EF-S here to stay ?

[gus]

I mentioned earlier that i have seen sites that show you what to cut where so that you can get EF-S to fit EF cameras.

Its a fair investment for the 10-22. I asked in a shop here & they wanted $1000 USD for one. I think they are about $800 @ B&H. Right up there $ wise with L stuff.

[Shay Stephens]

I can't help but to think they are an interim lens. Although I really like the 1.6x crop factor cameras, and hope they continue to make them, it just doesn't seem like the ef-s is here to stay. That is my gut feeling. I am probably wrong and they will outlast ef lenses hehehe.

For work, I am buying ef lenses, for kick around, I am using ef-s. They have at least a 10 year run I would think.

*Warning, the following has been pure conjecture based on nothing but vapor, smoke, and possibly mirrors.

I mentioned earlier that i have seen sites that show you what to cut where so that you can get EF-S to fit EF cameras.

Its a fair investment for the 10-22. I asked in a shop here & they wanted $1000 USD for one. I think they are about $800 @ B&H. Right up there $ wise with L stuff.

[David_S85]

I mentioned earlier that i have seen sites that show you what to cut where so that you can get EF-S to fit EF cameras.

Its a fair investment for the 10-22. I asked in a shop here & they wanted $1000 USD for one. I think they are about $800 @ B&H. Right up there $ wise with L stuff.
Quite an investment I'd say! As a prospective 20D owner, I have been wondering the same thing. I like the idea of the S lenses (less weight and length), but what if (or when) the silicon gets cheap enough that crop factors go away or become less than the 1.6 and 1.5 sizes? No worko. To date, Canon has only a small handful of these EF-Ss. The regular EF series seems to work fairly consistantly with all their cams, and are much easier to sell used. Plus little to no light falloff issues; important with wides.

S-series lenses. Flash in the pan, or long-term workhorses?

[gus]

Quite an investment I'd say! As a prospective 20D owner, I have been wondering the same thing. I like the idea of the S lenses (less weight and length), but what if (or when) the silicon gets cheap enough that crop factors go away or become less than the 1.6 and 1.5 sizes? No worko. To date, Canon has only a small handful of these EF-Ss. The regular EF series seems to work fairly consistantly with all their cams, and are much easier to sell used. Plus little to no light falloff issues; important with wides.

S-series lenses. Flash in the pan, or long-term workhorses?
Tks shay

David the bit about the silicon was where i was headed but talk on the net (camera reviewers) seem to think that this silicon gap will be needed to keep canons higher lever cameras just that...a better camera.

The 10-22 does review extreamly well i might add over anything sigma has.

[patch29]

Don't forget Nikon is producing a similar style of DX lenses that will only work on its digital cameras which currently have a 1.5x crop factor if they change that it will cause some issues too. So far they have kept all there DSLRs to 1.5x I believe.


One problem with the new small sensor lenses is that they are slow, no 2.8 or faster lenses. I wonder if they will be able to produce faster versions of these lenses, look at what a 14/2.8 costs.


I also wonder if you can actually use an EF-S on a 1.3 or 1.0 crop camera? I would think you would get a lot of vignetting, potentially an artistic effect like the old 8mm circular fisheye lenses. I don't think you would get the whole image circle though.

[luckyrwe]

They'll stay as soon as I see an EF-S L lens.

[gus]

They'll stay as soon as I see an EF-S L lens.
Same bloomin' price though !

[patch29]

Same bloomin' price though !

Not Likely :deal

[David_S85]

I also wonder if you can actually use an EF-S on a 1.3 or 1.0 crop camera? I would think you would get a lot of vignetting, potentially an artistic effect like the old 8mm circular fisheye lenses. I don't think you would get the whole image circle though.
You can't. The rear lens element would come too close to the mirror; let alone the image circle is too small for FF coverage.

[patch29]

You can't. The rear lens element would come too close to the mirror; let alone the image circle is too small for FF coverage.

That's what I figured, but Humungus wrote about the site where guys were hacking them, got any links for us, so we can investigate?

[David_S85]

That's what I figured, but Humungus wrote about the site where guys were hacking them, got any links for us, so we can investigate?
Hacking a lens? :huh Now I've heard everything. :scratch

[patch29]

Hacking a lens? :huh Now I've heard everything. :scratch

I mentioned earlier that i have seen sites that show you what to cut where so that you can get EF-S to fit EF cameras.

It makes sense what you say about the lens sticking further into the camera, since the newer 1.6x crop cameras have smaller mirrors, if I remember correctly.

[gus]

He took a slice of the rear ..maybe a few mm to fit it to a 10D. I will have a look for it again....said it worked well from memory.

[patch29]

He took a slice of the rear ..maybe a few mm to fit it to a 10D. I will have a look for it again....said it worked well from memory.

I wonder if the 10D has a smaller mirror than the 1D(s) series cameras? :scratch :dunno

[gus]

I wonder if the 10D has a smaller mirror than the 1D(s) series cameras? :scratch :dunnoHere it is mate
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/efs-10d.html







.

[mercphoto]

I like the idea of the S lenses (less weight and length), but what if (or when) the silicon gets cheap...

Silicon always gets cheaper

...enough that crop factors go away or become less than the 1.6 and 1.5 sizes?

That's confusing. While big silicon (i.e. FF) will get cheaper, smaller silicon will always be less expensive than big silicon. 1.6 will always be cheaper than 1.0.

To date, Canon has only a small handful of these EF-Ss.

To date, there have only been two bodies that can use those lenses, and lenses take a long time and lots of $$$ to develop.

The regular EF series seems to work fairly consistantly with all their cams, and are much easier to sell used.

I hear differing opions on how well the EF lenses work on the 1.6 cameras. The 16-35/2.8L is one example, which some love and some hate on the newest digital cameras, but all seem to love on the film cameras. Point taken about EF easier to sell than EF-S, given the much larger potential audience.

I personally would be very surprised to see the APS-C sensor disappear. My only complaint about EF-S lenses is I want to see faster variants.

[patch29]

Here it is mate
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/efs-10d.html


Thanks. He only did it for a 10D, not any others, too bad a lens that wide on a FF would be fun.

IF YOU PUT THIS LENS ON A CAMERA WITH A LARGER MIRROR, YOU'RE ASKING FOR A DISASTER. On any film based body, or on a 1Ds or probably on a 1D, the mirror will HIT THE LENS AND CAUSE DAMAGE.

[fish]

Interesting topic and one that I've pondered before, primarily just before I plonked down big bucks on a 10-22 EF-S.

My take is that they are here to stay. As was previously mentioned, lenses take a lot of money to design and produce. If Canon wasn't committed to the APS-C sensor form factor, they wouldn't invest in the lens technology. Canon is a very savvy company. They don't often make stupid mistakes.

Further, I think the existence of EF-S lenses bodes well for the lowend of the dSLR market. I would fully expect to see additional bodies introduced over the next 12-18 months that take advantage of EF-S. The interesting part is why they work on the 20D, as that's definitely not the lowend of the market.

Canon will recoup their investment in volume. Not the kind of volume that the 20D is going to generate, but in the volume that the varients of the drebel are going to bring. Let's take a look at Canon's film SLR range. There are three or four Rebels in the line. New ones come out all the time. I suspect Canon is going to do the same thing with the drebel. Make lots of models at varying price ranges and get people into the EF-S form factor.

The fact that the 10-22/3.4-4.5 is a stellar lens is just icing on the cake for us 20D owners (drebelers too). Sure, it would be nice to see an f2.8 version of it, but it would be a lot heavier and a lot more spendy.

To date, I've invested in exactly one EF-S lens. Will I buy more? I don't know, but I don't think so. It's probable that I will move to a FF sensor SLR at some point in the future when they develop one that doesn't cost a left nut. I'm confident I'll be able to sell the 10-22 no problem. It's a great lens. Then again, looking back at my previous argument, there's also a good chance that the FF camera I buy will accept EF-S lenses. Can you imagine an FF camera with a true rectilinear 10-22 zoom? Boggles the mind.

So. I have two L lenses. I will probably get more sometime in the future. They are high quality lenses, weatherproof, and built like tanks. And they don't seem to mind sharing the Domke with an EF-S lens. :giggle


pretty good pui ramble, huh? :booze

[luckyrwe]

For those of us who do not have a camera using the EF-S format, then the announcement of new EF-S lenses from Canon is about as exciting as a new lens from Pentax. Actually when I hear aboutt he nice wide EF-S lens and I sit here with a MarkII, I feel like I was off on the lottery by one measley number.

I sure hope Canon decides to throw us non EF-S users a bone now and then.

[mercphoto]

Actually when I hear aboutt he nice wide EF-S lens and I sit here with a MarkII, I feel like I was off on the lottery by one measley number.

I sure hope Canon decides to throw us non EF-S users a bone now and then.

Why be gloom? The 10-22 EF-S is the same as a 16-35 on a full-frame. Us APS-C people aren't getting anything you don't already have. And your version is a 2.8. Don't worry, be happy. :)

[wxwax]

Sounds to me like mungus is buying a 20D :evil

[gus]

Sounds to me like mungus is buying a 20D :evil
No...mungus has simply done his research to know what costs are assoc with each camera & could catch the new punter out.

Do you really think i would buy something that fish could afford ?

[fish]

Why be gloom? The 10-22 EF-S is the same as a 16-35 on a full-frame. Us APS-C people aren't getting anything you don't already have. And your version is a 2.8. Don't worry, be happy. :)

Ed Zachary. :nod

[fish]

Do you really think i would buy something that Andy could afford ?

fixed it for ya, bud.

[jimf]

I sure hope Canon decides to throw us non EF-S users a bone now and then.

When you've got the likes of the 24-70 f/2.8 L and 70-200 f/2.8 L, you really don't have the right to complain about needing a bone. The EF-S lens line is still rather sparse. Moreover, they're priced rather high relative to some very good EF offerings -- for instance, when it came time to choose between the 10-22 EF-S and something else, I bought the 17-40 f/4 L (what a great lens for the money).

Over time I expect to pick up more EF-S lenses since their compactness will be valuable while travelling, but when I want a great lens....

[Seamus]

Interesting topic and one that I've pondered before, primarily just before I plonked down big bucks on a 10-22 EF-S.


So. I have two L lenses. I will probably get more sometime in the future. They are high quality lenses, weatherproof, and built like tanks. And they don't seem to mind sharing the Domke with an EF-S lens. :giggle


pretty good pui ramble, huh? :booze
How often do you use the 10-22 lens. I'm thinking of getting a replacement for the kt lens (18-55) and am leaning towards a 24-70 range. I think it would be a better walk around lens. The 10-22 is a great lens as your pics show, I just think it is a little specialised.

[fish]

How often do you use the 10-22 lens. I'm thinking of getting a replacement for the kt lens (18-55) and am leaning towards a 24-70 range. I think it would be a better walk around lens. The 10-22 is a great lens as your pics show, I just think it is a little specialised.
I use it quite a bit. It's very light, so makes a good walkaround lens. I don't think it's any more specialized than any other wide angle lens...unless you consider wide angle to be specialized.

[rutt]

I posted about this before here: http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=38236&postcount=9

I think what I wrote is still valid. It's in Canon's/Nikon's/Fuji's best interest to keep the FF technology out of the mass market until the sales of the cameras with the smaller sensors slow down and they need something else to tempt us with. All the better if we go out and buy lenses now that we will have to replace when we upgrade. It's just good business on their part.

[wxwax]

All the better if we go out and buy lenses now that we will have to replace when we upgrade. It's just good business on their part.

I remember reading how much Canon upset people when their new generation of lenses was not backwards compatible with their old ones. Nikon didn't do that and gained some style points.

I wonder if either really relishes repeating the exercise?

[fish]

I remember reading how much Canon upset people when their new generation of lenses was not backwards compatible with their old ones. Nikon didn't do that and gained some style points.

I wonder if either really relishes repeating the exercise?
What are you referring to, waxy? EF lenses?

[jimf]

I posted about this before here: http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=38236&postcount=9

I think what I wrote is still valid. It's in Canon's/Nikon's/Fuji's best interest to keep the FF technology out of the mass market until the sales of the cameras with the smaller sensors slow down and they need something else to tempt us with. All the better if we go out and buy lenses now that we will have to replace when we upgrade. It's just good business on their part.

I think the problem I see with that is there's no real reason for them to ever use full frame sensors in the consumer or prosumer spaces; the quality is already "good enough" with today's sensors, and the less expensive manufacturing of APS-C sensors and glass are very worthwhile in volume markets like that.

Moreover, that's about the only thing that they're going to have to differentiate pro-level bodies from prosumer in a year or two as competition forces full feature sets and large buffers down the product line.

[rutt]

I remember reading how much Canon upset people when their new generation of lenses was not backwards compatible with their old ones. Nikon didn't do that and gained some style points.

I wonder if either really relishes repeating the exercise?
But this would be quite different. Both companies already make FF cameras and lenses. They'd just be making them more accessable. As long as we are jealous of Andy's 1dsmk11, there is every reason to think this will happen.

[rutt]

I think the problem I see with that is there's no real reason for them to ever use full frame sensors in the consumer or prosumer spaces; the quality is already "good enough" with today's sensors, and the less expensive manufacturing of APS-C sensors and glass are very worthwhile in volume markets like that.

Moreover, that's about the only thing that they're going to have to differentiate pro-level bodies from prosumer in a year or two as competition forces full feature sets and large buffers down the product line.
I don't think they are goign to do it next year. I think they'll do it in 5 years in order to revive sales after the market is mature.

[wxwax]

What are you referring to, waxy? EF lenses?
:nod

[jimf]

I remember reading how much Canon upset people when their new generation of lenses was not backwards compatible with their old ones. Nikon didn't do that and gained some style points.

I wonder if either really relishes repeating the exercise?

Canon's decision irked a lot of people in the short term, but they ended up with a lot more flexibility in their lens design and that was a win in a lot of areas -- notably AF performance. But with EF-S Canon is doing what Nikon eventually did: Maintain compatibility with the old stuff so your investment isn't lost while introducing new lens technologies targetted at new bodies.

[jimf]

I don't think they are goign to do it next year. I think they'll do it in 5 years in order to revive sales after the market is mature.

There is probably about a decade of growth purely from conversion from film. Maybe a decade hence they'll start worrying about what to do in the face of a saturated market, but I think you might have it backwards.

The smaller and lighter lenses used by smaller format cameras can be seen as a significant advantage. If anything, I would expect the APS-C sensors to migrate upward into pro-level cameras in order to provide pros more choice (and therefore sell them more equipment). Meanwhile they'll migrate DSLR technology ever downward into the consumer space to build volume.

[rutt]

There is probably about a decade of growth purely from conversion from film. Maybe a decade hence they'll start worrying about what to do in the face of a saturated market, but I think you might have it backwards.

The smaller and lighter lenses used by smaller format cameras can be seen as a significant advantage. If anything, I would expect the APS-C sensors to migrate upward into pro-level cameras in order to provide pros more choice (and therefore sell them more equipment). Meanwhile they'll migrate DSLR technology ever downward into the consumer space to build volume. Let's get one thing straight. Canon's goal is not to sell you the last camera (system) you will ever buy. Unlike Kodak in it's prime, there is no film business to keep the revenue coming in the door once you have the camera. So maybe it won't be full frame, but there will be something to make you want a new camera every few years. Full frame is a card they have that they can play. The have a long time committment to it and have proven that FF digital cameras are desirable enough to charge a fortune for. Maybe they'll come up with something better, but I'm drooling over a FF camera in a 20d form factor with 1dmkii (or much better) speed, filmlike dynamic range, lowlight performance like night vision googles, waist level shooting, and 50MP. Now, you'd want that, wouldn't you? 10 years? But it won't come all at once. Why should canon waste each these technical advances. Any two can get a significant number of upgrades.

[jimf]

Let's get one thing straight. Canon's goal is not to sell you the last camera (system) you will ever buy.

Of course not, but there are limits to what they can do at certain price points. The problem with full frame sensors is yield; the larger the sensor, the more likely there will be a flaw and the chip will be unusable. That alone will keep full frame sensors up towards the top of the line.

Maybe they'll come up with something better, but I'm drooling over a FF camera in a 20d form factor with 1dmkii (or much better) speed, filmlike dynamic range, lowlight performance like night vision googles, waist level shooting, and 50MP. Now, you'd want that, wouldn't you? 10 years? But it won't come all at once. Why should canon waste each these technical advances. Any two can get a significant number of upgrades.

I will be very surprised if we see 50mp in even a full frame sensor. Even if it's possible, which it might not be, it's not necessary; expect images produced by DSLRs to top out around 20mp (which is more or less the resolution of medium format film and well beyond 35mm). Instead, I expect a lot more focus over the next five years on increasing dynamic range ala Fuji SR. If there's any one place digital is lacking right now, it's dynamic range.

The fact of the matter is that there is going to be a resistance from the manufacturers to pushing features down their product line. To do so eats up the large profits seen on higher-end equipment. They'll do so primarily as a result of competition. Instead, expect them to push less expensive technologies upward as much as they can. This improves profit and, as I mentioned previously, may provide real-world benefits to photographers. Pushing smaller sensors up also means that professionals, already fully outfitted for full-frame photography, get to buy all new glass to make the most of the new cameras -- and glass is very profitable. There is still a lot of upside in that approach to the market as the conversion from film continues, long before they have to worry about selling into a saturated market.

[mercphoto]

Canon's decision irked a lot of people in the short term, but they ended up with a lot more flexibility in their lens design and that was a win in a lot of areas -- notably AF performance.

There's parallels to this in the computer industry and consumer electronics industries. Sometimes a manufacturer needs to break with prior standards in order to move forward with something better. Its painful in the short-term, better in the long term.

My background and career in the semiconductor biz tells me that APS-C sensors simply will not go away. You cannot avoid the physics of it. And I'm personally not drooling over FF anyway. I'm quite happy with a 1.6X camera. Given that, I see no reason for EF-S to disappear either, or reason to avoid purchases such lenses. The only reason I haven't is that I like fast glass.

Now, if they decide to make a 2.8 EF-S lens... :)

[jimf]

Now, if they decide to make a 2.8 EF-S lens... :)

You and me both. It really wouldn't suck to have a lighter 70-200 f/2.8....

[photobug]

Silicon always gets cheaper . There is definitely some confusion here....

Yes, silicon gets cheaper over time -- but cheaper per functionality, not cheaper per physical area.

Over time, transistors get smaller, so can silicon can shrink in size for a given functionality. We see this all the time in microprocessors -- die areas shrink over time and, in silicon, cost is proportional to die area and yield. The savings are nonlinear; when a die ("chip") get smaller, not only do you get a higher absolute number of "chips" out of a silicon wafer but you also get a higher yield (percentage of good chips) from a wafer. So if (for example) Intel shrinks a microprocessor to 70% of its original die size, the cost per good die may drop not just to 70%, but likely to 50% or 30% of the cost of the original die.

If you want to keep the same physical die area (e.g. sensor size), it will not get much cheaper (at least, once standard production volume and yield are achieved).

So I don't expect full-size 36mm x 24mm image sensors to become (much) less expensive over time. We may very well see number of pixels for a given sensor size continue to increase, but full-size sensors won't become dramatically cheaper to produce. (unless they figure out how to reasonably assemble a sensor out of an array of smaller sensors -- but perhaps this is already being done)

Which indirectly implies that EF-S (and corresponding Nikon) lenses for APS-size sensors do have some life left in them. (IMHO, I can't imagine that Canon and Nikon would be even starting a new line of lenses if they didn't expect them to be useful for quite a while)

= bug.

[fish]

There is definitely some confusion here....

it's so nice to have a processor expert around...

hiya bug :wave

[ian408]

Let's talk yield as it relates to size of the die :D

Ian

[rutt]

Let's talk yield as it relates to size of the die :D

Ian
You got there just the second before I did. Go get 'em.

[ian408]

You got there just the second before I did. Go get 'em.
The only thing I would say is that as the density and size go up,
so does the failure rate. So a practical reason for keeping the
die size smaller is to insure a consistent yield.

Ian

[fish]

The only thing I would say is that as the density and size go up,
so does the failure rate. So a practical reason for keeping the
die size smaller is to insure a consistent yield.

Ian
Not necessarily. While bug will be able to explain this better than i can, die size doesn't not necessarily relate to failure rate. There are a lot of factors, including technology (both of the design and the production equipment).

Did you really mean die size instead of wafer size?

[ian408]

Not necessarily. While bug will be able to explain this better than i can, die size doesn't not necessarily relate to failure rate. There are a lot of factors, including technology (both of the design and the production equipment).

Did you really mean die size instead of wafer size?
Yes. I did mean die size but recall I said "density and size". So I would
agree that die size alone is not an indicator of failure rate.

My statement is also something of a gross generalization. Especially
if the mfg'er is migrating from one process technology to the next.


Ian

[gus]

Some reading if anyone is interested

http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/22468.html




.

[wxwax]

No...mungus has simply done his research to know what costs are assoc with each camera & could catch the new punter out.

Do you really think i would buy something that fish could afford ?

Yes.

[mercphoto]

I can't find the thread that talked of rumors of new lenses in the works at Canon. The EF-S 10-22 lens made perfect sense. I'm wondering what else they have in mind? I wonder how small a 300/2.8 could be made for an EF-S mount? Or if a re-design of the aging 100-400 is in the works?

[patch29]

I can't find the thread that talked of rumors of new lenses in the works at Canon. The EF-S 10-22 lens made perfect sense. I'm wondering what else they have in mind? I wonder how small a 300/2.8 could be made for an EF-S mount? Or if a re-design of the aging 100-400 is in the works?

Here (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=8824) is one started by Rutt, not sure it that is what you were looking for.

[Jekyll & Hyde]

J: A paradigm shift is upon us (and I'm not talking about film -> digital here).

H: Those manufacturers quick to the APS-C bandwagon will be left standing, those that don't see the shift coming will perish.

J: APS-C (EF-S) will quickly become the dominant form factor in the marketplace. Sure, there'll always be FF and Medium format shooters out there, but they'll be increasingly in the minority.

H: As the technology improves, the tendency will be toward smaller systems, not larger. I predict that within a couple of years, we'll see a DSLR system based on perhaps a 2/3" sensor.

J: It's going to be driven by competition, economics, and physics.

H: And Entropy (a combination of inevitability and irreversibility).

My take.
J&H

[pathfinder]

J: A paradigm shift is upon us (and I'm not talking about film -> digital here).

H: Those manufacturers quick to the APS-C bandwagon will be left standing, those that don't see the shift coming will perish.

J: APS-C (EF-S) will quickly become the dominant form factor in the marketplace. Sure, there'll always be FF and Medium format shooters out there, but they'll be increasingly in the minority.

H: As the technology improves, the tendency will be toward smaller systems, not larger. I predict that within a couple of years, we'll see a DSLR system based on perhaps a 2/3" sensor.

J: It's going to be driven by competition, economics, and physics.

H: And Entropy (a combination of inevitability and irreversibility).

My take.
J&H In a way, this is what Olympus has been saying about the 4/3s system all along. That the sensor is "Large Enough" to allow Pro level quality, and the camera and lenses can thus be much smaller and easier to carry, and more affordable. And that the sensors will get better and less noisier despite thier smaller size. Well,.....maybe.

Whether this has come true yet for Olympus, remains to be determined, I think. It will be interesting to see the new DSLR promised by Panasonic based on the 4/3s system.

For now, I'll stick with Canon's sytem. For a long,long time I suspect. I think the APS sized sensors are going to be useful for a very long time.

One limitation of going to a smaller sensor, like the 2/3s sensor, is the losss of the ability to limit depth of field. The smaller sensor cameras will have great depth of field due to the small size of the sensor and lens, but maximum depth of field is frequently not desireable. :dunno

[mercphoto]

In a way, this is what Olympus has been saying about the 4/3s system all along. That the sensor is "Large Enough" to allow Pro level quality, and the camera and lenses can thus be much smaller and easier to carry, and more affordable.
Yup. And having a common lens interface is a nice idea as well. Choose the lenses you want, from any manufacturer, and choose whatever body you want. However, I really don't like the 4:3 apsect ratio they propose. I think that was a very poor choice.

As well, I suspect I will stick with Canon, and with an APS-C sensor. I'm hoping Canon comes out with some very nice EF-S telephotos, preferably of L quality.