Reading mode: Light Dark

Gauge for "taking seriously" a mount

Go to last post
justmeMN said:
justmeMN said:
sportyaccordy wrote: IMO- think of how many millions of dollars they've given away to third party manufacturers all to easy to swoop in over the last 15+ years.
Click to expand...
Incompetent Canon and Nikon, the former has only managed to sell 120+ million lenses, and the latter has only managed to sell 100+ million lenses. :-)
Click to expand...
Such a silly statement. For starters those stats go back well before digital or crop systems were in play, so there's that. Similarly the fact that third party lens manufacturers and essentially the whole MILC market has been able to thrive and grow in large part due to the lenses and investments Canikon refuses to make in its crop systems represents a huge missed opportunity. Once you take out kit lenses bundled with bodies I'm sure Sigma and Tamron have sold more crop EF-S and DX lenses than Canikon over the digital run.
 
Unless I am mistaken, the D30, D60, 10D and 20D...and possibly 30D cannot accept ef-s lenses without the mirror hitting the lens mount.
 
The Davinator said:
Unless I am mistaken, the D30, D60, 10D and 20D...and possibly 30D cannot accept ef-s lenses without the mirror hitting the lens mount.
Click to expand...
The 20D was the first camera that could use EF-S lenses

From Canon

"Other features contributing to the EOS 20D’s boosted shooting functionality include: expanded processing parameters enabling black-and-white image conversion; compatibility with the entire range of Canon EF lenses, including EF-S models;"

EOS 20D - Canon Camera Museum

Here, you can find out about Canon's Interchangeable Lens Digital Cameras > Digital SLR Cameras > EOS 20D.
global.canon
 
Given that "taking seriously" is a topical question, I don't think including out of production bodies and lenses helps you. A company may have been serious in the past, but not anymore.

If you want to really consider how serious a company is "right now", I would only count lenses and bodies that the manufacturer is current selling.
 
Don Lacy said:
Kung Fu said:
When a mount only has 1 non-macro prime, it's safe to say that the company either doesn't care, or
Click to expand...
as is pointed out here after a certain focal length there is no weight or size advantage to making a lens for the smaller imaging circle of APS-C sensor https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59281868
Click to expand...
That's obviously wrong. APS-C lenses can be smaller, and if in specific cases they aren't, it's because of other considerations like optical corrections.
 
Don Lacy said:
Mark B. said:
Don Lacy said:
dwalby said:
Jonathan Brady said:
Canon APS-C bodies with the EF-S mount:
  • Canon EOS 10D
  • Canon EOS D60
  • Canon EOS D30
Click to expand...
just for accuracy, these 3 are not EF-S, they are EF only. The EF-S mount started with the 20D and the 300D Rebel.
Click to expand...
No it did not Canon list the mount as EF only no where in the description of the 20D is a EF-S mount mentioned http://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/dslr786.html
Click to expand...
Seems obvious that dwalby of course meant the 20D & 300D Rebel were the first cameras to be EF-S compatible. The important point here is anything that came before them - which would include the 10D, D60, and D30 - is not EF-S compatible and therefore shouldn't have been included on the list to begin with.
Click to expand...
" The EF-S mount started with the 20D and the 300D Rebel."

My point is that there is no EF-S mount Canon does not distinguish between a EF mount and a EF-S mount
Click to expand...
You completely missed the point. The 20D and 300D were the first bodies that were compatible with EF-S. Nobody is saying it is called an EF-S mount, only that the OP's list is inaccurate by listing the D30, D60, and 10D as EF-S compatible. He already acknowledged the error and thanked dwalby for pointing it out. Move on.
 
Last edited:
Couldn't we just conclude that:

1) technology provides faster incremental benefits in camera bodies than lenses

2) the general public is more taken with advances in bodies rather than lenses and so this is where the money is?

(Point 2 is always given as the explanation for why DPR provides far more camera reviews than lens reviews - because they drive more traffic)
 
Chris R-UK said:
No!

I am afraid that this is a common fallacy. The size of a lens is determined by its focal length and maximum aperture, not the size of the sensor it is designed for.
Click to expand...
Actually sensor size matters because image circle size matters and optical design to the sensor format matters.
Chris R-UK said:
On a lens that goes to 200mm the front of the lens has to be 200mm from the sensor to focus at infinity - that is how focal length is defined.
Click to expand...
Yes, when it is a pinhole camera....
Chris R-UK said:
Since the back of the lens is 44mm from the sensor the lens has to be around 160mm in length. An extended lens can be shorter when folded down, but at 200mm it still has to be about 160mm long.
Click to expand...
False.

A focal length is calculated from the focal points, not from the physical lengths.

This is a reason why a mirrorlenses exists and can be used as physical size can be get shortened radically.

Same way is with other lenses that length can be shorter than their actual focal length without any mirrors.
Chris R-UK said:
The diameter of the entrance pupil is determined by the focal length and the f/ number by the ratio f/ = focal length/entrance diameter. So the diameter of the entrance pupil on a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is 200/2.8 = 71.4mm.
Click to expand...
Diameter of the entrance ain't same as pupil.

One of the fallacies.
Chris R-UK said:
The diameter of the back of the lens has to be the mount diameter of 54mm which is fixed for all EF and EF-S lenses.
Click to expand...
Again one of the fallacies. A rear element can be much wider than the mount, or much narrower than a mount.
Chris R-UK said:
So a 200mm f/2.8 lens is going to be pretty well the same size whether it is EF, EF-S, a lens on M4/3 or on a Nikon 1 (1") body. The weight will depend largely on the build quality and optical quality.
Click to expand...
Well then why a a 150mm for 4/3" format just is smaller than one for APS-C and for a FF.

Or why a 150mm can be smaller for FF than for a 4/3".

Because it is optical design that can be fitted as wanted by the requirements.
Chris R-UK said:
Let me give you a fairly extreme example:
Click to expand...
Yes, extreme.

If someone wants to do a smaller and lighter lens with same focal length and F-stop, it is possible but your optical quality can be different, or a usable properties different like minimal focus distance being in tens of meters instead centimetres.

For common designs lenses with same properties are similar by technical standpoint, but they can be bended and changed depending different goals.
 
Kung Fu said:
Don Lacy said:
Kung Fu said:
When a mount only has 1 non-macro prime, it's safe to say that the company either doesn't care, or
Click to expand...
as is pointed out here after a certain focal length there is no weight or size advantage to making a lens for the smaller imaging circle of APS-C sensor https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59281868
Click to expand...
That's obviously wrong. APS-C lenses can be smaller, and if in specific cases they aren't, it's because of other considerations like optical corrections.
Click to expand...
Must be nice to live in a world devoid of fact and science. If you insist on denying the simple physics of lens design what is the point continuing a discussion.
 
Mark B. said:
Don Lacy said:
Mark B. said:
Don Lacy said:
dwalby said:
Jonathan Brady said:
Canon APS-C bodies with the EF-S mount:
  • Canon EOS 10D
  • Canon EOS D60
  • Canon EOS D30
Click to expand...
just for accuracy, these 3 are not EF-S, they are EF only. The EF-S mount started with the 20D and the 300D Rebel.
Click to expand...
No it did not Canon list the mount as EF only no where in the description of the 20D is a EF-S mount mentioned http://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/dslr786.html
Click to expand...
Seems obvious that dwalby of course meant the 20D & 300D Rebel were the first cameras to be EF-S compatible. The important point here is anything that came before them - which would include the 10D, D60, and D30 - is not EF-S compatible and therefore shouldn't have been included on the list to begin with.
Click to expand...
" The EF-S mount started with the 20D and the 300D Rebel."

My point is that there is no EF-S mount Canon does not distinguish between a EF mount and a EF-S mount
Click to expand...
You completely missed the point.
Click to expand...
No I did not miss the point there is no EF-S mount therefore there are no lenses designed for it all EF lenses are designed for use on Canon APS-C cameras. The whole premise of the thread is wrong Canon can not be ignoring a mount that does not exist.
Member said:
The 20D and 300D were the first bodies that were compatible with EF-S. Nobody is saying it is called an EF-S mount,
Click to expand...
" The EF-S mount started with the 20D and the 300D Rebel."

yes they did both dwalby and the OP refer to a EF-S mount and then the OP goes on to question how serious Canon is taking the EF-S mount.

I feel like I am in a fact free world on this thread mounts that don't exist and others arguing that despite the law of physics lenses can be made smaller and lighter if the manufactures wanted to but no they are trying to force everyone to full frame.

So I am sorry if I take what people write literally
Member said:
only that the OP's list is inaccurate by listing the D30, D60, and 10D as EF-S compatible. He already acknowledged the error and thanked dwalby for pointing it out. Move on
Click to expand...
 
Don Lacy said:
Kung Fu said:
Don Lacy said:
Kung Fu said:
When a mount only has 1 non-macro prime, it's safe to say that the company either doesn't care, or
Click to expand...
as is pointed out here after a certain focal length there is no weight or size advantage to making a lens for the smaller imaging circle of APS-C sensor https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59281868
Click to expand...
That's obviously wrong. APS-C lenses can be smaller, and if in specific cases they aren't, it's because of other considerations like optical corrections.
Click to expand...
Must be nice to live in a world devoid of fact and science. If you insist on denying the simple physics of lens design what is the point continuing a discussion.
Click to expand...
You're denying that "EF-s" even exists! When it's literally all over the lenses, and Canon's website. And the "S" stands for... wait for it... "Smaller image circle". They don't even have the same registration distance as EF mount, and you can't put an EF-S lens on an EF camera without potentially breaking it. So yes they share the same base circumference and locking mechanism, but that's it. i.e. new mount.

This is literally something that the entire world outside of this forum takes for granted. But here? Nope, let's argue about it all day.

And for the lens design issue, it's just common sense. The idea that you cannot make a lens smaller in any way by switching to a smaller image circle format is just nonsensical. But please feel free to offer a source other than a post in this forum that proves it.
 
sportyaccordy said:
justmeMN said:
sportyaccordy said:
sportyaccordy wrote: IMO- think of how many millions of dollars they've given away to third party manufacturers all to easy to swoop in over the last 15+ years.
Click to expand...
Incompetent Canon and Nikon, the former has only managed to sell 120+ million lenses, and the latter has only managed to sell 100+ million lenses. :-)
Click to expand...
Such a silly statement. For starters those stats go back well before digital or crop systems were in play, so there's that. Similarly the fact that third party lens manufacturers and essentially the whole MILC market has been able to thrive and grow in large part due to the lenses and investments Canikon refuses to make in its crop systems represents a huge missed opportunity. Once you take out kit lenses bundled with bodies I'm sure Sigma and Tamron have sold more crop EF-S and DX lenses than Canikon over the digital run.

--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/
Click to expand...
Nikon did of course release a number of high end DX lenses prior to the introduction of FX DSLRs but really what your seeing there is both of them judging the market.

With APSC they clearly aim for two areas, firstly for lower level users who do not want to pay a premium. Canon especially probably covers this better than any other APSC camera system with the 10-18mm, 18-55mm, 55-250mm, 50mm F/1.8, etc all very inexpensive yet of decent quality(bar perhaps the long end of the 55-250mm)..

The other side is obviously telephoto use where APSC systems do have an advantage in reach and potentially FPS. In this respect EF-S/DX lenses are not needed as the advantage is limited at best whilst Canon and Nikon offer a massive range of telephoto lenses way in excess of any mirrorless system.

You say there forcing users towards FF but really is FF THAT expensive an option? entry level FF DSLR's and lenses are not that different in price to higher end APSC/m43 mirrorless systems and provide superior DOF control and image quality to them.
 
Last edited:
Kung Fu said:
And for the lens design issue, it's just common sense. The idea that you cannot make a lens smaller in any way by switching to a smaller image circle format is just nonsensical. But please feel free to offer a source other than a post in this forum that proves it.
Click to expand...
I know this isn't a direct reply to me , but for the record I said you can't make it -significantly- smaller for aps-c, given the same mount to work with and only a relatively tiny reduction in registration distance. The size savings possible for anything but a small range of focal lengths is not really that big, and nothing at all compared to what you'd save if you could mount the lens even closer to the sensor (which would make a big big difference possible)
 
Completely skewed and irrelevant.

All canon EF mount lenses fit the crop bodies.

What's the ratio on those?
 
Chris R-UK said:
Chris R-UK said:
...
Click to expand...
No!

I am afraid that this is a common fallacy. The size of a lens is determined by its focal length and maximum aperture, not the size of the sensor it is designed for.

On a lens that goes to 200mm the front of the lens has to be 200mm from the sensor to focus at infinity - that is how focal length is defined. Since the back of the lens is 44mm from the sensor the lens has to be around 160mm in length. An extended lens can be shorter when folded down, but at 200mm it still has to be about 160mm long.
Click to expand...
 
tr573 said:
Kung Fu said:
And for the lens design issue, it's just common sense. The idea that you cannot make a lens smaller in any way by switching to a smaller image circle format is just nonsensical. But please feel free to offer a source other than a post in this forum that proves it.
Click to expand...
I know this isn't a direct reply to me , but for the record I said you can't make it -significantly- smaller for aps-c, given the same mount to work with and only a relatively tiny reduction in registration distance. The size savings possible for anything but a small range of focal lengths is not really that big, and nothing at all compared to what you'd save if you could mount the lens even closer to the sensor (which would make a big big difference possible)
Click to expand...
"Chris R-UK" said:

"The size of a lens is determined by its focal length and maximum aperture, not the size of the sensor it is designed for."

Which is wrong, and also a gross oversimplification.
 
Last edited:
Your analyse forget all the EF lenses of focal length that would not gain anything to be created in specific APS-C format.
 
User8303410032 said:
Your analyse forget all the EF lenses of focal length that would not gain anything to be created in specific APS-C format.
Click to expand...
So why did Canon started to make EF-S lenses in the first place?

Why don't everybody just make Medium Format (or larger format) lenses and adapt them to FF, APS-C, 4/3, 1"-type, 1/1.7", 1/2.5" and so on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top