Future standard changes to canon L series wide-medium primes and zooms

[neuroanatomist]

There are two types of "USM". The "ring type USM" is the original USM that is used in the L lenses and some older lenses, like the 35-135mm. However, Canon has be using the term USM on micromotor type of focusing mechanism, like the 50mm f 1.4 and some of the lower priced non-L lense. Unfortunately, It is hard to find out what type of USM is being used on the non-L lenses.

There's more than the term being used in micromotor type USM lenses; they still use ultrasonic frequencies to drive the rotor although I think you are right to downplay the difference between that and a regular old electronic motor AF unit, although noise is definitely helped by the new type.

Yes, any USM motor is quiet.  But the reduced noise level is pretty much the only advantage of a Micro USM motor.  Ring-type USM is faster than micromotor USM, and the gearing required in a micro USM means that most lenses so-equipped do not offer full-time manual focusing (and can, in fact, be damaged by turning the focus ring while in AF mode).  Exceptions to the lack of FTM, such as the 50mm f/1.4, use a slip clutch to allow MF with the switch in AF mode - and I wonder if that's part of the reason for the reportedly higher failure rate of the 50/1.4's AF.

[7enderbender]

It makes me laugh always - well almost laugh - any time I hear these marketing terms for plastic. Call it polycarbonate or "engineering plastic". It's plastic. It's cheap. It breaks and gets creaky and flimsy. I don't want it. I don't see why I should pay more to get less.

When I look at my old 70s and 80s lenses and compare them to my expensive "L" glass I still want to cry. It was expensive and works ok while it lasts. Question is how long that will be. In my book all of this went into the wrong direction.

In case anyone at Canon ever reads these forums: I'm still dreaming of a full frame digital Canon F1 with full=time manual focus lenses with the appropriate focusing screens with as little as possible plastic and rubber parts. No AF, IS, EF, USM or anything that requires an acronym to snow people. If you want to play with electronic gizmos do something useful with the flash system. /soapbox

[neuroanatomist]

It makes me laugh always - well almost laugh - any time I hear these marketing terms for plastic. Call it polycarbonate or "engineering plastic". It's plastic. It's cheap. It breaks and gets creaky and flimsy.

Yep.  It's crap. Like those cheap, flimsy polycarbonate windows on the space shuttle.

[dr croubie]

It makes me laugh always - well almost laugh - any time I hear these marketing terms for plastic. Call it polycarbonate or "engineering plastic". It's plastic. It's cheap. It breaks and gets creaky and flimsy. I don't want it. I don't see why I should pay more to get less.

Call it plastic if you want, but to a materials engineer there's a world of difference. They don't use the same plastic as the $2 toys from china, this is real material with a lot of research behind it. In a lot of cases, it's stronger, lighter, tougher, and less flimsy and malleable than aluminium, and it's not much cheaper once you take high r&d costs into account (it only gets cheaper over mass-production, hence it's mostly used on high-volume units). Stop giving me cheap, easy-to-produce aluminium.

(that said, my mum's Asahi Pentax Takumars from 1967 are very nice. But that's more a function of hand-manufacturing than the material they're made of. Either way, I'd rather the R&D cost of my lenses go at least 90% into the optics side)

[wickidwombat]

It makes me laugh always - well almost laugh - any time I hear these marketing terms for plastic. Call it polycarbonate or "engineering plastic". It's plastic. It's cheap. It breaks and gets creaky and flimsy.

Yep.  It's crap. Like those cheap, flimsy polycarbonate windows on the space shuttle.

thats why they had to stop flying cause they keeps splodin!

[7enderbender]

It makes me laugh always - well almost laugh - any time I hear these marketing terms for plastic. Call it polycarbonate or "engineering plastic". It's plastic. It's cheap. It breaks and gets creaky and flimsy.

Yep.  It's crap. Like those cheap, flimsy polycarbonate windows on the space shuttle.

Sure, let's celebrate that kind of stuff because NASA uses it for very specific applications. Next thing you know they are putting it in as lenses. I just had to get a replacement for a lens that I broke in my eye glasses. The real stuff wasn't available (thanks to the FDA, but that's a whole other issue I can get pretty agitated about). So now I have polycarbonate lenses in my frames until I can get actual Zeiss lenses from a place in Europe. It's exactly that: crap. I feel like I lose about 20% of my vision with this junk. But of course the "specialists" in the store declare me insane, because it's again a "know fact" that a normal person can't tell the difference. It's like MP3 files again.

We are slowly letting go of all the great achievements in these areas so that cheap Chinese manufacturers can make cheap copies or work for the "name brand" companies. And I'm not anti-trade or anything like that. I'm fine with buying things from China if they are good products.

But if Canon is lining things up to include more "engineering plastic" then the only reason is to lower their cost and make the manufacturing process easier and more automated - so that they can move their stuff to China among other things.

Or are we expecting to see any materials like these?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=gmic.org%20gunes-cabin%20windows%20of%20orbiter.doc&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gmic.org%2FStudent%2520Contest%2520Entries%2FGunes-Cabin%2520Windows%2520of%2520Orbiter.doc&ei=QBjMTvHPKcT10gGc3Bk&usg=AFQjCNHPVaDuRXqOr2C9yI2zD7F6oDi8uw&sig2=7UQG47vZj9vRmGm97eO4jg

[Paper about the kinds of materials used for the Space Shuttle Windows - the authors call it glass by the way...]


And us fools are supposed to celebrate such a vast improvement because things are lighter now. Yeah. I'm so happy.

Please don't take my response personal. Has nothing to do with you and isn't meant as questioning your extensive technical and photographic knowledge. There are just days where I'm a little frustrated with what's being sold to us as progress while some real opportunities are being missed (which ironically would include NASA and the space programs that have been canned).

[neuroanatomist]

No offense taken. 

Outsourcing to lower production costs is simply a fact of life today. The latest manifestation?  The government of China is encouraging - and offering incentives - for Chinese companies to outsource...to Cambodia.

[branden]

I understand the basis your complaint 7enderbender. That's why I also have Zeiss equipment

But I think you're doing a disservice to newer technology because it is exploited by marketers. Yes, the marketing sludge is worthless, but somewhere underneath it all are new technologies that have actually allowed photography to reach new points its never been able to before. No, not every marketed new technology is worth its weight in salt, but their slow summation of improvements have opened up photography to more and more people and places. All the new technology is nearly meaningless to photography as an end to itself, but a great boon to photography as a way to explore other areas of life.

[funkboy]

In case anyone at Canon ever reads these forums: I'm still dreaming of a full frame digital Canon F1 with full-time manual focus lenses with the appropriate focusing screens with as little as possible plastic and rubber parts. No AF, IS, EF, USM or anything that requires an acronym to snow people. If you want to play with electronic gizmos do something useful with the flash system. /soapbox

Second you on that one, brother.  I want my T90 back!

[7enderbender]

No offense taken. 

Outsourcing to lower production costs is simply a fact of life today. The latest manifestation?  The government of China is encouraging - and offering incentives - for Chinese companies to outsource...to Cambodia.

True. And we'll see more of that. Just look what the Chinese are doing in Africa. Partially that is related to them trying to get a grip on natural resources. But I bet it's just a matter of time before they are putting up production facilities there. As I said, I'm generally not opposed to this. It can be a win-win situation for everyone.

But there are obviously always problems with it, certainly in the short and mid-term. My "complaint" is about consumer complacency on our part. Very few folks seem to question the marketing talk that often is not geared towards higher quality. Sure, we have gained a lot in modern products (cameras, cars, computers, you name it). But we also lose a lot I feel, especially when some hype turns into the norm. That's when people like me at times are left behind and certain things or services I value are just not available anymore or become extremely expensive.

And this seems to happen with less important things like photography or audio products - and in the more important realm of politics, economics or education. People eat any nonsense that some half-educated intern at a media outlet fed to them. That may be "engineering plastic" as a vast improvement over the materials that were carefully developed over the last 150 years or some vague notion that "Wall Street" caused the "financial crisis".

[thepancakeman]

It makes me laugh always - well almost laugh - any time I hear these marketing terms for plastic. Call it polycarbonate or "engineering plastic". It's plastic. It's cheap. It breaks and gets creaky and flimsy. I don't want it. I don't see why I should pay more to get less.

You are almost correct, except steel and aluminum are engineered as well.  I want mine to be solid iron straight out of the mine, or better yet, maybe granite!  /sarcasm   

[thepancakeman]

Maybe we can get some camera stuff made out of this:

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/23/check-out-the-worlds-lightest-material/?hpt=hp_bn2

[Rocky]

It makes me laugh always - well almost laugh - any time I hear these marketing terms for plastic. Call it polycarbonate or "engineering plastic". It's plastic. It's cheap. It breaks and gets creaky and flimsy. I don't want it. I don't see why I should pay more to get less.

When I look at my old 70s and 80s lenses and compare them to my expensive "L" glass I still want to cry. It was expensive and works ok while it lasts. Question is how long that will be. In my book all of this went into the wrong direction.

In case anyone at Canon ever reads these forums: I'm still dreaming of a full frame digital Canon F1 with full=time manual focus lenses with the appropriate focusing screens with as little as possible plastic and rubber parts. No AF, IS, EF, USM or anything that requires an acronym to snow people. If you want to play with electronic gizmos do something useful with the flash system. /soapbox

May I suggest you to buy a Leica M9 and some Leica lenses made in the 50's to 60's to get ALL SOLID BRASS construction on the lenses. This combination will be close to your dream "DIGITAL F1".