Odds & Ends: 70D, 7D2, New Full Frame, D600 & Photoshop CS6

[dlleno]

After getting a 5DII and 16-35mm f/2.8L II, I sold the 10-22mm.

FWIW, after about a year of use I sold my 10-22mm for only $50 less than I paid when I bought it new from Amazon.  Pretty low barrier to moving to FF, IMO.  A bigger barrier that some people cite is the cost to replace those lenses with their FF counterparts.  But I disagree - for the 10-22mm, even though I got the expensive 16-35 II, the 17-40mm is only 1mm less wide.  Likewise, there are a whole bunch of people who claim that there is no EF 'replacement' for the 17-55mm since the 24-105mm is a stop slower and the 24-70 does not have IS.  To that, I say false!!  The 'FF equivalent' of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS would be a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 IS lens - therefore, the 24-105mm on FF is wider, longer, and faster than the 17-55mm on APS-C (note: faster in terms of DoF for the same framing, but the 1.3-stop ISO advantage of FF more than makes up for the 1-stop loss of shutter speed, so really the only thing you lose is activation of the f/2.8 AF points).

I haven't actually heard the argument that there is no FF equivalent of the 17-55, and would gladly take a FF/24-105 over an APS-C/17-55 combination!

as for the migration penalty -- yea I think those who have invested in the high dollar EF-S lenses will find the used market attractive enough to make the transition worth it with minimal cost penalty. These lenses will hold their value in the Rebel market for some time, I expect.    I do suspect that other of the EF-S lenses would not hold value as well, but at the same time represent less overall financial risk anyway --  but I'm speaking without experience there...

Indeed I would agree that the 17-55 still makes a very good general purpose lens for a 2nd (APS-C) body

[distant.star]

.
Well thought out post. Thanks.

One point especially rings true for me -- the EF-S 60mm lens has been overlooked as one of the excellent EF-S lenses. It doesn't have the expense, but it delivers great IQ. I've found it also has a very distinctive look that I like. I use it for everything from general macro to landscapes.

I think everyone is forgetting that Canon APS-C, APS-H and full frame (35mm equivalent) sensors exist today for two reasons.

1) They correspond to existing film formats, making the switch from film to digital easier for those doing so. The logic behind Canon using these formats in digital sensors is clear.

2) The different sensors have different costs involved in production allowing Canon could offer budget minded entry level cameras ranging to the high performance professional cameras. APS-C sensors cost much less to produce than an equivalent MP full frame sensor!

Am I unhappy that the different formats exist? NO! They all offer something the other cannot. I use my 7D just as much as my 5DII! It all depends on what I want to shoot. I still throw my T1i (with my EF-s 60mm 2.8 macro) in my backpack when I want a throw-and-go camera that will consistently take awesome shots even though I have a sweet full frame 5DII to use whenever I need it! Now, I COULD throw my EF 100mm 2.8 macro on my 5DII, but the DOF (and sharpness, and ease of use) on the T1i/60mm is unmatched.

Now, will cameras exist one day that are all full frame? Maybe. Will Canon develop medium format digital sensors? That's very likely. There will be no end to the megapixel race as well as to the size of the sensor. (http://news.yahoo.com/supercameras-could-capture-never-seen-detail-171825569.html) For now, we have what we have.

D

[Richard8971]

Not to trivialize anyones choices or investments I was just highlighting the biggest case representing the most likely IQ fanatics that have a sizable EF-S investment that would be most impacted by a move to FF and that Canon would be the most concerned about in their branding and upgrade paths.  What are the EF-S lenses you have?   

Well, seeing as how I shoot with BOTH APS-C and FF cameras I see no reason to NOT invest in EF-S lenses, if the need is there.

I love my 5D2 for what it can do and I love my 7D and NOBODY is taking my 7D away! My wife loves her T1i even though she has the 5D2 and 7D to play with. You see, each camera will appeal or not appeal to everyone differently. Just because one person swears by FF cameras, someone out there will disagree and they won't be wrong for doing so!

It's not really an issue to me and as to what lenses I own, that is a different subject that is not part of the 7D2/70D discussion we are having. I simply meant that Canon needs to take into account someone who has bought a APS-C camera and if they make an upgrade to it, it should be compatible with what equipment they already own. (EF, EF-s) Canon has maintained that tradition so far and I believe they will continue to do so with future camera bodies.

If there is a 70D, it WILL be APS-C

If there is a 7D2, it WILL be APS-C

If there is a T5i, it WILL be APS-C

If there is a 5D4, it WILL be FF

Any new cameras that do not conform to the existing formats will simply be named something new. (I.E. 3D, 6D... whatever) Pretty simple really.

D

[dlleno]

I tend to agree Richard8971, esp as I consider those names to be brands, with a particular market perception that Canon wants attached to them.  It will be interesting if Canon Shakes things up, though, with name variants like 70DX, but whatever they do you can count on the fact that a lot of expensive salaries will have contributed to whatever branding strategy they come up with!

[wickidwombat]

I hope that what ever the king crop camera is called it gets a different sensor from the rebel to further differentiate it.

a 22MP sensor makes sense to
A) compete a bit more with the sony 24MP demigod blah blah sensor
B) maybe at 22MP it will help the video people more like the 5Dmk3 was supposed to (I really dont understand this at all but I can see them do that from a marketing perspective)
C) gapless microlens stuff and better iso performance both low and high (IMO this is the achilles heal of the 7D)

I think they should just use the same body as the 5Dmk3 ergonomically its a stellar design dual card slots and all. 100% Viewfinder, No more R&D there boys just whack it in

AF system should really be the 1D4 AF (Again 0 R&D) to retain the f8 AF this makes massive sense since alot of the 7D crowd are people that use great L lenses and would like to be able to use a 1.4 or 2x TC on it for more reach at a sane price examples are 70-300 L + 1.4TC 400 f5.6L + 1.4 TC or the 300f4L +2x TC these combos on a crop with a good sensor will be wonderfull for everyone. I am sure most pros would carry one as an additional body purely for this reason. The 1D4 AF is also a proven system.

It would be nice if it was priced at $2000 or less however given canons current price strategy i would expect to see it at $2500

It all hinges on sorting out the IQ on the sensor!

[bdunbar79]

just sayin

I tend to use the same controls on all the bodies so this little differences get ignored

My brain cant cope with the 'which camera am I using today' analysis 

yeah try the image review and zooming on any other camera and then swapping to the 5Dmk3 and back

drives one absolutely nuts i tell ya

... and changing iso in flight.

1D4 is set for auto iso, my others aren't

IIRC the 5DIII is different again 

No way I could change between 1D4 and 5D3 quickly.  Of course I don't need to, b/c when I can't miss a shot at sports I take the 1D4

[pknight]

aside from the three mentioned, what is your total investment in EF-S long glass? what long glass do you reach for when needed?

I was wondering, just how much can you invest in EF-S long glass?  (Or, perhaps, how do you define long glass? )  The 55-250 is the longest EF-S lens offered, following the 18-135.  Everything else tops out at 85, I believe.  EF-S lenses are designed to give croppers the FOV of wider EF lenses.  There is no demand for long EF-S lenses, since people use long lenses to "reach."  I mean, who would buy an EF-S lens with the FF FOV of the 100-400 when they can use the 100-400 perfectly well and get 1.6x the "reach"?

[dlleno]

aside from the three mentioned, what is your total investment in EF-S long glass? what long glass do you reach for when needed?

I was wondering, just how much can you invest in EF-S long glass?  (Or, perhaps, how do you define long glass? )  The 55-250 is the longest EF-S lens offered, following the 18-135.  Everything else tops out at 85, I believe.  EF-S lenses are designed to give croppers the FOV of wider EF lenses.  There is no demand for long EF-S lenses, since people use long lenses to "reach."  I mean, who would buy an EF-S lens with the FF FOV of the 100-400 when they can use the 100-400 perfectly well and get 1.6x the "reach"?

 I know what you mean, so not to pick nits here but to be more precise I would state the objectives of EF-S this way: 

1.  one of the primary intentions of the UWA EF-S lenses is to give the cropper the FOV of longer EF lenses when used on FF bodies.  (10mm on a APS-C gives the equivalent FOV to the longer,  16mm on a FF).

2.  All EF-S lenses benefit from a reduced cost of R&D and mfg, arising from the fact that the image circle does not have to accomodate the larger FF sensors.  therefore, the lens can be produced cheaper with equivalent or similar IQ compared to a FF lens.  As a matter of practice, certain EF-S lenses bear this out, i.e. 10-22, 17-55, 15-85 (I think thats the "third" one...)

3.  one of the secondary (imho) intensions of the longer EF-S lenses is to give the cropper a way to acheive moderately long focal lengths with a very  minimal investment.    The 55-250 is a great example of this. 


So yes, generally the IQ aware croppers don't buy EF-S "long" glass -- most of us turn to L glass.  But the casual entry level APS-C tog who just wants the full range of focal lengths can obtain coverage from 18 to 250mm with a very minimal investment. 

[briansquibb]

3.  one of the secondary (imho) intensions of the longer EF-S lenses is to give the cropper a way to acheive moderately long focal lengths with a very  minimal investment.    The 55-250 is a great example of this. 

The 55-250 was one of the few EF-S I used reguarly - it was good on the 40D for street photography. The ff equivalent of 100-400 is far too instrusive as is the 70-300 for candids/street.

The IQ from this lens was incredible for its cost, and it came with IS

[samirachiko]

If there is a 70D, it WILL be APS-C

If there is a 7D2, it WILL be APS-C

If there is a T5i, it WILL be APS-C

If there is a 5D4, it WILL be FF

If there is a 70D, it WILL APS-C

If there is a 7D2, it WILL be the TOP of APS-C

If there is a cheap full frame, it WILL be a 6D

[pknight]

aside from the three mentioned, what is your total investment in EF-S long glass? what long glass do you reach for when needed?

I was wondering, just how much can you invest in EF-S long glass?  (Or, perhaps, how do you define long glass? )  The 55-250 is the longest EF-S lens offered, following the 18-135.  Everything else tops out at 85, I believe.  EF-S lenses are designed to give croppers the FOV of wider EF lenses.  There is no demand for long EF-S lenses, since people use long lenses to "reach."  I mean, who would buy an EF-S lens with the FF FOV of the 100-400 when they can use the 100-400 perfectly well and get 1.6x the "reach"?

 I know what you mean, so not to pick nits here but to be more precise I would state the objectives of EF-S this way: 

1.  one of the primary intentions of the UWA EF-S lenses is to give the cropper the FOV of longer EF lenses when used on FF bodies.  (10mm on a APS-C gives the equivalent FOV to the longer,  16mm on a FF).

This is what I meant when I said EF-S lenses were intended to give crop users the FOV of wider EF lenses, the wider EF lenses being those around 16mm.  So we agree.

[briansquibb]

aside from the three mentioned, what is your total investment in EF-S long glass? what long glass do you reach for when needed?

I was wondering, just how much can you invest in EF-S long glass?  (Or, perhaps, how do you define long glass? )  The 55-250 is the longest EF-S lens offered, following the 18-135.  Everything else tops out at 85, I believe.  EF-S lenses are designed to give croppers the FOV of wider EF lenses.  There is no demand for long EF-S lenses, since people use long lenses to "reach."  I mean, who would buy an EF-S lens with the FF FOV of the 100-400 when they can use the 100-400 perfectly well and get 1.6x the "reach"?

 I know what you mean, so not to pick nits here but to be more precise I would state the objectives of EF-S this way: 

1.  one of the primary intentions of the UWA EF-S lenses is to give the cropper the FOV of longer EF lenses when used on FF bodies.  (10mm on a APS-C gives the equivalent FOV to the longer,  16mm on a FF).

This is what I meant when I said EF-S lenses were intended to give crop users the FOV of wider EF lenses, the wider EF lenses being those around 16mm.  So we agree.

Apart from the 14mm and 8-15 

[Chuck Alaimo]

aside from the three mentioned, what is your total investment in EF-S long glass? what long glass do you reach for when needed?

Who said my EF-s lenses were long reach? They make other EF-s lenses. If I choose to spend any amount of $$$ on ANY lens, regardless of EF or EF-s, you better believe I thought it out first and will use it until it dies!

D

sure, not very many of us invest in glass without thinking it through.  For example, I have invested in the 10-22 and the 17-55 and this is not a trivial investment, but necessasy to optimize IQ across all conditions with one camera body. So let me re-frame the background of my question -- I was just calling out that there are three major EF-S lenses which form the biggest case for an investment in EF-S glass that would give one pause in a migration to FF, and that an investment in LONG EF-S glass is not sizable.   I did think, initially, that your response implied an investment in long EF-S but I see your comment is a more general statement that one  one should account for examples other than what I mentioned.     

Not to trivialize anyones choices or investments I was just highlighting the biggest case representing the most likely IQ fanatics that have a sizable EF-S investment that would be most impacted by a move to FF and that Canon would be the most concerned about in their branding and upgrade paths.  What are the EF-S lenses you have?   

Similar here, I debated long and hard with the option of 10-22 or 16-35, and ended up going with the 10-22 because I knew i was still about a year off from migrating to FF, and while it may be a pain, selling the 10-22 for close to the cost paid won't be too hard - and 16mm on a crop just wasn't wide enough for my needs.  Other than that though, I went with the 24-70 L v1, and the 70-200 2.8  v1 no IS....  And sorry to be almost snobbish, but I really don't see the need for IS on any lens below 100mm - I know for some there are valid arguments out there for it, but with L glass, to me at least adding IS on the sub 100mm lenses only means the lens will be more expensive and heavier, and from my perspective, I'd just rather have a steady hand while shooting.  On the 24-70, i can take it down to about 1/30th and shoot without worry, 1/15th if i am shooting on the wide end, and on the 70-200, I can go down to 1/60th-1/100th (1/60th at 70mm to about 150mm, and 1/80th-1/100th for150mm-200mm).  I would really like IS on the 70-200, and yeah I could get that for about $900 more, or, now that I have used it a bit, the f4 70-200 with IS really isn't a bad option.  I find the bokeh on the 70-200 to be amazing even up to f8, of course though, the extra light you can at 2.8 is hard to beat too.  Either way, at least from my perspective, if you have the 10-22mm i don't see much reason to go with the 17-55 EF-S lens at all - with most EF-S glass the price makes it attractive, but the 17-55 isn't far off from the 24-70 (well, at least the V1, the V2 is much pricier), but the 24-105 is right in the same ball park.  If your at that stage and know that EF-S glass won't work on FF, I really have no sympathy for ya. 

[bdunbar79]

If there is a 70D, it WILL be APS-C

If there is a 7D2, it WILL be APS-C

If there is a T5i, it WILL be APS-C

If there is a 5D4, it WILL be FF

If there is a 70D, it WILL APS-C

If there is a 7D2, it WILL be the TOP of APS-C

If there is a cheap full frame, it WILL be a 6D

+1.  There will be no 5D Mk IV announced for at least 3 years.  That doesn't make sense.  But the post I quoted, I can see that for sure.  Remember, 50D, then 7D, then 60D

[dlleno]

...And sorry to be almost snobbish, but I really don't see the need for IS on any lens below 100mm ...

.. if you have the 10-22mm i don't see much reason to go with the 17-55 EF-S lens at all - with most EF-S glass the price makes it attractive, but the 17-55 isn't far off from the 24-70 (well, at least the V1, the V2 is much pricier), but the 24-105 is right in the same ball park.  If your at that stage and know that EF-S glass won't work on FF, I really have no sympathy for ya.

I seriously doubt very many at "that" stage care about your sympathy.  People purchase lenses because the capabilities they offer produce results in the situations that are important. 

Not many, with a single APS-C body, will purchase those two lenses in that order, and even if they do, it will be for a good reason.  I use my 17-55 a lot, and I use the IS a lot at f/2.8, and highly value both of those capabilities because they increase the keeper rate especially indoors and for handheld HDR.  and the lens has great re-sale value as well, with or without your sympathy. 

I also use IS very heavily between 70-99mm and value the difference between acceptable and tack sharp.