APS-C 1.6x sensors here to stay

It sounds like one person is saying you need a better lens on the 5D and someone else is saying you need a better lens on the 30D.

A good friend of mine uses the 28-135. In fact, he used that lens at a fashion shoot last week. I'll ask him if I can post a link to the pictures. Several of the pics have a lot of vignetting.

When I told him I was interested in the 70-200 2.8 IS, he said he has it and that he never uses it because it's too darn heavy (and big).

bullet1 said:

but you will be amazed some people do want to use 28-135 with their
5D. From the technical standpoint, the low pixel density on the 5D
sensor is less likely to outresolve all but a few crappy lenses.

On the other hand, the high pixel density sensor used in the
20D/30D could match or exceed the resolution limit of many consumer
lenses. Note the 20D/30D sensor pixel density is higher than the
sensors used in 1D Mark IIn and 1Ds Mark II.

It is possible that the upcoming 1Ds Mark III might match it. If
that happens, the lens requirement for the 22MP sensor would be
very high, corner to corner.
--
Nelson
http://pbase.com/nelsonc

Click to expand...

--
Jeremy

Lets look at the 70-200 F4L vs. 70-300 IS for a second. Both cost the same; one's an entry level 'Pro' whereas the latter is a high-end consumer lens.

The 70-200 has superior build quality, sharpness, contrast, and color rendition. From what I've read and seen, the differences are clear between the two lenses on the 20D/30D. I don't see how you could call the 'L' a waste as it is within $10 of the the 70-300.

Another thing to consider is that there aren't any fast zoom consumer lenses (except for the EF-S line). So, for someone who shoots a lot in low-light, perhaps getting a professional lens is the way to go.

It doesn't quite make sense to me that you're saying the 20D/30D demands more for the center of the image. If that's so, wouldn't having professional lens be better for that?

Jack W. said:

bullet1 said:

Pro bodies go with pro lenses. Using a pro lenses designed for a FF
sensor on a 1.6x body is a total waste.

Click to expand...

Now that's just plain wrong, and just plain bad advice.

Click to expand...

--
Jeremy

http://www.ddisoftware.com/20d-5d/#range

I guess I missed that one but most that I have seen have given the 5D more dynamic range. Mind you the one you pointed out the differences are negligable...

Jeremy said:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos30d/page21.asp

Note that the 30D has 0.2EV more dynamic range than the 5D.

Is there a correlation between DR and noise? I know there's a
correlation between sensor size, mp, and noise, but today's smaller
sensors are superior to the ones of a few years ago.

--
Jeremy

Click to expand...

--
Cal

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity....

http://funshots.smugmug.com/

They're not going to drop to 1.5 or 1.4 because all of the EF-S lenses out there have image circles to cover a 1.6 sensor. Make the sensor bigger and all of those lenses are no longer useable.

They'll increase the sensor MP count as technology evolves. I remember when Intel was bragging about 2 billion operations a second - holy cow, how is that even possible! Now, 3+GHz comes in entry level machines.

The MP count won't grow as fast as it has been. I suspect it's on an S-curve and we've reached the upper inflection point. We'll get a couple of megapixels every few years. Much like PC's (that 4GHz chip is way behind the promised date) Seriously, is 8-10 not enough at the current price point? I think it is.

I'd imagine they could get 16MP given olympus can get 8MP from a much smaller sensor. Cost is the big factor though.

Jack W. said:

bullet1 said:

Pro bodies go with pro lenses. Using a pro lenses designed for a FF
sensor on a 1.6x body is a total waste.

Click to expand...

Now that's just plain wrong, and just plain bad advice.

Click to expand...

We have to look at the whole thread to see the reason for that statement. The statement alone cannot be used out of context. Let me clarify:

"Pro bodies go with pro lenses. Using a pro lenses designed for a FF
sensor on a specifically designed 1.6x PRO body would be a total waste."

Do you see my point now? Look at what Nikon did. They redesigned the whole DX line for their DSLRs. They did not want to use their FF lenses for that purpose for whatever the reasons.

Well Canon is sort of doing that with the new, expensive, near "L" lenses such as the 10-22 and 17-55 f/2.8 IS. They have the optical quality and pricing of the L lenses but not the build and packaging.
--
Nelson
http://pbase.com/nelsonc

Jeremy said:

It sounds like one person is saying you need a better lens on the
5D and someone else is saying you need a better lens on the 30D.

Click to expand...

The 1.6x sensor used in the 20D/30D has a high pixel density and only uses the center portion of the lenses. That alone places a higher demand on the center sharpness but less on the vignetting and corner sharpness. As the final picture from the 20D/30D 1.6x sensor is always enlarged more than the one from the 5D FF sensor, the imperfection in the lenses can become more pronounced. Of course the amount actually enlargement is less than 1.6x unless it is compared to a 8.2MP FF sensor.

The FF sensor used in the 5D has lower pixel density and uses the whole image circle of the lenses can project, which places a lesser demand on the center sharpness but more on the corner sharpness and vignetting. The CA requirement on both sensors could be close.

Jeremy said:

A good friend of mine uses the 28-135. In fact, he used that lens
at a fashion shoot last week. I'll ask him if I can post a link to
the pictures. Several of the pics have a lot of vignetting.

Click to expand...

Was he using the 28-135 on the 5D or 1DsII? Many WA lenses can have vignetting problems on the FF sensor, even the new 24-105 f/4 IS lens. This effect is somewhat more pronounced on the digital sensors than film although the effect is less obvious when the picture is not viewed on the computer.

Jeremy said:

When I told him I was interested in the 70-200 2.8 IS, he said he
has it and that he never uses it because it's too darn heavy (and
big).

Click to expand...

It is heavy but it is very good. I have the 70-200 f/4 first and upgraded to the 70-200 IS. The lens is amazing for indoor events.

1/400s f/2.8 (wide open) at 200.0mm iso800



1/400s f/2.8 at 200.0mm iso3200



--
Nelson
http://pbase.com/nelsonc

bullet1 said:

Jeremy said:

A good friend of mine uses the 28-135. In fact, he used that lens
at a fashion shoot last week. I'll ask him if I can post a link to
the pictures. Several of the pics have a lot of vignetting.

Click to expand...

Was he using the 28-135 on the 5D or 1DsII?

Click to expand...

He was using the 5D.

bullet1 said:

--
Nelson
http://pbase.com/nelsonc

Click to expand...

--
Jeremy

bullet1 said:

Jack W. said:

bullet1 said:

Pro bodies go with pro lenses. Using a pro lenses designed for a FF
sensor on a 1.6x body is a total waste.

Click to expand...

Now that's just plain wrong, and just plain bad advice.

Click to expand...

We have to look at the whole thread to see the reason for that
statement. The statement alone cannot be used out of context. Let
me clarify:

"Pro bodies go with pro lenses. Using a pro lenses designed for a FF
sensor on a specifically designed 1.6x PRO body would be a total
waste."

Click to expand...

The 'clarification' doesn't seem to say anything new or different. Am I missing something? Your point is that it's a waste to use a PRO lens on a PRO 1.6x body? What's your reasoning behind that?

bullet1 said:

Well Canon is sort of doing that with the new, expensive, near "L"
lenses such as the 10-22 and 17-55 f/2.8 IS. They have the optical
quality and pricing of the L lenses but not the build and packaging.

Click to expand...

I'll probably buy the 30D + kit from Costco next week (thank goodness I passed the bar!!!!). After I get it, I'll head over to B & H to pick up the EF-S 60 macro, 580EX, 2gb extreme III, Lowepro 200 AW, and the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS when it comes out. I'm still torn between the 70-200 F4L and the 70-300 IS (interestingly, Costco stopped selling the 70-300 IS this month). In a year or so, I'd like to get the EF-S 10-22.

The EF-S lenses seem to be perfect for the 1.6x bodies.

bullet1 said:

--
Nelson
http://pbase.com/nelsonc

Click to expand...

--
Jeremy

Looks like the 1.3 crop is not dead yet. "We'd like to continue using that size as well," Westfall said.

It's interesting that a year and a half after the 20D, the 30D uses the same exact sensor. What's up with that?!?

rdspear said:

They're not going to drop to 1.5 or 1.4 because all of the EF-S
lenses out there have image circles to cover a 1.6 sensor. Make
the sensor bigger and all of those lenses are no longer useable.

They'll increase the sensor MP count as technology evolves. I
remember when Intel was bragging about 2 billion operations a
second - holy cow, how is that even possible! Now, 3+GHz comes in
entry level machines.

The MP count won't grow as fast as it has been. I suspect it's on
an S-curve and we've reached the upper inflection point. We'll get
a couple of megapixels every few years. Much like PC's (that 4GHz
chip is way behind the promised date) Seriously, is 8-10 not
enough at the current price point? I think it is.

Click to expand...

--
Jeremy

1.3 crop bodies would be much more useful if they accepted EF-S lenses. However, it looks like the EF-S lenses wouldn't be compatible with anything larger than APS-C.

waggles said:

Looks like the 1.3 crop is not dead yet. "We'd like to continue
using that size as well," Westfall said.

Click to expand...

--
Jeremy

Jeremy said:

Lets look at the 70-200 F4L vs. 70-300 IS for a second. Both cost
the same; one's an entry level 'Pro' whereas the latter is a
high-end consumer lens.

Click to expand...

The 70-300 IS is an interesting addition to the Canon consumer line. It does give the 70-200 f/4 a run for its money. It appears that Canon finally woke up and decided to produce some good consumer lenses to meet the higher demand of the current high pixel density 1.6x sensors.

In the old film days, they have the whole 24mm x 36mm frame to play with so the center resolution was not as critical. They put better glass elements into those L lenses. Things have changed and so are the prices of current high quality consumer lenses.

It was an easy decision between the old 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS and the 70-200 f/4 but it is a bit harder with the 70-300 IS. It is even harder to justify the cost of the 70-300 DO IS lens.

Jeremy said:

The 70-200 has superior build quality, sharpness, contrast, and
color rendition. From what I've read and seen, the differences are
clear between the two lenses on the 20D/30D. I don't see how you
could call the 'L' a waste as it is within $10 of the the 70-300.

Click to expand...

The 70-200 f/4, 17-40 f/4 and 200 f/2.8 are the three "bargain" L lenses one can buy. They are all very good and priced reasonably low for the L glass. The moment you add the IS, the price jumps up $200 to $600. Without the IS, the new 70-300 f/4-5.6 could have been sold for $200 less.

Jeremy said:

Another thing to consider is that there aren't any fast zoom
consumer lenses (except for the EF-S line). So, for someone who
shoots a lot in low-light, perhaps getting a professional lens is
the way to go.

Click to expand...

You are correct on that. Until recently, only the primes and certain L zooms can be fast. Finally we now have the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Consumers are at a crossroad right now. If they want to stay in the 1.6x world, they should buy the new fast EF-s glass but if they want their lens investment to last until they go FF, the L glass is still the way to go. The extra 61% of the image is kind of wasted during this transitional period.

Jeremy said:

It doesn't quite make sense to me that you're saying the 20D/30D
demands more for the center of the image. If that's so, wouldn't
having professional lens be better for that?

Click to expand...

You are correct. Like everything else there are always compromises when making choices. Nothing is purely black and white. People bought L zooms for their 10D/20D out of necessity as there was no fast and sharp glass like the 17-55 f/2.8 IS until now. There still isn't one like the 70-200 IS. At the same time, we know those wonderful L lenses are designed to work wonders on the FF bodies.

As the prices of the entry level FF bodies start to fall further, more people will acquire FF bodies to compliment their 1.6x ones. Until the affordable pixel density on the FF sensor matches what is on the 20D/30D, there is a telephoto "reach" advantage with the cropped sensors.
--
Nelson
http://pbase.com/nelsonc

bullet1 said:

MitchAlsup said:

And the thing you failed to mention is that the 5D is more harsh on
cheap lenses, so not only does the camera cost more, but the lenses
do also.

Click to expand...

The 5D has a lower pixel density and can use a bigger image circle
to accomplish the same task. A high pixel density sensor such as
the one used on the 20D/30D has higher resolution requirement on
the lenses as only the center portion, 39% of the image circle, is
used.

Click to expand...

Its the corners that give lenses on a 5D a hard time. The lens on a 5D in the center actually has a slightly easier time as noted above.
--
Mitch

MitchAlsup said:

No, for economic reasons. When the FF dSLR gets to $2000 the
30D-class camera will be in the $850 range, and when the FF gets
into the $1500 range the 30D-class camer will be in the $700 range
and the 350D-class camera will be under $600.

Click to expand...

Mitch,

I agree with your post, and maybe you're comparing list prices. Just to emphasize your point, right now you can buy the 350D for $673-100 rebate= $573. .....and you can't buy a FF for anywhere close to $1500.

MitchAlsup said:

And the thing you failed to mention is that the 5D is more harsh on
cheap lenses, so not only does the camera cost more, but the lenses
do also. Then throw in the lack of the 1.6 crop and instead of
buying a 300mm F/2.8 you have to buy a 500mm F/4.

Click to expand...

Great points, that most everyone knows but often gets overlooked in these discussions.
-Don
http://www.pbase.com/dond

• 17-40 lens would be wide enough for me.
• 24-105 (30-130 equivalent) would be perfect range for me
• 13 mp with same density as APS-C sensors,
• less costly than full frame
• reduces the effect of weak corners in some lenses
• brighter viewfinder than APS-C

Still not holding my breath until the 5D is replaced with a higher resolution sensor.

bullet1 said:

Jack W. said:

bullet1 said:

Pro bodies go with pro lenses. Using a pro lenses designed for a FF
sensor on a 1.6x body is a total waste.

Click to expand...

Now that's just plain wrong, and just plain bad advice.

Click to expand...

We have to look at the whole thread to see the reason for that
statement. The statement alone cannot be used out of context. Let
me clarify:

"Pro bodies go with pro lenses. Using a pro lenses designed for a FF
sensor on a specifically designed 1.6x PRO body would be a total
waste."

Do you see my point now?

Click to expand...

Nope. I have a 300f/2.8L IS that I use on my 20d and 30D. No way is it a total waste.

Look at what Nikon did. They redesigned

bullet1 said:

the whole DX line for their DSLRs. They did not want to use their
FF lenses for that purpose for whatever the reasons.

Well Canon is sort of doing that with the new, expensive, near "L"
lenses such as the 10-22 and 17-55 f/2.8 IS. They have the optical
quality and pricing of the L lenses but not the build and packaging.
--
Nelson
http://pbase.com/nelsonc

Click to expand...

Jack W. said:

bullet1 said:

Jack W. said:

bullet1 said:

Pro bodies go with pro lenses. Using a pro lenses designed for a FF
sensor on a 1.6x body is a total waste.

Click to expand...

Now that's just plain wrong, and just plain bad advice.

Click to expand...

We have to look at the whole thread to see the reason for that
statement. The statement alone cannot be used out of context. Let
me clarify:

"Pro bodies go with pro lenses. Using pro lenses designed for a FF
sensor on a specifically designed 1.6x PRO body would be a total
waste."

Do you see my point now?

Click to expand...

Nope. I have a 300f/2.8L IS that I use on my 20d and 30D. No way is
it a total waste.

Click to expand...

I said a specifically designed 1.6x PRO body. Your 20D and 30D are not Pro bodies.

There is no 1.6x Canon Pro body as Canon did not want to design one. That was the whole point of my previous statement.

Jack W. said:

Look at what Nikon did. They redesigned

Jack W. said:

the whole DX line for their DSLRs. They did not want to use their
FF lenses for that purpose for whatever the reasons.

Well Canon is sort of doing that with the new, expensive, near "L"
lenses such as the 10-22 and 17-55 f/2.8 IS. They have the optical
quality and pricing of the L lenses but not the build and packaging.
--
Nelson
http://pbase.com/nelsonc
http://k43.pbase.com/v3/67/574167/4/45898262.webcopy1611_6034B.jpg

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Nelson
http://pbase.com/nelsonc

Jeremy said:

It's interesting that a year and a half after the 20D, the 30D uses
the same exact sensor. What's up with that?!?

Click to expand...

Same reason the 4GHz chip didn't materialize - running into physical limitations. The story is that they couldn't compress the pixel pitch to jam more in without increasing noise to an unacceptable level, and didn't feel the tradeoff was worth it. True or False, that's the given reason.

bullet1 said:

I said a specifically designed 1.6x PRO body. Your 20D and 30D are
not Pro bodies.

There is no 1.6x Canon Pro body as Canon did not want to design
one. That was the whole point of my previous statement.

Click to expand...

A "pro" 1.6 body would, I assume, be weather sealed, have a built in battery grip, no flash, 45 point autofocus system, etc.
That still wouldn't make using a "pro" EF lens on it a waste.

In essence, you're saying that 1.6 cameras like the 20D/30D aren't for pros, or for serious photography, or "worthy" of high end lenses.
I still say that's just silly.

There are a lot of working pros out there using 20D's, and I'm sure many are buying the 30D.