Why not ef-s fast primes?

[Token]

But most likely my future DSLR is the 2000D, 20D or any DSLR
supporting decent video within 6 month.

I am unsure what you mean by "decent video". If you mean something like mpg output from a DSLR, that will not happen in the next 6 months. In fact, it may never happen from this class of camera. To do this would require a major shift in design philosophy from anything that exist on the market today. At best I think that would take some time.

Also, I am not sure the market for such a feature is large enough to support such a sweeping change. In fact, I think it more likely that very high resolution video cameras, not based on DSLR styles, may one day kill the still camera. But that will be a few years away yet.

T!

 

[RDKirk]

My own gut feeling is that it is the full-frame cameras which may
die out, eventually - why continue with the expense, bulk etc if
you can use a smaller sensor, smaller lenses etc. We live in
interesting times!!

That's a possibiity. It will be determined by the race for smaller sensors to get "good enough" against large sensors getting "cheap enough." So far, smaller sensors are getting better faster than large sensors are getting cheaper.

If Canon applies the same techonology of the 20D sensor to the 1.3 size, they may get 10-11megapixels out of it with no increase in noise.

Yes, they could do the same thing with the FF sensor, but that one is already stretching their lenses to their limit (especially at wide angle). And who are they competing against?

I think we'll have a good clue if the 1Ds isn't updated by April 2005, or if yet another update to the 1D comes out by then.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

 

[alistairsyme]

I think it is impossible to overestimate how many D60s were sold,
because the market for DSLRs has changed so drastically. Very true
that they sell a lot of 300Ds in a month today, but they also sold
every D60 they made almost as soon as they made it. The D60 was in
short supply from day one until the 10D hit the shelves. What I
think I mean is that you should look at percentages of sales, not
at total numbers of a specific camera. It is just a fact that more
DSLRs are sold today than were sold in 2002. Although I do not
have the actual numbers for this I would not be surprised to find
that D60 sales amounted to about the same percentage of total DSLR
sales in 2nd Q 2002 that 300D sales do today. And at that time the
D60 was at a significantly higher price point.

I think you summed it up in the final line. The D60 was at a higher price point. That's the main difference that caused the difference in sales numbers. Even if they could build as many as they wanted, they never would have sold 100,000 a month. There are only a limited number of people willing or able to pay $2,000+ for a camera, not matter what the specs. 1.3x and FF cameras will have to be in a higher price category than 1.6x cameras, even if economies of scale and yield improvements cut their sensor costs in half or more. This alone guarantees that most of the DSLRs sold for the foreseeable future will be of the APS-sensor variety.

As far as the whole EF-S thing goes. My opinion only here, I don't
"know somebody who knows somebody" or anything like that. I
believe it (EF-S) is here to stay. I think that Canon is going to
stay in the APS-C market with their lower-to-middle end DSLRs.
While I believe Canon may break out the EF-S line into "Gold" and
"Silver" type catagories (but probably not using those words) I
rather doubt you will see a true L EF-S. You may see some L like
features in upper end EF-S lenses, indeed they may make some that
are L in every aspect but name. But I bet you do not see the L
designator on an EF-S lens. Who knows, maybe a new designator for
EF-S L's is in the future?

I don't have anything to argue with here. I too doubt we'll see L-designated EF-S lenses. But we may see some sort of premium EF-S lline.

 

[Eug]

My own gut feeling is that it is the full-frame cameras which may
die out, eventually - why continue with the expense, bulk etc if
you can use a smaller sensor, smaller lenses etc. We live in
interesting times!!

That's a possibiity. It will be determined by the race for smaller
sensors to get "good enough" against large sensors getting "cheap
enough." So far, smaller sensors are getting better faster than
large sensors are getting cheaper.

I would be VERY surprised if FF dies out.

However, I do agree that the market seems to be moving AWAY from FF. If anything it's the FF that's becoming more niche, with only the uber-expensive highest-end cameras using FF.

It makes much more sense for the camera companies to push toward the cheaper cropped sensors, esp. since they are capable of excellent quality.

If Canon applies the same techonology of the 20D sensor to the 1.3
size, they may get 10-11megapixels out of it with no increase in
noise.

Actually, a 1.3X crop sensor using the 20D's technology would be well over 12 Megapixels. OTOH, a FF would be 21 Megapixels, and would cost dearly.

--
Everything Apple - http://everythingapple.blogspot.com/

 

[Viviners]

The 11Mp sensor on the 1Ds is already pushing lenses to their limits - even the 'L' series. Even the smallest flaws are mercilessly shown up.

Many pros have happily traded in their 1Ds for a 1D II with less resolution (and a 1.3 crop instead of FF)

Unless there is some massive breakthrough in lens technology, I think it's the law of diminishing returns from now on.

I wouldn't be staggered to see a 15-16Mp 1Ds Mk II but beyond that it will be a complete waste of money, time and effort trying to cram more megapixels on even a FF sensor. The lenses can't cope.

 

[Eug]

I expect to see FF sensors in the 20 MP range in the next couple of years. After that, the pixel race will slow down dramatically.

The 11Mp sensor on the 1Ds is already pushing lenses to their
limits - even the 'L' series. Even the smallest flaws are
mercilessly shown up.

Many pros have happily traded in their 1Ds for a 1D II with less
resolution (and a 1.3 crop instead of FF)

Unless there is some massive breakthrough in lens technology, I
think it's the law of diminishing returns from now on.

I wouldn't be staggered to see a 15-16Mp 1Ds Mk II but beyond that
it will be a complete waste of money, time and effort trying to
cram more megapixels on even a FF sensor. The lenses can't cope.

--
Everything Apple - http://everythingapple.blogspot.com/

 

[Henrik Andersson]

... per mm^2 and therefor are more demanding for lenses then the 1Ds.

The only 2 problems with lenses and the 1Ds is the need for sharp edges of the big image circle and angle of light in the corners.

But for sharpness of the lenses the cheaper cameras are more demanding.

The 11Mp sensor on the 1Ds is already pushing lenses to their
limits - even the 'L' series. Even the smallest flaws are
mercilessly shown up.

Many pros have happily traded in their 1Ds for a 1D II with less
resolution (and a 1.3 crop instead of FF)

Unless there is some massive breakthrough in lens technology, I
think it's the law of diminishing returns from now on.

I wouldn't be staggered to see a 15-16Mp 1Ds Mk II but beyond that
it will be a complete waste of money, time and effort trying to
cram more megapixels on even a FF sensor. The lenses can't cope.

--
Henrik

 

[peteb]

But resolving power. The AA filter will govern this as much as anything - and on those cameras lower resolving power quite a lot (well, 10D, 20D and 300D, not so sure about MkII)

The only 2 problems with lenses and the 1Ds is the need for sharp
edges of the big image circle and angle of light in the corners.

But for sharpness of the lenses the cheaper cameras are more
demanding.

The 11Mp sensor on the 1Ds is already pushing lenses to their
limits - even the 'L' series. Even the smallest flaws are
mercilessly shown up.

Many pros have happily traded in their 1Ds for a 1D II with less
resolution (and a 1.3 crop instead of FF)

Unless there is some massive breakthrough in lens technology, I
think it's the law of diminishing returns from now on.

I wouldn't be staggered to see a 15-16Mp 1Ds Mk II but beyond that
it will be a complete waste of money, time and effort trying to
cram more megapixels on even a FF sensor. The lenses can't cope.

--
Henrik

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

 

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

The benefits of an 1.6 optimized solution (including the 4:3
system) do not outweigh the fact that ultimate image quality will
always be better with a FF sensor. Therefore the EF-S line will
remain consumer-oriented while the pro stuff including most primes,
will be FF compatible. Oh, and many pros still use film so for them
any EF-S prime would be useless.
By this strategy Canon has covered all the important bases: The pro
users, the consumers, the film users and are also perfectly
positioned for the time when technology allows inexpensive FF
sensors. I think Canon learned the lessons of APS and the 110
format well.

Dear Nils,

I only want to thank you for your insight. You are positively correct. Save perhaps for one factor: Full Frame sensor designs may never become inexpensive. Certainly they will come down in price, but I doubt we will ever see a sub-$1500 DSLR. Which is okay, since larger sensors with bigger pixels will remain superior. There is much confusion around this, but as more and more people see the excellent photographic results from cameras like the 1D II and 1Ds they will notice the difference.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

 

[Deorum]

Why cann't it be that L optics are incorporated in a zoom or prime lens that takes into account the crop factor?

Excuse my english....

--
Fly like an eagle!

 

[Sheld]

18mm focal length is for portraits on my G3, equivalent to about 88mm on 35mm film. On my G3, 7.2mm is wide angle (although only modestly wide,equivalent of 35mm on film). So yeah, the size of the sensor does affect the classification of focal lengths as wide angle, UWA, or ... portrait.

And 7.2mm is merely wide angle, equivalent to about 35mm on film. Ye

An 18-55mm lens is still an 18-55mm lens whatever the heck you
mount it on. 18mm = SWA. The fact that it cannot project an image
circle large enough for a 35mm frame doesn't affect the fact that
its focal length is 18mm at the wide end.

 

[Henrik Andersson]

Even though the 300D, for instance, have a strong AA-filter it's still weak compare to a correctly designed one that does not allow any aliasing.

Look at the lenses at F8:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page16.asp
... except the kit lens at 55mm.

Special the 50/1.4 at F8 show that the sensors resolution is the limit.

The only 2 problems with lenses and the 1Ds is the need for sharp
edges of the big image circle and angle of light in the corners.

But for sharpness of the lenses the cheaper cameras are more
demanding.

The 11Mp sensor on the 1Ds is already pushing lenses to their
limits - even the 'L' series. Even the smallest flaws are
mercilessly shown up.

Many pros have happily traded in their 1Ds for a 1D II with less
resolution (and a 1.3 crop instead of FF)

Unless there is some massive breakthrough in lens technology, I
think it's the law of diminishing returns from now on.

I wouldn't be staggered to see a 15-16Mp 1Ds Mk II but beyond that
it will be a complete waste of money, time and effort trying to
cram more megapixels on even a FF sensor. The lenses can't cope.

--
Henrik

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

--
Henrik

 

[Donald Cooper]

With the ultra-dispersion glass I think it could have been called an L. Not sure whether it uses flourite. And assuming the price is a good indicator of the build quality then that would be OK as well.

DSC

Why cann't it be that L optics are incorporated in a zoom or prime
lens that takes into account the crop factor?

Excuse my english....

--
Fly like an eagle!

 

[RDKirk]

With the ultra-dispersion glass I think it could have been called
an L. Not sure whether it uses flourite. And assuming the price is
a good indicator of the build quality then that would be OK as well.

Depends on what the Canon corporate definition of L really is--which we don't know. Perhaps in the Canon corporate concept, a lens that can't be used on their top-line camera can't possibly be designated "L" regardless of quality.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

 

[Donald Cooper]

Yeah, I'm thinking that just as DO lenses aren't L lenses (would you rather have a 400 f/5.6 L or a 400 f/4 IS DO?) so EF-S lenses won't be L lenses either. Same with shift-tilt I'd guess.

But the pricing for the new lenses seems like L ...... ;-)

DSC

With the ultra-dispersion glass I think it could have been called
an L. Not sure whether it uses flourite. And assuming the price is
a good indicator of the build quality then that would be OK as well.

Depends on what the Canon corporate definition of L really
is--which we don't know. Perhaps in the Canon corporate concept, a
lens that can't be used on their top-line camera can't possibly be
designated "L" regardless of quality.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

 

[Kenneth R. Allison]

Why does it rain?
--
K.R. Allison http://www.pbase.com/krallison

 

[nils rostedt]

OK, short answer: I don't need any EF-S prime.

Explanation 1: Of my 5 lenses, 4 are zooms and the one prime (50/1.8) is the least used.

Explanation 2: EF-S is only a part optimized solution (as is Nikon's DX). If the 1.6x or 4:3 format would be my best choice, I'd ditch Canon and go for Olympus which is a fully optimized solution. But my lenses are long-term investments (unlike the camera) and I'm not about to get locked-in to a lens system that is not able to take advantage of a 1.3x or FF sensor. Even if they will always be more expensive, they will also always perform better. And I can use that performance edge, be it ability to crop, or high-ISO noise.

The bottom line for me is I want a system with the potential of the best possible image quality within the price and luggability range that I can afford. For me that's digital 35mm full frame.

Best,
Nils

Sorry but, I know that many people here are canon product managers,
chief designesr, marketing cluster matrix consulents and so on...

Ok i'm joking, please forgive me, I don't want to look rude, but
english is not my mother language.

Please keep it simple: do you need an ef-s fast prime or are you
satisfied with the ef rage?
That's all, i just feel the need for a 35 and 50 mm (equivaent) Usm
with fast aperture good at f/2 on a 1,6 crop camera. I think that
is not such a big dream. I don't care about canon plans, I just
want to express my need, and like to know if i'm the only one who
NEEDS EFS FAST PRIMES. So please speek about YOUR NEEDS and stop
guessing the others' one.