RainerRaffalski
Forum Enthusiast
... we could ride up the trees!
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
If an EF-S lens was on a 1.3x, How many true pixels?
- Thread starter Anthony14707
- Start date
Ken Christie
Senior Member
When the EF-S lenses first arrived there were a goody bunch of forum-ites willing to perform various bits of invention to make an EF-S lens fit a 10D.
Obviously being in theory engineered for a 1.6 body, the EF-S lenses would work on a 10D (or D60/D30), but you had to butcher, sorry, perform precision surgery on the lens to make it fit.
Having done that it would then fit a 1.6 crop, a 1.3 crop. or indeed a full frame be it digital or film.
However, as certainly the early EF-S lenses are about as much good optically as the bottom of whisky bottle, I have to ask WHY????
--
KenC
Obviously being in theory engineered for a 1.6 body, the EF-S lenses would work on a 10D (or D60/D30), but you had to butcher, sorry, perform precision surgery on the lens to make it fit.
Having done that it would then fit a 1.6 crop, a 1.3 crop. or indeed a full frame be it digital or film.
However, as certainly the early EF-S lenses are about as much good optically as the bottom of whisky bottle, I have to ask WHY????
--
KenC
Peripheral
Forum Enthusiast
Bob Atkins had a tutorial on how to hacksaw the nub off of an 18-55mm (I think, whatever the cheap ass one that came with the DRebel). It worked fine on the 10D, but it probably wouldn't work on a 1.3x or FF. I've also seen a hack for the EF-S 10-22mm, but you had to put in a spacer so it couldn't go all the way down to 10mm. Otherwise the 10D mirror would hit the back element.
That's why I thought a Pellicle mirror would be good. The mirror doesn't move so it won't hit the rear element. It will vignette like all hell, but you could crop to either a 1.6x or whatever you like, depending on how much soft corner and vignette you like/dislike.
Just a thought. It will never happen, but I still think it's a brilliant idea.
--
Just my $3.47 ($.02 adjusted for inflation + tax)
There is no darkness like ignorance - Egyptian proverb
Joshua J. Pate-Terry
http://home.att.net/~jjpt-photo
That's why I thought a Pellicle mirror would be good. The mirror doesn't move so it won't hit the rear element. It will vignette like all hell, but you could crop to either a 1.6x or whatever you like, depending on how much soft corner and vignette you like/dislike.
Just a thought. It will never happen, but I still think it's a brilliant idea.
--
Just my $3.47 ($.02 adjusted for inflation + tax)
There is no darkness like ignorance - Egyptian proverb
Joshua J. Pate-Terry
http://home.att.net/~jjpt-photo
Peripheral
Forum Enthusiast
--
Just my $3.47 ($.02 adjusted for inflation + tax)
There is no darkness like ignorance - Egyptian proverb
Joshua J. Pate-Terry
http://home.att.net/~jjpt-photo
Just my $3.47 ($.02 adjusted for inflation + tax)
There is no darkness like ignorance - Egyptian proverb
Joshua J. Pate-Terry
http://home.att.net/~jjpt-photo
Anastigmat
Forum Pro
Not everyone can afford to do that. So, an affordable 1.3X crop 35D would be welcomed by many. It will keep resolution high and noise down and give them wider wide angles with EF lenses.
Why? As I said, to keep noise down. More pixels in the same 1.6x crop means more noise. Without more pixels, why bother replacing the 20D? With more noise, why would anyone buy the new camera instead of the 20D? So, the 1.3x sensor is the most sensible choice for increasing resolution without increasing noise. It also makes sense since Canon is unlikely to make a full frame available for less than $2,000 so soon after the 5D's release.
Anastigmat
Forum Pro
The EF-S lenses will not prevent Canon from introducing cameras with larger sensors. The 5D cannot use these lenses, so the 5D would have been deemed impossible months or even weeks before it was announced by those who support the 1.6x format.
Peripheral
Forum Enthusiast
I'm with you. I certainly can't afford a 5D. Really, I can't afford a 20D, but if a replacement were good enough I'd find a way to scrape up enough for one.
--
Just my $3.47 ($.02 adjusted for inflation + tax)
There is no darkness like ignorance - Egyptian proverb
Joshua J. Pate-Terry
http://home.att.net/~jjpt-photo
PhillipA
Veteran Member
Anastigmat wrote:
Why? As I said, to keep noise down. More pixels in the same 1.6x
Why? As I said, to keep noise down. More pixels in the same 1.6x
I think your reasoning is unsound here. The 20D had more pixels than the 10D (8.2 against 6.3) on the same sized sensor, but the high ISO noise performance of the 20D is certainly better, not worse, than the 10D. Why would you assume that Canon would release a new camera with worse noise performance than the one it replaced? Allowing for 18 months more development and previous examples, i would expect the 3xD to have BETTER noise performance than the 20D with more Mpixels, certainly not worse.
A deep seated desire to continue to use that lens will prevent you buying the 1.3x camera.
You would not be able to mate an EFs lens to a 1.3x crop camera so the question is not relevant. It's like asking if a diesel engine was full of petrol, what would it's MPG be?
--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/
Doug Kerr
Forum Pro
Hi, pete,
Best regards,
Doug
I think a factor that will avert that problem is that the successor to the 20D will probably have a "1.6x" format. Then those who like their EF-S lenses (and the like) can buy it with impunity.
Best regards,
Doug
Doug Kerr
Forum Pro
. . . with the "Canon AF" mount will mount on any Canon EOS body (so far as I know).
The DC lenses, overall, are stated by the manufacturer as not being suitable for any format larger than "1.5x" (presumably mainly on an image circle diameter basis).
What any of this has to do with anything I don't know.
Best regards,
Doug
The DC lenses, overall, are stated by the manufacturer as not being suitable for any format larger than "1.5x" (presumably mainly on an image circle diameter basis).
What any of this has to do with anything I don't know.
Best regards,
Doug
Sir Fallot
Senior Member
There is only one 1.3x camera available as far as I am aware and I would strongly suspect that the mirror size is the same as FF. (In the same way that the mirror in the 10d is a FF mirror)
Sir Fallot
There are those that read the small print and learn through knowledge, while others ignore the small print and learn through experience.
--
Sir Fallot
There are those that read the small print and learn through knowledge, while others ignore the small print and learn through experience.
Maybe, I really do not know.
But I guess the main question here is what is the maximum size of mirror you can fit in and how big sensor that allow you to have (to get the close 100% VF view.
As Canon has to worry about the EF-S only. If the Canon 20D sucessor was done not to accept the EF-S lenses people have, there will be potential problems - or actually this is no longer "a 20D successor".
Flying Finn
Active member
UUUUhmmm.... guys...
I think he only wants to know how many pixels are effectively left, if you read his question in the subject title...
Or is it just me. Probably if no one else thinks so.
FF
I think he only wants to know how many pixels are effectively left, if you read his question in the subject title...
Or is it just me. Probably if no one else thinks so.
FF
Olga Johnson
Forum Pro
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=17148438
which is backed up by my examples above.
Olga
which is backed up by my examples above.
Olga
Dennis_Wood
Leading Member
Yes they will Doug, but I had a Sigma 10-20 on my 1DMkII and it vignetted terribly at anything less than about 14mm. But it did fit, the mirror never hit it, and aside from the black corners it produced very nice images. I almost hated to send it back.
Doug Kerr
Forum Pro
Hi, Dennis,
Best regards,
Doug
Yes they willl what -- fit? I never said they wouldn't. They will. I said they weren't suitable.
Best regards,
Doug
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum