras, which never quite took off, we now have a boatload of APS-C DSLRs in the market, and a large population that understands what they are capable of. It's a near certainty that lenses intended specifically for these cams will continue to proliferate, providing good optics at smaller size/weight and lower price than their FF counterparts. The compatibility of these cams with FF lenses is icing on the cake.
It's also a near-certainty, IMO, that the pro DSLR world will be dominated by FF cams. Canon's stated direction is to move toward two sensor sizes, FF and APS-C, with a phaseout of 1.25-crop cams. If Nikon wants to play in the Pro DSLR game, they MUST go FF at some point.
For someone who does not see themselves migrating to FF, buying EF-S or third party equivalent is geed sense if it geves the optical quality they desire. The Canon 10-22 is a great example, it delivers excellent performance and will hold resale value since there will continue to be cams that support EF-S. Canon would not launch a whole separate lens line if they did not see themselves being in it for the long haul. The only risk is that APS-C DSLRs fail in the marketplace, and I believe we're past the point where we have to worry about broad market acceptance.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 02:41:30 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by jonr:
Originally posted by mcmurma:
I believe the 1.x crop cameras will be a thing for quite a few years to come (and even longer for digicams) but that for DSLR use they will eventually fade into relative obscurity, just like the Pentium II has in the computer world. My guess is that within 10 years or so, reduced frame lenses and the cameras that support them will slowly become collectors items.
Seriously. |
I respectfully disagree 100%. APS-C cameras outsell FF cameras by 30 to 1 according to dpchallenge.com. (And I even counted the 1.3x cameras with the FF) APS-C is the new 135 format, 135 is the new medium format. Nikon has 12MP 1.5x crop camera, Olympus will have 11MP 2x crop camera next year. And while the 16MP 135 Canon 1Ds is still the king resolution-wise, people are starting to ask how many MP the do really need?
We all know that bigger is almost always better, when it comes to film/resolutioin, medium format always delivered much better output than 35mm, but 135 was still the most sold SLR format in the world ever since the introduction of the 35mm SLR in 1949. |
The problem, as I see it, really has little to do with what consumers need--it's what they think they need. 3 years ago on this site only a handful of ppl even had a DSLR. Now they are as common as flies. FOr the active enthusiast, they are the norm.
FOr years consumers have thought they needed FF digital sensors. Well now they can have it. And as the prices come down, more and more of them will. For the active enthusiast it will become the norm.
Actually, it makes sense. The technology is simply catching up to the 35mm format. The SLR form factor and all the legacy glass out there is still applicable to todays cameras, so why not use them? As consumers, I believe that we'll stick with this format rather than develop a new one. Of course, there will always be exceptions. The 4/3rds system is a case in point, but again, it's all disposable. Just like that old Pentium II. |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 02:57:24 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
If Nikon wants to play in the Pro DSLR game, they MUST go FF at some point.
|
This may be dependent on what pro genre is being served. For instance, imo, photojournalists and nature/wildlife/landscape photographers will benefit greatly from carrying smaller bodies and lenses. And image quality differences may become,and are becoming, negligible as is proved with increased noise performance from the APS sized sensors in the 350XT and 20D Canons. I guess if you want to print at billboard sizes then FF will be the way to go. You also don't need FF for wide angled shots. Olympus offers a (35mm equivalent) 14 to 28mm lens that is very high quality with no degradation at the corners or edges. The difference is that the light from that lens (as for all 4/3rds lenses) comes straight on, rather than the 35mm legacy lenses of Canon and Nikon that hit the sensor at oblique angles.
Point is that APS sized sensors are probably here to stay, for many reasons, and will share the market with Full framers. There is room for everybody. |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 03:33:13 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Point is that APS sized sensors are probably here to stay, for many reasons, and will share the market with Full framers. There is room for everybody. |
I don't think so.
The APS size may enjoy a number years beyond the wide-spread acceptance of FF digital sensors, but as soon as consumers are faced with paying X amount more (where X is directly equivalant to the size of your ego) for the full frame DSLR then they will do it, whether they need it or not. Even it means buying some new lenses to go with it.
Keep in mind I'm talking 10 years down the road here. I think FF will be common in 3-5 years, and will share the market with reduced sensors for at least that long. After that, it gets iffy. |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 09:11:45 PM · #24 |
"The technology of image capture and the design of lenses is closely related. A lens designed for imagery with silver halide crystals is not at its best when employed for imagery with solid-state pixels.
"Size of the sensor area and size of the individual pixels (grain clumps) are less important in the solid-state sensor than in the silver halide emulsion.
"A lens designed for silver halide recording can be relatively small compared to sensor area.
"A lens designed for solid-state recording must be bulky in relation to sensor area.
"If we want the same image performance with solid-state imagery that we have now with the best of silver halide performance, we need very bulky lens designs.
"A large sensor size in solid-state technology allows for a bigger print size, but not for better image quality.
"The image embedded in silver halide crystals is bound to follow physical/optical laws.
"The image defined in a computer file is governed by mathematical rules only.
"In the solid-state world sensor size has less importance as a criterion for image quality than in the silver halide world.
"In the solid-state world size of the lens has the utmost importance as a criterion for image quality.
"A large (solid-state) sensor size coupled to a lens system designed for silver halide capture will deliver less image quality than a small solid-state sensor size coupled to bulky lenses designed for optimum performance for that recording technique.
"Or in plain words:
"A Canon 2.5/50mm macro lens and Techpan 35mm film will bring comparable image quality as a Canon 2.8/60mm and a eight Mp solid-state sensor.
"A Canon 2.5/50mm macro lens and a 16 Mp 24x36mm sensor will bring less image quality than a Canon 2.8/60mm and a eight Mp solid-state sensor with an area of 17x 24mm."
From this article. |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 09:41:35 PM · #25 |
Gee, that was such a strangely slanted article that I am at a loss for words. Surely you don't believe all that tripe.
Mr. Puts, to be quite short about it, is a madman. He is a maniacal follower of the classic rangefinder camera (Leica) and still uses (gasp) FILM. What a 21st century freak!
No, seriously though... I can forgive that he still uses film. I have some as well. But I must point out that even though he purports to be exploring digital, the only reason he does so is to BASH IT.
His arguments are so deeply personal to him and the rest of the FILM CULT that I can not comment further. It would be a waste of time. |
|
