Canon Full Frame body with crop mode ( that can use EF-S lenses)

[mkln]

it's funny to read a lot of people having an elitist view of L glass and FF bodies.

"if you can afford FF, buy L"
"EF-S is no good for FF"
"no reason to use EF-S on FF"

I actually think it would make perfect sense to "ease" into the transition from APS-C to FF.
Many people might not switch exactly because as someone stated, they are expected to sell all their EF-S lenses.
and by the way, EF-S lenses are still optimal for APS-C:
- wanna use 24-70 or 24-105 ? yeah right, a "normal zoom" starting from 35mm. the 17-55 has IS, 2.8, starts from 17, is great. why not use that?
- how about wide angle? oops, need to buy EF-S or other brand.

so yeah there's plenty of reasons for canon to give some sort of compatibility for FF and EF-S lenses.
and who said we need the mirror to actually move? just force liveview and keep the mirror up until the lens has been taken off. not that hard really.
I believe this would be greatly appreciated by those who shoot video (do they need a mirror?) but also to those who just bought a FF body and are going through the process of buying new gear.

when I switched to FF I had to sell all my APSC stuff just to buy a 5d2, but that doesnt mean that somebody shouldnt be able to use, say, a 10-22 in live view crop mode 8mpix in a 5d2, while saving for a 17-40.

this is just another feature that canon doesn't include and that others (*cough* nikon *cough*) have. and no it's not because it's not possible at all, because it is, even if not perfect.
canon needs to lose this attitude.

You know, if the EF-S line was more robust (more lenses in all focal lengths + primes, with UD elements and weather sealing, constant aperture...) I could see your point. But, even at the ultra wide end, all you have specifically for EF-S is the 10-22. I own it, it's a decent lens. If the light is just right, results are very good, comparable to L series lenses (which i own 2 of). But, take it out of that just right light and you see its flaws - 3.5-4.5 means that in low light, your pretty restricted. unless you want a ton of distortion (fully wide at 10mm, your talking higher ISO/slower shutter speeds). To me, its the no brainer super wide for a crop sensor camera, but, if on FF, its not a lens I'd want to use because the flaws would be exaggerated even more. 10-22 on crop is essentially 16-35 FF, the IQ, built quality, and constant aperture in the L series super wide is far superior. That's not elitism, the 16-35 is just a more versatile lens (especially so FF bodies).

Back to the point, do a search on B&H, lenses, you can use the APS-C/FF sensor filter - you see that there are 28 EF-s lenses and 108 EF ones. And if you click on EF-s, you find that with the exception of a few, most are in the $100-400 range, and really geared to rebel users/xxD users. And I can truly see why canon would not want those lenses on pro level bodies ------

why? every shooter is essentially a piece of the canon marketing team. When you shoot, and post the photos, others see the results. IF you were able to mount your $125 EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 on a 5d, the resulting image would give observers no reason to shell out $2+ on a 5d (sensor is only as good as the glass)....

Either way the EF-S filter on B&H isn't even accurate. If you click and scroll down, a few EF lenses are there - 3 in fact, so that brings the total down to 25 available. I would be on board with this idea of cross comparability, if there were 50+ EF-S lenses, but there isn't. I could also see it if there were EF-S lenses that were good enough that FF users WANTED. But as far as i can tell, there aren't many (the only clamor I hear is from APS-C users.)

I agree with all that you say. I had a 450D with 10-22 and switched to a 5d2 and had to sell my 10-22, of course.
but I had to sell it to buy the 5d2.
I know that it wouldn't have been a perfect match for the 5d2 had I used it cropped, but

- selling a lens has a cost (just like changing system has): maybe I could have waited for a better deal for the 10-22 if I knew I could use it cropped on my 5d2. on the other hand I had a great deal for a 5d2 and I could not have waited for it.

- having a FF body does not necessarily imply that you use L glass on it. Sure, L glass is L glass and everybody loves it. But for the first 1-2 months I just used my only EF lens leftover from my 450D: the canon 50 1.8. It still took better pics on my 5d2 and was a great experience ("normal" lens on FF). I had the body before I had the lenses, everybody here would throw rocks at me, but I would do it again, anytime.
of course keeping 10-22 for some time and not buying a new 17-40/16-35 would have been cheaper than selling 10-22 and substituting it at once (which some of the people here seem to think is necessary once you switch to FF)

- it's only a matter of SOFTWARE. when you attach a lens the mirror is either DOWN or UP. it's easy: if you attach an EF-S lens and the mirror is DOWN (viewfinder works) then display a message "CANNOT TAKE PICS: mirror is DOWN". Then make the user remove the EF-S lens, turn the camera on -> mirror goes UP --> attach EF-S lens --> automatically switch on liveview and prevent user from turning it off / block mirror UP.

well now that I think about it, the remove-then reattach process may be too hard for some users but nothing prevents canon from adding EF-S mount compatibility and mirror check at startup of the camera.
the thing is, they don't need to market EF-S as compatible with FF. they just can say "if you are able to make it work, you can make it work".

and of course nikon made a different choice and they have 100% compatibility between FX and DX.
canon at this time has 0% compatibility
I'm saying there could be 50% compatibility. and I'd love to have compatibility if I was a VIDEO shooter. but I dont know much about video needs. does video need L glass? 17-55 2.8 IS looks good to me on 5d2. of course, it would behave like in a 60d, but then in the 5d2 you can have other glass for shallower dof.

 

[Meh]

The really weird thing is that Sigma's and other 3rd party Lens maker's "crop" lenses work fine on Canon FF.

Why is it "weird"? The EF-S specification includes a minimum distance between the rear element and the sensor so that the APS-C sized mirror has sufficient clearance. An EF-S lens can not be designed to have less than that minimum clearance (because then the APS-C mirror would hit it) but it can be designed to have more clearance. A lens designed with an APS-C sized circle does not have to have protruding rear element... it can... but does not have to.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The really weird thing is that Sigma's and other 3rd party Lens maker's "crop" lenses work fine on Canon FF.

Now Canon did have the 10-22 way before there were Superwide Nikon's or Sigma or anything equivalent...

Honestly i wonder if way back in the day when crop DSLRs were the 1st and ONLY DSLRs available, did Canon think there were never going to be FF DSLRs?

FF EOS film SLR's came long before crop DSLR's, and when DSLR's came along, they used FF lenses from the film Era. The first DSLR's were APS-H. Their were no special "digital" FF lenses that were not interchangable on film bodies, anf still aren't!

However, it was very difficult and expensive to build high quality FF lenses at 10mm. It is possible, however to design lenses that sit closer to the film plane and have a smaller image circle for a lower cost. Some of the lens elements might hit a FF mirror, however.

Thats why the EF-S lenses were designed to be incompatible with FF, in 2002, there were still lots of FF film cameras in use and Canon did not want people damaging their camera.

Early Canon Crop cameras, D30, D60, 10D only had FF lenses to use, and this caused a lot of complaints from users wanting very wide angle lenses.

Lens technology has evolved, and it is now practical to make wide angle lenses that work with crop bodies, but it would be very confusing to create a third Canon EF lens type.

 

[AvTvM]

And now it's your choice to either live with your purchasing decisions, make a new plan and sell some lenses to buy EF mount lenses, or, complain endlessly about it here on this forum...

Don't worry, I stand by my decisions. I get excellent pictures with my APS-C gear and EF-S lenses. To me FF overall only hold marginal advantages that are way smaller than what Canon (or others) charge for FF gear.

So ... I don't "complain". I just state the facts ... and I do so as long as I please.

Fact is, Canon makes it way harder for their (non-pro) APS-C users to migrate to FF or adding an FF body in addition to their APS-C setup than Nikon. In practice there are hardly any advantages that Canon users derive from the incompatible EF-S mount. Canon EF-S lenses are generally not better nor cheaper nor lighter than comparable Crop lenses from other manufacturers. Short back focus and claimed theoretical advantages are nothing but marketing bogus for almost all of the EF-S lenses. All of the current EF-S lenses could have just as well been fitted with an EF mount - with little or no change to the optical layout and without any compromise to optical performance, size, weight or cost (to us customers). As proven by all other lens manufacturers.

 

[danski0224]

Fact is, Canon makes it way harder for their (non-pro) APS-C users to migrate to FF or adding an FF body in addition to their APS-C setup than Nikon. In practice there are hardly any advantages that Canon users derive from the incompatible EF-S mount. Canon EF-S lenses are generally not better nor cheaper nor lighter than comparable Crop lenses from other manufacturers. Short back focus and claimed theoretical advantages are nothing but marketing bogus for almost all of the EF-S lenses. All of the current EF-S lenses could have just as well been fitted with an EF mount - with little or no change to the optical layout and without any compromise to optical performance, size, weight or cost (to us customers). As proven by all other lens manufacturers.

+1.

Quoting this should be good for another "smite"

 

[traveller]

Sorry, I fail to follow the logic behind the complaints that EF-S lenses aren't compatible with full frame cameras. Why on Earth would you invest a considerable amount of money in a full frame camera, just to use APS-C lenses on it at reduced resolution. It just doesn't make sense and I'm not convinced that many Nikon owners make use of this facility. I think that Nikon does it simply for psychological reasons to sell APS-C lenses: "don't worry about buying them, you can still use them in crop mode if you go full frame". The whole point of upgrading to a full frame camera is to make full use of the wide range of professional glass available. If there's no money in your budget for full frame lenses, then in my view, there's no money in your budget for a full frame camera. Criticize Canon for not producing enough EF-S lenses (especially wide angle primes) if you like, but not for EF-S' incompatiblity with full frame!

 

[Meh]

Fact is, Canon makes it way harder for their (non-pro) APS-C users to migrate to FF or adding an FF body in addition to their APS-C setup than Nikon. In practice there are hardly any advantages that Canon users derive from the incompatible EF-S mount. Canon EF-S lenses are generally not better nor cheaper nor lighter than comparable Crop lenses from other manufacturers. Short back focus and claimed theoretical advantages are nothing but marketing bogus for almost all of the EF-S lenses. All of the current EF-S lenses could have just as well been fitted with an EF mount - with little or no change to the optical layout and without any compromise to optical performance, size, weight or cost (to us customers). As proven by all other lens manufacturers.

+1.

Quoting this should be good for another "smite"

Probably (but not from me)

So, you like the comment because it agrees with your similar complaints? And despite all the responses that attempt to explain the technical issues and Mt. Spokane explaining the history (i.e. the short-back focus having substantial value when it was first introduced) you guys just keep reiterating the same complaints over and over like some kind of broken record, it doesn't make sense to you, Canon made a big mistake, Nikon doesn't do it, why is Canon trying to screw me over, etc. etc. etc.

 

[danski0224]

Probably (but not from me)

So, you like the comment because it agrees with your similar complaints? And despite all the responses that attempt to explain the technical issues and Mt. Spokane explaining the history (i.e. the short-back focus having substantial value when it was first introduced) you guys just keep reiterating the same complaints over and over like some kind of broken record, it doesn't make sense to you, Canon made a big mistake, Nikon doesn't do it, why is Canon trying to screw me over, etc. etc. etc.

If the lenses use the space taken by the protrusion... then fine. But apparently, they don't (or at least some of them based on prior postings).

So, Canon *could have* (just maybe) retained the EF mount and made some "cheaper" lenses with a smaller image circle. That seems to be what Nikon has done.

Canon could choose to enable some sort of automatic cropping feature that shuts off part of a FF sensor with a crop lens... or not, and let the user mess with it in post.

Doesn't have anything to do with "Canon screwing me over".

But, it could provide a path for APS-C and EF-S users to move into a FF body using the EF-S-type stuff they have, at least temporarily. I would imagine that many would eventually spring for a proper EF lens, because it seems pointless to have a FF body and only use EF-S style lenses on it.

I have read the prior posts.

If it just boils down to a smaller image circle, I don't see the harm in allowing EF-S lenses on an EF body (without the protrusion, of course).

If I didn't like the result, then I could go and buy some new EF lenses.

Seems simple enough.

I avoided buying EF-S lenses because of the incompatibility. I only have the 60mm EF-S, and the rear lens does move into the protrusion space.

 

[TexPhoto]

FF EOS film SLR's came long before crop DSLR's, and when DSLR's came along, they used FF lenses from the film Era. The first DSLR's were APS-H. Their were no special "digital" FF lenses that were not interchangable on film bodies, anf still aren't!

However, it was very difficult and expensive to build high quality FF lenses at 10mm. It is possible, however to design lenses that sit closer to the film plane and have a smaller image circle for a lower cost. Some of the lens elements might hit a FF mirror, however.

Thats why the EF-S lenses were designed to be incompatible with FF, in 2002, there were still lots of FF film cameras in use and Canon did not want people damaging their camera.

Early Canon Crop cameras, D30, D60, 10D only had FF lenses to use, and this caused a lot of complaints from users wanting very wide angle lenses.

Lens technology has evolved, and it is now practical to make wide angle lenses that work with crop bodies, but it would be very confusing to create a third Canon EF lens type.

Canon made Film SLRs before they made DSLRs!!? How has this been kept a secret? -Just Yankin your chain. Yes, i understand that Canon's First DSLR was APS-H. But what about the The Canon EOS DCS 3? It was a 1.7X crop and came out in 1995, six years before the EOD 1D. I wonder what kind of lenses it used?

And maybe it's just me, but looking at Canon's naming conventions of 1D-1Ds, Mark this or that,5D, 50D, 500D... I can't imagine they care about confusing people. What is the plural of 1Ds ? Imagine standing at the Canon drive through and trying to order; Yea, give me 5 1Ds, 5 1Ds-es and 2 5D Mark IIs.... What? Um Yea, and one EOS Kiss Digital X. (A japanease 400D)

 

[Meh]

So, Canon *could have* (just maybe) retained the EF mount and made some "cheaper" lenses with a smaller image circle. That seems to be what Nikon has done.

The could have. But they didn't. They chose to create the EF-S mount to allow lens designs to take advantage of the smaller image circle and the greater clearance of the mirror in crop body for wide angle lenses. As MtSpokane pointed out, that was a big deal at the time. They had reasons for doing it. But, times have changed and perhaps they could do away with the EF-S mount now. Maybe Canon will never make another new EF-S lens and start phasing them out. Who knows.

EF-S was meant to be cheap(er). Along the way the market for DSLR crop bodies exploded and Canon added a few pretty good EF-S lenses because there was a market. But most of them are less-than-great kit lenses. But sure, buy a $3k FF body and mount that EF-S kit lens on it by using a DX crop mode a la Nikon. Sure Nikon can do it.. but so what... Nikon are the ones hosing the customers with promises of "don't worry, move up to FF, you can use still use your DX lenses". Canon is more honest "EF-S lenses are crap and it was just to get you to buy an entry level DSLR, we don't want you using them on our good bodies and showing anyone the pictures"

There's a great line in a old episode of Law and Order, might have been a Jack McCoy line... "Sure, I'll concede your point... if things were different they wouldn't be the same".

Anyway, it's not that I don't understand the point you guys are making, there is even a certain validity to your point... you bought a few decent EF-S lenses and you'll lose a few bucks to sell and replace with sweet L glass to use on your FF body.

It's a fun discussion meant to be fun and nothing more.

 

[D.Sim]

Why is it closer to the sensor? To keep prices down. Long story short - with the back of the lens closer to the sensor, it means that it becomes easier to get wide angle/super wide angle - with less glass, a smaller size, and a larger aperture than otherwise possible.

In other words, it does help the consumer - in fact, it helps the larger consumer group - the APS-C users.

Would it keep them from moving up to FF - if they were planning on moving up in the first place? Nope - EF-S shows its quality most at super wide angles. IE: APS-C users will have one, maybe two at lenses at the most to (really) replace. 10-22/17-55 - two lenses with a big enough market for resale, so not really a problem. Maybe a third, 55-250, if you really think about it, but again, easy resale.

Based on reviews, it seems the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 is as good as optically the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, though it's back is not closer to the sensor.

And if Canon made it, it would cost a bomb.

having it closer to the sensor doesn't make it a sharper performer - it makes it easier to design, and cheaper to produce.

Based on B&H prices at the moment, the EF-S 10-22mm is $100 more expensive than the Sigma 8-16mm

As for ease of design, that's not something customers care about.

And if Canon made hte 8-16, it would be 500$ more expensive.

Sigma are able to price significantly lower than Canon - compare the comparable lenses, 70-200 for example. The ease of design is something customers *do* care about - you just don't know it. If not for the 10-22, made possible by its very design, you'd be up into the 16-35 L range, and good luck paying the price on that.


The argument that other manufacturers (Nikon, Sigma, whoever) makes "crop" lenses as well that can be used on a FF doesn't make sense. if you can use it on an FF, its not a "crop" lens. Canon took a totally different route in designing a lens for a crop sensor - take advantage of the smaller sensor to provide the customers with more possibilities AND lower prices.

Did Canon think of their crop customers who want to move to FF? Yes. They're called EF lenses, and are widely available.


[quote author=danski]
So, Canon *could have* (just maybe) retained the EF mount and made some "cheaper" lenses with a smaller image circle. That seems to be what Nikon has done.
[/quote]

Yep, do what Nikon have done, sell a Full Frame camera with only the ability to use part of the sensor equivalent to a DX camera. What a useful way to use your FX camera.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Why is it closer to the sensor? To keep prices down. Long story short - with the back of the lens closer to the sensor, it means that it becomes easier to get wide angle/super wide angle - with less glass, a smaller size, and a larger aperture than otherwise possible.

In other words, it does help the consumer - in fact, it helps the larger consumer group - the APS-C users.

Would it keep them from moving up to FF - if they were planning on moving up in the first place? Nope - EF-S shows its quality most at super wide angles. IE: APS-C users will have one, maybe two at lenses at the most to (really) replace. 10-22/17-55 - two lenses with a big enough market for resale, so not really a problem. Maybe a third, 55-250, if you really think about it, but again, easy resale.

Based on reviews, it seems the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 is as good as optically the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, though it's back is not closer to the sensor.

And if Canon made it, it would cost a bomb.

having it closer to the sensor doesn't make it a sharper performer - it makes it easier to design, and cheaper to produce.

Based on B&H prices at the moment, the EF-S 10-22mm is $100 more expensive than the Sigma 8-16mm

As for ease of design, that's not something customers care about.

And if Canon made hte 8-16, it would be 500$ more expensive.

Sigma are able to price significantly lower than Canon

Thanks for saying that in practice, having the back of the lens closer to the sensor does not make EF-S lenses cheaper, wider, or significantly faster than similar lenses that do not have the back of lens closer to the sensor.

The ease of design is something customers *do* care about - you just don't know it. If not for the 10-22, made possible by its very design, you'd be up into the 16-35 L range, and good luck paying the price on that.

What is it that Sigma can do, and Canon can't?

The argument that other manufacturers (Nikon, Sigma, whoever) makes "crop" lenses as well that can be used on a FF doesn't make sense. if you can use it on an FF, its not a "crop" lens.

The Sigma 8-16mm's image circle doesn't cover a full frame sensor, so how can it be anything but a crop lens?

Canon took a totally different route in designing a lens for a crop sensor - take advantage of the smaller sensor to provide the customers with more possibilities AND lower prices.

Only the Canon EF-S 10-22mm is neither wider nor cheaper than the Sigma 8-16mm, and hardly any faster.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

And now it's your choice to either live with your purchasing decisions, make a new plan and sell some lenses to buy EF mount lenses, or, complain endlessly about it here on this forum...

Don't worry, I stand by my decisions. I get excellent pictures with my APS-C gear and EF-S lenses. To me FF overall only hold marginal advantages that are way smaller than what Canon (or others) charge for FF gear.

So ... I don't "complain". I just state the facts ... and I do so as long as I please.

Fact is, Canon makes it way harder for their (non-pro) APS-C users to migrate to FF or adding an FF body in addition to their APS-C setup than Nikon. In practice there are hardly any advantages that Canon users derive from the incompatible EF-S mount. Canon EF-S lenses are generally not better nor cheaper nor lighter than comparable Crop lenses from other manufacturers. Short back focus and claimed theoretical advantages are nothing but marketing bogus for almost all of the EF-S lenses. All of the current EF-S lenses could have just as well been fitted with an EF mount - with little or no change to the optical layout and without any compromise to optical performance, size, weight or cost (to us customers). As proven by all other lens manufacturers.

I love this assumption that all pro photogs are obviously making jobloads of money and can just buy this stuff on a whim? That's what it sounds like! Quality camera's with quality sensors, and quality lenses cost a lot of money. How much does a FF cost? Currently they are about $2400. As an emerging pro, that right there is a lot of dough. And when the mkiii comes out, it will be even more dough. Just because your a pro that doesn't mean your rich. depending on where you look, pro photog average salary ends up between 30-60k, which in todays economy isn't rich by any means. So get it out of your head that pro's buy L glass because they're rich! It's bought as an investment to fulfill the need to get their jobs done! Hell, some of us don't even buy! Some rent when the need arises because it makes more sense to spend 100-200 on a rental body or lens than it does to purchase.

Fact is, when FF bodies are $2400+ to purchase. So all of us could make a similar statement -

Fact is, Canon makes it way harder for their (non-pro) APS-C users to migrate to FF or adding an FF body in addition to their APS-C setup, and so does nikon!. I mean, $3000 is a pretty penny to spend. We could all say they make it so hard... but...

Do the math, you could easily have a used 5di + a used 16-35L for less than a nikon d800 new - you could also snag a used 5d mkii + a used 24-70L for about the same cost as the d800 new! Boom, entry to FF made not so hard at all! (that is, of course, if its so easy to just go FF but big bad canon won't let me use ef-s lenses so now its hard!!!) There ya go though, if you've got the bucks for a FF camera, you also have the bucks for lenses to go with it (unless you consider yourself too good for the used market).

 

[AvTvM]

I love this assumption that all pro photogs are obviously making jobloads of money and can just buy this stuff on a whim?

Don't get me wrong here. I KNOW, that many (most?) Pro's do NOT make or have loads of money.

I made the distinction Pro vs. amateur with respect to the topic at hand, because in in 2012 only Pro's with very specific specialization [sports, wildlife/BIF, image journalists, etc.] have the choice to not use FF. All others who are or want to be "a Pro" earning income from photography need and have got FF gear - more often than not for a long time already. Typically (at least) a 1-series body [APS-H or FF] and/or 5D/II - for main camera(s) and backup(s). Depending on the nature of work they may have crop body/ies too. And all of them have EF lenses, but only maybe a EF-S lens or two. That is why this group generally has no issue whatsoever with EF-S incompatibility with FF bodies. As can be witnessed by many responses in this thread.

The picture is different for non-income from photography earning amateurs/enthusiasts, meaning people who "progressed" past a Digital Rebel plus 18-55 kitlens - the latter having no problem with EF-S incompatibilty either.

The user base affected by Canons's bad decision to fit their crop lenses with a mount incompatible with FF bodies are "enthusiasts". Almost all of these started out with APS-C sets, since 1D/1Ds (all Mk.'s) was financially out of reach. That group progressed through some Canon APS-C bodies (xxD/xxD/and now 7D), until appearance of the game-changing 5D (2007). All of a sudden, FF was financially possible/justifiable for "hobby use only". But ... just barely.

That is why a many/most of these people had/have to sell their APS-C gear (one body plus a few lenses) in order to migrate to FF ... with one body and one WA FF-lens (typically 24-105). Good EF-S lenses are obsolete at once and cannot even be used for a limited timeframe as "stop gap" measure until (really expensive) FF (L) lenses can be purchased.

Nikon is making it a lot easier for this group as well as for some pro's with both FX and DX bodies and lenses. With the new generation of high-megapixel FF cameras (D800) the benefit of being able to use a crop lens on a FF body have just become even larger. A 16 MP crop picture from a D800 taken with a decent DX lens is certainly more than good enough to "not be an embarassement for the camera manufacturer". Neither would be a 12-15 MP picture taken with an EF-S 17-55 on a 1Ds III, a 5D III/X or whatever pixel monster will come. But ... to take that picture, the EF-S should be fitted with an EF mount.

Fact is, when FF bodies are $2400+ to purchase.

the body itself is not even that expensive ... currently a new 5D II is available from € 1.700 ... even in European countries with high sales tax. But to get a lens complement that is as good on FF as the better EF-S lenses are on APS-C ... will require another 4500 Euros [10-22 <> 16-35 II, 17-55 <> 24-70 II].

Yes, cheaper is possible, but ... it will be an unsatifsfactory compromise on tomorrows FF bodies, if not on today's even when it is "L" glass ... 17-40 purchasers will regret the purchase at the latest on the day the 5D III/X comes out ... or 24-105 without ultra-wide angle focal range and without f/2.8 capabilities.

Personally I am not really affected by Canon's wrong EF-S decision, since I am quite happy with my APS-C gear and do not lust after FF. My next camera [after current 7D] will not be an FF DSLR, but hopefully a compact APS-C mirrorless with IQ and AF/performance better than a 7D plus 2-3 ultra-compact but good pancake primes. If this mirrorless allows use of both my EF-S and my EF lenses with full AF and IS functionality by means of a sensible priced and sized adapter ... then it will likely be a Canon. If Canon forces me to buy new lenses, then it will very likely not be a Canon. It really is as easy as that.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I love this assumption that all pro photogs are obviously making jobloads of money and can just buy this stuff on a whim?

Don't get me wrong here. I KNOW, that many (most?) Pro's do NOT make or have loads of money.

I made the distinction Pro vs. amateur with respect to the topic at hand, because in in 2012 only Pro's with very specific specialization [sports, wildlife/BIF, image journalists, etc.] have the choice to not use FF. All others who are or want to be "a Pro" earning income from photography need and have got FF gear - more often than not for a long time already. Typically (at least) a 1-series body [APS-H or FF] and/or 5D/II - for main camera(s) and backup(s). Depending on the nature of work they may have crop body/ies too. And all of them have EF lenses, but only maybe a EF-S lens or two. That is why this group generally has no issue whatsoever with EF-S incompatibility with FF bodies. As can be witnessed by many responses in this thread.

The picture is different for non-income from photography earning amateurs/enthusiasts, meaning people who "progressed" past a Digital Rebel plus 18-55 kitlens - the latter having no problem with EF-S incompatibilty either.

The user base affected by Canons's bad decision to fit their crop lenses with a mount incompatible with FF bodies are "enthusiasts". Almost all of these started out with APS-C sets, since 1D/1Ds (all Mk.'s) was financially out of reach. That group progressed through some Canon APS-C bodies (xxD/xxD/and now 7D), until appearance of the game-changing 5D (2007). All of a sudden, FF was financially possible/justifiable for "hobby use only". But ... just barely.

That is why a many/most of these people had/have to sell their APS-C gear (one body plus a few lenses) in order to migrate to FF ... with one body and one WA FF-lens (typically 24-105). Good EF-S lenses are obsolete at once and cannot even be used for a limited timeframe as "stop gap" measure until (really expensive) FF (L) lenses can be purchased.

Nikon is making it a lot easier for this group as well as for some pro's with both FX and DX bodies and lenses. With the new generation of high-megapixel FF cameras (D800) the benefit of being able to use a crop lens on a FF body have just become even larger. A 16 MP crop picture from a D800 taken with a decent DX lens is certainly more than good enough to "not be an embarassement for the camera manufacturer". Neither would be a 12-15 MP picture taken with an EF-S 17-55 on a 1Ds III, a 5D III/X or whatever pixel monster will come. But ... to take that picture, the EF-S should be fitted with an EF mount.

Fact is, when FF bodies are $2400+ to purchase.

the body itself is not even that expensive ... currently a new 5D II is available from € 1.700 ... even in European countries with high sales tax. But to get a lens complement that is as good on FF as the better EF-S lenses are on APS-C ... will require another 4500 Euros [10-22 <> 16-35 II, 17-55 <> 24-70 II].

Yes, cheaper is possible, but ... it will be an unsatifsfactory compromise on tomorrows FF bodies, if not on today's even when it is "L" glass ... 17-40 purchasers will regret the purchase at the latest on the day the 5D III/X comes out ... or 24-105 without ultra-wide angle focal range and without f/2.8 capabilities.

Personally I am not really affected by Canon's wrong EF-S decision, since I am quite happy with my APS-C gear and do not lust after FF. My next camera [after current 7D] will not be an FF DSLR, but hopefully a compact APS-C mirrorless with IQ and AF/performance better than a 7D plus 2-3 ultra-compact but good pancake primes. If this mirrorless allows use of both my EF-S and my EF lenses with full AF and IS functionality by means of a sensible priced and sized adapter ... then it will likely be a Canon. If Canon forces me to buy new lenses, then it will very likely not be a Canon. It really is as easy as that.

Again dude, i still think your view of this massive group (it's not so massive) the 'pro's' is skewed. Sure, if you have been in the business of photography for 10+ years, then you may very well have multiple 1 D series camera's and a few 5's as back up and a closet full of L glass (actually, that's more like for those very successful, or have been in the business for closer to 20 years). Pros have to start somewhere dude. It's not like we one day make the decision, I want to be a photographer and gear magically appears. Most pros start as enthusiasts. And, everyone starts with a different background too (financially). I started my photography after losing a job an moving back to my hometown. So it was barebones. First body was a rebel xsi. But, if your a doctor/lawyer/accountant/etc, etc, etc, welll then you can drive your bmw to any store you want, buy any body you want, with any lens, give the clerk a $200 tip an not flinch about doing it. Me, i had little to no resources. I worked that xsi like crazy, until i could afford a 7D, then savfed my pennies for glass. Bought a 24-70 2.8, loved it, its been my workhorse. I then applied for and received a loan, which is how i got my 70-200 2.8, my 10-22 (yup, i own an ef-s lens), new tripod, new computer that was up to the task of processing. Now I'm saving my pennies for the next upgrade, probably to a 5dmkiii (or maybe even a mkii if the used price is right, like closer to 1600). I am genuinely happy with my 7d, but have gotten to the point where I am just sick of having to have the 10-22 to cover the wide end, when my 24-70 would be wide enough for most of the work that I'm doing. In fact, I like like my 7d enough that if i can swing it financially, I plan to keep the 7d for the rare occurance i need the reach a 1.6 crop can provide, and for lower paying gigs at places i wouldn't feel comfortable bringing my FF into.

Either way, the rate of success/failure for a photographer isn't that good. It does follow most models, where 80% of the startups fail within the first year. So in reality, the cost of gear in general makes it hard for those aspiring to be pro, i'd say even harder than those who are enthusiasts. I mean, if your just looking for a good cam to shoot your vacation, well then any EF (or ef-s) lens on a decent body will do you fine. It's not like you may risk losing clients because you can't get the best quality in low light. It's not like your worrying about losing portrait clients because you don't have tack sharp images with creamy bokeh.

So, while I agree that " All others who are or want to be "a Pro" earning income from photography need and have got FF gear" - with one exception - the need for FF gear I agree with, the have though, I do not!!!!

I recently had a conversation with a successful wedding photog who breaks your mold - no 1 d series in her bag, but 2 5dmkii's, and one of her favorite lenses - the 50mm 1.4 - which shocked me, considering her income flow i expecte that she' have the l series 1.2. She got the 1.4 on her way up, rented a 1.2 and liked it, but didn't like it enough to warrant spending the extra 1K for it. So she produces amazing shots with her 1.4, ef, non L!!! (granted, she does have other pieces of L glass)....

there are a lot of lenses available, even more if you bring in 3rd party products. The majority of what canon offers is EF mount. And, frankly, the majority of ef-s glass kind of sucks! Which leads me back to something I said way earlier in this topic - I would maybe be on board with this idea of ef-s to ef comparability if the selection of ef-s lenses was more robust. But there are only 25 ef-s lenses. And of the 25, less than a handful are worth talking about. The only one that i can see the worth in desiring on an FF body is the 17-55. Even the 10-22, which i own, and is a fun lens, I wouldn't want that on a FF body. The IQ just isn't good enough.

So, to a large extent, I feel that the ef/ef-s argument is really one of those is the cup half full or half empty arguments. Yeah, you could see it as a big ol road block. Or, you could see it the other way, as an opportunity to invest in better glass...

 

[AvTvM]

I am genuinely happy with my 7d, but have gotten to the point where I am just sick of having to have the 10-22 to cover the wide end, when my 24-70 would be wide enough for most of the work that I'm doing. In fact, I like like my 7d enough that if i can swing it financially, I plan to keep the 7d for the rare occurance i need the reach a 1.6 crop can provide, and for lower paying gigs at places i wouldn't feel comfortable bringing my FF into.

well, pro or non pro then ... you just confirm my point that Canon is making it financially very challenging to move from APS-C to FF ... forcing all but their better-heeled user base to sell off all their APS-C gear ... EF-S lenses plus body! ... in order to finance an FF body and at the same time, immediately also some EF glass.

The only one that i can see the worth in desiring on an FF body is the 17-55. Even the 10-22, which i own, and is a fun lens, I wouldn't want that on a FF body. The IQ just isn't good enough.

Your 10-22 may be a sub-par copy. I had bought my first10-22 used and it had a decentering issue showing as softness on the right bottom part of images. I sold and bought a new one, which is absolutely fine. From all the tests and picures I see, I do not believe that the 16-35 II pulls off comparatively better IQ on an FF body.

So, to a large extent, I feel that the ef/ef-s argument is really one of those is the cup half full or half empty arguments. Yeah, you could see it as a big ol road block. Or, you could see it the other way, as an opportunity to invest in better glass...

Only problem with that: the lenses we want are not better in EF mount or with a red "L" ring than their EF-S counterparts, they just have a larger image circle and cost a lot more! 16-35 II expensive but IQ-wise no match at all for the Nikon 14-24 ... 24-70 I ... more expensive than 17-55 but slightly less IQ throughout overlapping focal range and no IS (not even on the II). Same for the 17-40 - optically not as good as the 10-22, just a bit of weather-sealing.