Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 21, 2005, 10:42 PM   #1
Rui
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12
Default

I'm wondering what other peoples opinion on the EF-S Lens are.

From my understanding (which may be incorrect, please let me know if it is) they are specifically designed for canon's Non-full frame digital cameras (the rebel XT, 20D, etc...).

Now my presumption is eventually (could be 2 years, maybe 5, maybe 10, who knows) full frame digital sensors will become cheaper & much more common in all camera lines.... which would almost make the EF-S lens obsolete ..... wouldn't it?

They'd have an unusable border of optics around the image area wouldn't they?

I'm thinking of possibly getting a canon digital slr (either the rebel xt or 20D) , but thinking long term, wouldn't it make more sense to get EOS lens knowing that they'll always be full frame?

Wondering what everyone else think......

Rui is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 21, 2005, 11:10 PM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

canon has committed to the ef-s line of lenses for the foreseeable future for their consumer and prosumer line of dslrs.. therefore i would not worry about the future useability of your lens...

.....provided you stick with the consumer/prosumer line..

i think the biggest reason for going with a full frame lens is in case you decide to upgrade to a 1d/1ds series of cameras in your future..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2005, 12:44 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default


It is not only full-frame sensor cameras they won't work on.
The EF-S line is for the 1.6 crop sensors only.

The 1d-MKII pro body is a 1.3 crop camera, and they will not mount to it either.

But yes Canon and Nikon have commited to the aps-c sized sensor for the long haul.

Peter.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2005, 1:46 AM   #4
Rui
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12
Default

^^^hmmmm interesting...

Even if Canon 7 Nikon SAY they're committed, I wonder if it makes sense to commit an investment in lenses into technology that is only a matter of time before it's outdated.

I think I'd rather just buy regular EOS lenses and live with the 1.6 magnification..... although i guess they still have to (or should) be IS (Image Stabilizxation) don't they?
Rui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2005, 3:21 AM   #5
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

My view is that the APS sized sensor is the new standard for SLR cameras.

ALL Nikon DSLR's including their professional range use the small sensor. All Olympus DSLRs use a small sensor, and Minolta, and Pentax. Most commentators regard the quality of the APS sensor to be equivalent to or exceeding 35mm film under most conditions.

The real question in my view is whether Canon can afford to maintain a 24x36mm sensor on their Pro range as their marketing people say they will, and whether the technical limitations they face on FF35mm lenses mean they're going to be able to keep up with Nikon.

Those FF35mm chips are VERY expensive, mostly because yields are so low. Now chip-fab technology is not new, and there's little reason to suspect any breakthroughs in the prices of those (enormous!) 24x36mm chips. And if Canon can't keep up on price then they're really going to struggle with competing with the new Nikon D2X (and successors), which uses a smaller sensor and has image quality that is as good or better than the FF35mm chip from Canon.

There is also another big advantage to the smaller sensor; that is that the wide-angle lenses and even normal-angle lenses are much lighter, smaller and cheaper for a given level of quality than FF35mm. The wide-angle Nikon digital zooms are out-resolving the Canon wide-angle FF lenses by a long way, leaving serious landscape artists with the inescapable conclusion that the D2X is king at the moment.

For wildlife and sports photographers the 1.6 multiplier is also very useful.

Fortunately I don't see myself ever needing a better camera than the 20D or its descendants. But I certainly don't go round buying lenses just because they're full-frame. The 3rd-party manufacturers like Tamron and Sigma are not bringing out any new full-frame lenses either, all their new stuff is for small sensors.

Canon are on a technical and marketing knife-edge at the moment. Who knows which way they're going to jump? I don't.

So in my view you're asking the question the wrong way around - the real question is whether FF35mm has any future.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2005, 10:10 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 301
Default

Rui wrote:
Quote:
^^^hmmmm interesting...

Even if Canon 7 Nikon SAY they're committed, I wonder if it makes sense to commit an investment in lenses into technology that is only a matter of time before it's outdated.

I think I'd rather just buy regular EOS lenses and live with the 1.6 magnification..... although i guess they still have to (or should) be IS (Image Stabilizxation) don't they?
The "magnification" has nothing to do with the lens being EF or EF-S. It has to do with the sensor size ... and how things would compare using the same focal length when using a 35mm film camera (or a full sized sensor).

Agree with your technology statement though. I do believe that while Canon is committed to the 1.6 crop sensors, I feel that a future 20D (or 30D?) replacement could certainly have a full sized sensorsince in a couple of years: memory will be faster/cheaper, full sized sensors will be better/cheaper, CF Cards will be faster/cheaper (and possibly be replaced with something else).

To me buying a DSLR body is like buying a new PC, video cameraor television. I would expect big improvements in DSLR's by thetime I'm going to be buyinga replacement for my 20D(~3-4 years from now). I purchased my film cameras with the expectation that I would use them for many, many years (used an Oly OM-1 MD for 20 years), but I expect my DSLR to have the lifespan of a typical PC. So, for me, I won't be buying any EF-S lenses unless I get a deal I can't refuse.



Bob
BobA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2005, 10:17 PM   #7
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

i believe canon will stick with ef-s as long as they stick with the ef mount in general, therefore i believe they will all be going out at the same time.. whenever that may be..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2005, 11:02 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 301
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
So in my view you're asking the question the wrong way around - the real question is whether FF35mm has any future.
When I write this, don't get me wrong ... I really, reallylike my 20D. However, there is something about film where I feel it still has the edge. Others would disagree with me completely (and that's ok), but I feel that with ISO 100 and, say, TMax (B&W)filmI can get better resolution and final print qualitythan with my 20Dusing the same ISO.

The biggest advantage digital has for me is that it is way quicker to process prints from my PC than from my darkroom. I could spend an entire weekend making wet-chem prints, while the same can be done in a few hours using PS. Also, since I don't do color darkroom work, digital has been great. I would have to get proofs made at a good lab, then send them back to be cropped which would be very expensive and tedious ... while using digital I can take control of the process.

So, I may not believe that my 20D can produce the quality of print I could get from my 35mm film SLR's (darn close though), but that doesn't matter. I was starting to get bored with chemicals, darkroom work and all the other steps tomakegood prints. Digital has brought the enjoyment back to photography. Also, I believe that the technology can only improve while film will stay the same.

Film may eventually fade out, but it definitely still has a place for now. For how long? Hmmm ... my guess would be in 5 years there will still be film buffs, because some may still feel film has a tiny edge, but you might have to special purchase the stuff on-line at some ridiculous price.:lol:

By the way, in the December 2004 issue of EOS Magazine their survey results show that 64% of their readers still use film.So, a ways to go before film is dead.

Regards,



Bob
BobA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2005, 12:30 AM   #9
Rui
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12
Default

BobA wrote:
Quote:
To me buying a DSLR body is like buying a new PC, video camera¬*or television.¬* I would expect big improvements in DSLR's by the¬*time I'm going to be buying¬*a replacement for my 20D¬*(~3-4 years from now).¬* I purchased my film cameras with the expectation that I would use them for many, many years (used an Oly OM-1 MD for 20 years), but I expect my DSLR to have the lifespan of a typical PC.¬* So, for me, I won't be buying any EF-S lenses unless I get a deal I can't refuse.
I think this pretty much sums up my stance ATM. If I do end up going with a Canon DSLR, i'll only pick up Full frame lenses. (although i may just end up buying teh Minolta 7D and use my current Minolta lenses)


Thanks for the imput from everyone - interesting points of view from all!
Rui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2005, 1:00 AM   #10
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

BobA wrote:
Quote:
peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
So in my view you're asking the question the wrong way around - the real question is whether FF35mm has any future.
When I write this, don't get me wrong ... I really, really like my 20D. However, there is something about film where I feel it still has the edge. Others would disagree with me completely (and that's ok), but I feel that with ISO 100 and, say, TMax (B&W) film I can get better resolution and final print quality than with my 20D using the same ISO.
Bob, I wasn't very clear about what I meant, when I said FF35mm I meant the 24x36mm sensor, not film. :-)

The real point is that people keep expecting that digital progress will apply to these gigantic (in chip world) chips. I don't frankly see how it can. IBM, Intel, etc have invested huge amounts in chip fabrication and the technology is quite mature now. The capabilities of chips are going to continue to improve, but big chips have very very low yields so the common premise that "prices of the big chips will come down" IMO is quite simply mistaken. Those big chips are always going to be expensive.

So although I agree that the camera will improve and have better features, more resolution, lower noise, etc. The one thing that I am very sure of is that it won't have a bigger sensor. IMO it's far more likely that the 1 series will have a smaller sensor than the 20D replacement would have a larger.

peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:41 PM.