Show Posts
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.
I think it's more like "some primes are really bad and most zooms are even worse than those"Actually, some zooms do out-perform prime lenses.You mean that some zooms out-perform some prime lenses.
It' not like I don't believe you (my 50/1.8II has only 6 elements in 5 groups and it's fine), but how do you compare? How do you know that it would outperform the best lenses today? I'm sure it's more complicated than that. Digital imaging sensors are different from film. Small distance between lens and sensor results in IQ degradation of image corners, because the light is falling at a bigger angle.I understand the "high IQ camera in a pocket", but I don't understand the "DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" (which, I think, isn't possible without IQ sacrifice).
I don't see any caveat of "small lens with high IQ" - a camera without mirror box allow more variability for the lens designer: Modern (D)SLRs lenses need to shift the image behind the last lens element to allow the mirror to flip up without colliding with some parts of the lens. This means a lot more lenses and a lot more special features of glasses and shapes.
Think about the good compact cams with a 2.8 35mm which had a better quality compared to some expensive lenses and the advantage of just 4 lens groups: Great contralight capabilities and great contrast. With single layer coatings! Think about a 6 lens 4 group double gaussian lens with 30 mm focal length, 2.8 max aperture and an optimized multilayer coating, perhaps with special glass or one aspheric surface - this would outperform the best lenses today for SLRs, I am shure.
So a mirrorless would need a special bayonet, e.g. EF-XS. But if Canon adds an EF converter you will have the freedom of choice between an old style compact APS-C cam or a mirrorless cam with a 2.8 100 MACRO lens to do some table top work. And Canon should add the EF to EF-XS converter to the body for let's say 100 EUR/$.Adapting lenses is one of the major features I like about mirrorless cameras.
I understand the "high IQ camera in a pocket", but I don't understand the "DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" ... Photography is not about putting things in your pockets.
"DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" is another way of saying "high IQ camera in a pocket".
Don't worry if you don't see the attraction; most people don't see the attraction of a full frame body and massive lenses just to take snaps of each other at parties, nights out etc that'll be displayed on a computer monitor. It's a horses for courses thing.
I'm sure that if it was possible to make a small mirrorless camera with a large sensor (APS-C) and smal f/2.8 zoom which could fit in a pocket, then it would have been done already. Don't you think? You can always make a pinhole in your DSLR body cap and call it pocketableI understand the "high IQ camera in a pocket", but I don't understand the "DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" (which, I think, isn't possible without IQ sacrifice). Photography is not about putting things in your pockets. Nice small camera bag is a much better way to carry your fragile, expensive, dust and moisture sensitive photographic equipment.
If it's not in my pocket, it doesn't go everywhere with me. Period.
If it has to be in a bag, it makes no difference to me if it's small or big - might as well take my 5D and L-glass.
.
I'm sorry, you are right. I must be too tired right now and 10 or 20 years doesn't make any difference to meActually, most of them were released in the last 10 years (all except EF 100mm f/2 USM in 1991)
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM - 1993 (not a ring type, but still
EF 20mm f/2.8 USM - 1992
EF 28mm f/1.8 USM - 1995
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM - 1992
EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro - 2000
Ummmm...are you currently worried about the dreaded Y2K bug?I'm not sure which time zone or alternate reality you're living in, but where I am (and I suspect, the rest of the world as well), it's currently 2011. Counting backward from this year (it's a good thing I have 10 fingers!) shows that 'the last 10 years' comprise 2001-2010. Your list of lenses is entirely pre-2001.
+1 on the need for a set of wide-to-normal EF-S primes!
. Let's make it 20 
.
Actually, most of them were released in the last 10 years (all except EF 100mm f/2 USM in 1991)IMHO, if someone really thinks that a $100 lens isn't cheap enough, then perhaps he should buy a cheap P&S camera instead of DSLR
Hmm, EF-S 28/30/35mm f/1.8 non-USM, very unlikely. I think that non-USM primes are history. How many of those were released in the last 10 years? Zero?
Zero in the last 10 years. The number of non-L EF primes in the last 10 years with USM? Also zero. It's quite possible that non-L EF primes are history, with or without USM. Consider - since the introduction of the EF-S mount, Canon has released just two non-L EF lenses, the two 70-300mm zooms (a focal range where the EF-S format offers no real benefit), no primes. Everything else has been EF-S or L. When they were designed, the non-L EF lenses were for consumers - they also shot FF (film) and affordable lenses were necessary. That need is now fulfilled by EF-S lenses.
As for the 50/1.8 II, I'm not suggesting that Canon would decrease production costs with a MkIII and then pass the savings on to customers. Like the 18-55 IS II and 55-250 II, the prices for the new lenses would stay the same or increase slightly (they can tout 'improved AF algorithms' which are basically free from Canon's perspective). The only point of reducing production costs would be increased profit per unit.
)I could certainly see a short EF-S prime as a normal lens for APS-C. As for the 50/1.8 II update, that's one of Canon three top-selling lenses. Check out the 'updates' to the other two of the top three - the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II and the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II. No optical changes, just marginally cheaper production costs (even a small savings means big profit for the number of units sold).
Earlier this year, Canon hit a couple of sales milestones - 50 million EOS bodies and 70 million EF lenses (which includes EF-S). What does that mean? An average of 1.4 lenses per camera. Far and away, the most popular current lenses in addition to the 18-55 kit lens, are the EF-S 55-250 and the 50/1.8 II. To me, that suggests they probably sell relatively few non-L EF primes (50/1.8 notwithstanding). The 35/2 doesn't seem terribly popular, despite being 'normal' on APS-C. Since it's build and performance are similar to the 50/1.8 II, the far lower sales of the 35/2 are likely due to its higher price tag (cheap compared to most lenses, but still 3x the cost of the 50/1.8 II).
So, personally I think that if Canon does release an EF-S 28/30/35mm lens, it won't be the f/1.4 USM lens people who frequent this forum would probably prefer, but would likely cost well north of $400, perhaps $500-600. Instead, I think they'd telease an f/1.8 non-USM lens costing a bit over $200.
. 50/1.8III doesn't make sense to me, at all. I hope the new one will have USM in it.Well, 85L II is 5 years old by now, but we can still call it a recent update. Then how about 10+ years? The original EF 50/1.8 is from the first (non-L, non-USM) "wave" of EF lenses and it was updated in 1990 (3 years later) just before the second (non-L) "wave". Nikon had recently updated their cheap 50/1.8 and it seems to be a great deal for the price. For just $220 you are getting a decent glass with a silent AF motor, 7 (rounded) aperture blades + (wowAnyone know when they'll roughly release the 50mm 1.4 and the 85's? Like a rough estimate? Early next year or late 2012?
These are patents, not products. Canon has close to 2500 patents published per year, so obviously, only a small percentage ever see the light of day as products (and many are not intended to, but rather to constrain the competition).
The 85/1.2 II is relatively recent, and Canon hasn't updated any non-L EF primes except the 50/1.8 II, and that was to make it cheaper to produce, and was before dSLRs were a consumer product. Today's 'typical' consumer wants zoom lenses and/or cheap lenses (<$250), and uses an APS-C camera. So, I honestly doubt there is much of a market-driven need to update the non-L EF primes (except perhaps a 50/1.8 III for even lower production costs of that very popular lens).
) a lens hood and a pouch. Now, what lower production costs are we talking about? I don't think that we'll ever see the 50/1.8 III. What consumers really want/need is a fast normal prime for their crop bodies like EF-S 28mm (or 30mm), not another too long fifty. However, a new 50mm (?L) Macro would be nice.
ecka,We'll see ...
If it is the fast efs lens, I'll buy you the first round. We just need to find a bar close by one of us!
, only 2 days left.
My prime lens wishlist:It will be the new 24-70 IS. Bet the house on it. Want to know why?It could be a new EF-S standard prime lens as well, because I've just switched to FFBecause I just ordered the original from B&H. Grrrrrr And, that means it will be a superb, transformative lens that will instantly drop the value of the one that I will have had for a week by a significant amount. LOL
... like fast 28mm
Do you realize that Nikon 1 with the lens attached is twice bigger and heavier than S100?
yes, it is less compact. About 25% larger body and the lens sticks out = about twice as "thick" as the S100 with lens retracted = not ready to shoot. :-)
But so what: I still get a V1 with 10-30 in my right jacket pocket and a 30-110 in my left pocket. :-)
And more importantly: every millimeter and every ounce is worth it, many times over.
. Still waiting for Canon mirrorless.
Thanks for your work and this interesting comparison!I hope that's exactly what the next G camera will be - APS-C mirrorless
However, as so often with Canon my take is: the S100 is exactly what the S95 really should have been from the start. By now the S100 is "too little, too late" - at least for me.
Like so many other Canon DSLR users I have been waiting a long time for a good "compact cam" in addition to my DSLR-gear and was hoping, Canon would finally get its act together and come out with a compact DSC/EVIL. AS a matter of fact, I would not really need a lens mount, a really good, compact/foldable 4x zoom on a small body with the EOS 600D APS-C sensor plus electronics to match inside would have been equally ok with me. But certainly not a 1/1.7" micro sensor, no matter what.
Therefore, I will NOT buy the S100, but rather a Nikon V1, as soon as it becomes available at a reasonable price [i.e. approx. € 500 including kit lens].Do you realize that Nikon 1 with the lens attached is twice bigger and heavier than S100?
Why? Because the little Nikon 1 is not that much bigger than a S100 and offers an entirely different performance level in terms of sensor performance and even more importantly, an up-to-speed AF system and way bettter operational speed plus a solid EVF on top (V1). Video not even mentioned, as it is of no interest to me.
I am done for good with all those SLUGGISH, dwarfy-Sensor digi-compacts, including the Canon S and G line.
. However, different cameras may have different default settings. Is there any in-camera color calibration tool?