Future of DO technology and Canon lenses

[jeminijoseph]

Does anybody have any information about the future of DO technology and future of Canon lenses? I know with 75-300 IS lens canon made an entry into revolutionary era of IS lenses back in 95. Now is it 75-300 IS DO? If this is going to be the future then how soon a 5LB 500/4 IS DO will come out?
Is that going to be very expensive or same price as current model?
Any rumors or official statements?

Thanks in advance

 

[Jim Gregerson]

Does anybody have any information about the future of DO technology
and future of Canon lenses? I know with 75-300 IS lens canon made
an entry into revolutionary era of IS lenses back in 95. Now is it
75-300 IS DO? If this is going to be the future then how soon a 5LB
500/4 IS DO will come out?
Is that going to be very expensive or same price as current model?
Any rumors or official statements?

Thanks in advance

I don't know, but I am going to buy one when it comes out. I will let you kknow after I have it for a few weeks.

http://www.showtelinc.com/aphoto2.htm
Jim Gregerson

 

[jeminijoseph]

Thanks Jim. Is the 70-300 worth for 1200-1300?
I wish if it was a f/4 constant..

Does anybody have any information about the future of DO technology
and future of Canon lenses? I know with 75-300 IS lens canon made
an entry into revolutionary era of IS lenses back in 95. Now is it
75-300 IS DO? If this is going to be the future then how soon a 5LB
500/4 IS DO will come out?
Is that going to be very expensive or same price as current model?
Any rumors or official statements?

Thanks in advance

I don't know, but I am going to buy one when it comes out. I will
let you kknow after I have it for a few weeks.

http://www.showtelinc.com/aphoto2.htm
Jim Gregerson

--
Jemini Joseph

'Neither be proud or ashamed of your
religion, race or sex because none of
the above was not your achievement, but
just a donation by the GOD'.
http://www.color-pictures.com

 

[PeaceFrog]

Not to me, but it really has my curiosity going so I will probably end up getting one before too long even if it is at that huge price just because I really want to see how it performs.

Greg

--

 

[Ben_Egbert]

Just speculating here, but I think the trend will be towards cameras with excellent low-noise/high-ISO performance. Lenses with very high image quality, but especially in the middle and at f4 and above. Crop factors settling in around1.3, which makes corner drop-off less critical.

There will obviously be a need for fast lenses, but they will become more specialized. The trend I see will allow photographers to get high quality images without paying the very steep price penalty for fast glass. I am basing my own lens purchase strategy on this. My photography will be more deliberate, tripods/flash in place of speed.

It is my suspicion that the method of using shallow depth of field to make the subject sharp is just a technique that has developed to overcome equipment inadequacy. I almost always want the scene to look like what my eyes see. That is, everywhere I look is in focus, this is what I will work on. For those special occasions where I want a different image, I will buy the equipment that produces it, but that is not the norm, and I must ask if I can afford to pursue that?

Sports and low-light photographers will still need fast lenses, although good high ISO performance will help. They will still need to pay more to get fast lenses.

Hmm, maybe the cameras also need to improve their ability to focus at f8 or higher.

Anyway, DO could well fit the lens part of this future.

Ben

 

[PeaceFrog]

Humm, interesting thoughts. My idea of the future is more along the lines that the crop factor will settle in around 1x and that fast lenses will continue to be important. Your eyes actually do see only a small portion of the image in focus. The reason it seems that more of the image is in focus is that your eyes “autofocus” extremely quickly so everywhere you look seems to be in focus. I am not sure what inadequacies you are referring to about current lenses that would require you to use shallow DOF to make the image look sharp. When I stop down my lenses the images I get are very sharp, sharper most of the time than with the same lenses at wide apertures. I happen to like the look of shallow DOF images. For one thing it is very effective at hiding cluttered backgrounds and focusing the attention of the viewer on the subject of the photograph. Of course fast lenses can also be stopped down to yield large DOF.

As far as the future of DO is concerned I think that Canon is definitely moving toward making more and more DO lenses. Right now the technology is very new and there are lots of difficulties to iron out but I am sure with experience the lenses will get better in quality and will become less expensive than their non-DO counterparts.

Greg

--

 

[Jaddie Dodd]

Dear Friends

Please pardon me for asking what is surely an elementary question, but what does "diffractive optics" mean? Are there any inherent advantages and/or disadvantages with a lens that employs diffractive optics?

Thank you for educating me.

--
Sincerely,
Jaddie

 

[alistairsyme]

As you said, fast lenses can be stopped down, but not vice versa. The trend to slow zooms is prbably ok for most photographers, but I worry that it's at the expense of any future development of primes. I'm looking forward to in-camera anti-shake, so that it can be combined with existing fast prime lenses. I have serious doubts about full-frame ever becoming more than a niche, though. I'd like to see a focal length reducer (sort of the opposite of a teleconverter) for APS cameras.

Humm, interesting thoughts. My idea of the future is more along
the lines that the crop factor will settle in around 1x and that
fast lenses will continue to be important. Your eyes actually do
see only a small portion of the image in focus. The reason it
seems that more of the image is in focus is that your eyes
“autofocus” extremely quickly so everywhere you look
seems to be in focus. I am not sure what inadequacies you are
referring to about current lenses that would require you to use
shallow DOF to make the image look sharp. When I stop down my
lenses the images I get are very sharp, sharper most of the time
than with the same lenses at wide apertures. I happen to like the
look of shallow DOF images. For one thing it is very effective at
hiding cluttered backgrounds and focusing the attention of the
viewer on the subject of the photograph. Of course fast lenses can
also be stopped down to yield large DOF.

 

[Ben_Egbert]

Humm, interesting thoughts. My idea of the future is more along
the lines that the crop factor will settle in around 1x and that
fast lenses will continue to be important. Your eyes actually do
see only a small portion of the image in focus. The reason it
seems that more of the image is in focus is that your eyes
“autofocus” extremely quickly so everywhere you look
seems to be in focus.

yep, thats pretty much what I am looking for, regardless of how it happens.

I am not sure what inadequacies you are

referring to about current lenses that would require you to use
shallow DOF to make the image look sharp.

Well if you could just have every item in-focus there would be no inadaquacy. But there are things like DOF, using hyper-focus, poor resolution at edges etc. It takes more expensive lenses to overcome these things, or, as in my scenareo, using a tripod, high ISO and limiting to the sweet part of the lens and stopping down while keeping a high enough shutter speed.

When I stop down my

lenses the images I get are very sharp, sharper most of the time
than with the same lenses at wide apertures.

You probably have expensive lenses. So my idea is that we get these results with less expensive (not cheap) and smaller lenses. We give up only two things. That being fast, and sharp to the corners which we don't use because of the crop. I still want good color, and very sharp in my field of view. I see a big difference between my L-lenses and my 28-135 even when it is stopped down.

I happen to like the

look of shallow DOF images. For one thing it is very effective at
hiding cluttered backgrounds and focusing the attention of the
viewer on the subject of the photograph. Of course fast lenses can
also be stopped down to yield large DOF.

I may learn to like this look as well, but I realize it has a price.

As far as the future of DO is concerned I think that Canon is
definitely moving toward making more and more DO lenses. Right now
the technology is very new and there are lots of difficulties to
iron out but I am sure with experience the lenses will get better
in quality and will become less expensive than their non-DO
counterparts.

Greg

--

 

[PeaceFrog]

Check this link out, it explains it more effectively than I probably could:

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/technology/diffractive.html

Greg
--

 

[Eric Sorensen]

For what it's worth...

I don't see too much improvement in lens technology. I think the real improvement will be in having digital cameras get noise-free images at ISO 1600, 3200, and even 6400 or higher. Also, as mentioned earlier, in-camera anti-shake, and having it work in conjunction with in-lens anti-shake to produce 4-6 stops improvement. That would be a nice trick!

I also think lenses will go the way of 4/3 system or something similar (smaller lenses for smaller sensors). The crop factor is a waste of glass for digital cameras with crop factors. And Technology will improve so we won't need a 35mm-size sensor to get a 50 megapixal image at a noise-free ISO 6400.

At the same time, I don't see Canon dropping their EF mount anytime soon.

 

[SmithKirkland]

Thanks for the website link. I found the explanation that they use a diffraction grating "very" interesting. In my humble experience, diffraction gratings are usually reflective type mirrors, that have scribe lines that are approx 1mm apart (of course this can change by design and wavelength) I haven't seen any transparent diffraction gratings except for acousto optic modulators (which can behave like a grating) which I'm unsure if these lenses are designed this way ... I wonder if they were just meaning a "fresnel" type of lens array .... interesting.

PS - Yeah, my background is in lasers & optics.

Randy

 

[PeaceFrog]

If you do a search on Canon and diffractive optics there is some more detailed information available. Also if you check out the Canon CPS Europe web site I believe there is an interview with the creators of the 400mm f/4 DO lens that is a very interesting read.

Greg
--

 

[banzai]

There does seem to be a trend towards faster ISOs and more modest glass speed.

However the faster ISO argument leads us back towards full frame sensors. My understanding is that noise is highly correlated with the distance between each photo receptor site. If they are packed in too tightly together, there will be lots of crosstalk (for lack of a better term) which results in noise. The big deal about the Mars rover's digital camera is that its receptors are placed quite far from each other, resulting in a low res, but incredibly clean image.

So if we want a Canon CMOS that is more than 6.3MP but have the same noise characteristics as the 10D/300D, it'll almost have to be larger. Cramming more receptors in the same footprint will boost resolution but significantly boost noise. This is likely the reason why Canon's higher-end sensors are 1.3x FOV - higher res with low noise requires the larger size.

Just a ballpark guess, but I think the upper limit to this technology will be somewhere around a 14MP full-frame sensor. After that noise will take over and any extra resolution won't be worth the noise penalty.

As for the "convenience" of the 1.3x/1.6x sensors eliminating the bad portions of the lens, eh. Not a compelling argument for me. Why not just have a full-frame sensor and give the photographer the choice as to whether or not s/he needs to crop the edges? A 1.3x/1.6x FOV is not a "feature". It's a limitation.

 

[PeaceFrog]

Here are a couple of other interesting links about DO

http://www.canon.com/technology/interview/lens/

http://www.cps.canon-europe.com/articles/products/EF400mmF4DO/index.jsp?articleId=6065&pageId=1

Greg

--

 

[David Kieltyka]

It is my suspicion that the method of using shallow depth of field
to make the subject sharp is just a technique that has developed to
overcome equipment inadequacy.

"Inadequacy" is the wrong word. It implies getting everything in focus is objectively "better" than shallow DOF. This is simply not so. When you talk about DOF you're talking about æsthetics, not objectivity. You can choose to have shallow DOF or you can choose deep DOF. Neither is "better" than the other. "Constraint" would be a better, more neutral, word. Photographers have learned to put the characteristics of their equipment to creative use. This is a good thing.

I almost always want the scene to look like what my eyes see. That is,
everywhere I look is in focus, this is what I will work on.

Actually your eyes have limited DOF too. But our brains tend to filter out the out-of-focus areas. Sitting now in my office, looking at my PC monitor in front of a large window, if I pay attention to the periphery of my vision I can tell everything through the window is blurred. Camera lenses don't do any such filtering, thus OOF areas are more obvious.

-Dave-

 

[PeaceFrog]

I completely agree with you,

Greg

There does seem to be a trend towards faster ISOs and more modest
glass speed.

However the faster ISO argument leads us back towards full frame
sensors. My understanding is that noise is highly correlated with
the distance between each photo receptor site. If they are packed
in too tightly together, there will be lots of crosstalk (for lack
of a better term) which results in noise. The big deal about the
Mars rover's digital camera is that its receptors are placed quite
far from each other, resulting in a low res, but incredibly clean
image.

So if we want a Canon CMOS that is more than 6.3MP but have the
same noise characteristics as the 10D/300D, it'll almost have to be
larger. Cramming more receptors in the same footprint will boost
resolution but significantly boost noise. This is likely the reason
why Canon's higher-end sensors are 1.3x FOV - higher res with low
noise requires the larger size.

Just a ballpark guess, but I think the upper limit to this
technology will be somewhere around a 14MP full-frame sensor. After
that noise will take over and any extra resolution won't be worth
the noise penalty.

As for the "convenience" of the 1.3x/1.6x sensors eliminating the
bad portions of the lens, eh. Not a compelling argument for me. Why
not just have a full-frame sensor and give the photographer the
choice as to whether or not s/he needs to crop the edges? A
1.3x/1.6x FOV is not a "feature". It's a limitation.

--

 

[Eric Sorensen]

I really think technology will overcome the current limitation of photo-sensor site size in regards to noise. It may be a computer decoding of the image. Or a senor that consists of several layers to trap all photons at all wavelengths, then stitching them together electronically to get a noise-free low-light image. I am glad there are smarter people than me trying to find answers to these challanges - but history tells us there are very, very few roadblocks when it comes to computers and technology. Time wil tell!

There does seem to be a trend towards faster ISOs and more modest
glass speed.

However the faster ISO argument leads us back towards full frame
sensors. My understanding is that noise is highly correlated with
the distance between each photo receptor site. If they are packed
in too tightly together, there will be lots of crosstalk (for lack
of a better term) which results in noise. The big deal about the
Mars rover's digital camera is that its receptors are placed quite
far from each other, resulting in a low res, but incredibly clean
image.

So if we want a Canon CMOS that is more than 6.3MP but have the
same noise characteristics as the 10D/300D, it'll almost have to be
larger. Cramming more receptors in the same footprint will boost
resolution but significantly boost noise. This is likely the reason
why Canon's higher-end sensors are 1.3x FOV - higher res with low
noise requires the larger size.

Just a ballpark guess, but I think the upper limit to this
technology will be somewhere around a 14MP full-frame sensor. After
that noise will take over and any extra resolution won't be worth
the noise penalty.

As for the "convenience" of the 1.3x/1.6x sensors eliminating the
bad portions of the lens, eh. Not a compelling argument for me. Why
not just have a full-frame sensor and give the photographer the
choice as to whether or not s/he needs to crop the edges? A
1.3x/1.6x FOV is not a "feature". It's a limitation.

 

[alistairsyme]

Well if you could just have every item in-focus there would be no
inadaquacy. But there are things like DOF, using hyper-focus, poor
resolution at edges etc. It takes more expensive lenses to overcome
these things, or, as in my scenareo, using a tripod, high ISO and
limiting to the sweet part of the lens and stopping down while
keeping a high enough shutter speed.

I think what you are asking for is precisely the opporite of what many photographers are looking for. One doesn't always want everything to be in focus. One often wants to isolate a subject or subjects to show meaning or emphasis. One can always, however, stop down to increase DOF. The opposite isn't true if one doesn't have a fast lens. For that reason, fast lenses will always be prized. There will always be slow zooms as well, for those who don't need or want to think about DOF.

 

[Eric Sorensen]

And now that I think about it some more, What if you had a 3-dimensional sensor (with sensor sites in the X,Y, and Z planes)? You then could control DOF or adjust focusing AFTER the shot. That would be handy...
...sorry - I'm just bored and daydreaming...

I really think technology will overcome the current limitation of
photo-sensor site size in regards to noise. It may be a computer
decoding of the image. Or a senor that consists of several layers
to trap all photons at all wavelengths, then stitching them
together electronically to get a noise-free low-light image. I am
glad there are smarter people than me trying to find answers to
these challanges - but history tells us there are very, very few
roadblocks when it comes to computers and technology. Time wil
tell!