« on: September 08, 2012, 08:29:31 PM »
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
As I see it -
1. There's no point in using a TS-E lens without a tripod, so reducing the size & weight of a TS-E lens would be negligible.
2. There might be some IQ benefit, but TS-E lenses are a niche market, which I guess is why Canon didn't make any TS-E lenses for specifically for crop sensors. I've heard the 17mm TS-E lens was introduced to be a TS-E 24mm equivalent on crop sensors, but it's still FF compatible.
In short - if there's money in tilt-shift lenses for EOS-M bodies, Canon (or some other lens manufacturer) will probably make some. My guess is there isn't any, so there wouldn't be any.
The most obvious advanatge to me seems to be price, a specialist TSE lens on a EF-S mount would still I'd guess come in at around $1000 or more for a manual focusing prime.
I'd guess a TS-E adaptor could be significantly cheaper than that and could be used with multiple lenses that would still AF when used on a DSLR or with the regular EF adaptor.
There does seem to be an increased interest in using selective focus via tilt recently which could be capitalised on with such a product without damaging the market for more serious FF specialist TSE lenses.
80 million seems like a lot of lenses, where are all of them? Closets? Have you ever thrown a lens away? Is there a lens landfill.
...the typical DSLR owner has between 2 to 3 lenses in their kit bag on average.
On average. But I bet the distribution not normal - a sharp peak at 1 lens (lots of people buy the body+lens kit and stick with that), and trailing shoulder from 2 on up, meaning if you buy a second lens you're pretty likely to have 3-4 total.
It also makes one wonder how many camera bodies have they made to date, they surpassed the 25 millionth mark a few years ago, so must be somewhere between 28 to 30 million camera bodies??
Ergo, the typical DSLR owner has between 2 to 3 lenses in their kit bag on average.
So Canon doesn't provide a proper way for other manufacturers to make EF lenses without paying horrendous licensing fees. Then it purpously breaks compatibility with existing 3rd party lenses with new bodies. That doesn't sound good to me. All Canon would have to provide would be a proper way to ID the lenses. A simple manufacturer ID + item ID would be sufficient.Third party manufacturers can assign their own lens ID, they do not need to use a Canon ID. They are merely trying to be clever, and it backfired.
However, the only way for a camera to know the optical and capable characteristics of a lens, is for the lens to be in the internal table that resides in the camera.
e.g. automatic illumination correction or area focus, I see no problem here. The consumer would make a conscious between features (price, IQ, lens specific processing), and do what he sees fit.
2. Lens specific processing is misapplied, because 3rd party manufacturer had it's lens ID itself as an other lens.
That works only if specific processing is optional.
But those cases are only the tip of the iceberg, the real trouble starts when the camera needs the processing to work properly. Sure, you could set the AF to "dumb as a rock" as long as there is no proper ID, which likely would result in accusions of deliberatly crippeling 3rd party lenses.
But a basic problem remains: Canon doesn't do lens specific processing for fun, but because advanced techniques work only with certain lenses or at need specific data for others. That was a problem in the past when Sigma lenses only reported AF parameters for consumer bodies but lacked the second set for area-type sensors. Most of the time only the pro bodies were affected, and the 7D is using the center of most lenses, but if the 5d3 is an indicator for upcoming high end prosumer bodies...
This would be a very good idea for a start.
They actually might have done that - but for an outside party the only way to differentiate between reserved for 3rd party and reserved for future lenses would be to ask.