Does Canon really deserve this?

[Sella174]

As for the latter (the 7dII), it is a weather-sealed camera, but has no decent weather-sealed companion lens!?

I wish someone had told me this before I spent 4 hours on a hike in the rain with a 7D2 and the 100L lens attached...I just assumed that it was weather sealed.... the rubber ring on the lens mount tricked me! (SARCASM TAG) yet somehow it survived......

(Ignoring the sarcasm tag for a bit ...) The 100L is a "full-frame" lens, whereas the 7DII is a "crop-frame" camera. Yes, it works ... but so would a 1DX have worked. My point is that it is silly to buy a "crop-frame" camera and then use brilliant "full-frame" lenses on it ... 'cause you're wasting that part of the lens you paid through the nose for: the edges. Bad economy, but the shareholders love it!

 

[Sella174]

Hey Sella ! I thought you had sold up your Canon gear and moved to Fuji ? A Fujifilm XT-1 if I remember. A really neat little camera that has so much going for it - except it's not a FF 6D, with a crisp OVF.

Nope. If you read through the archives, you'll notice that not only do I still have one 30D and the 70-200mm f/4L, but I even bought a 60mm macro. Granted, the Canon gear isn't used for day-to-day out-in-the-field stuff anymore, but it is used for actual money-making functions, like copying rare books.

However, as others have stated, CR is more about entertainment than actual ... erm ... well ... fact things. And it is nice to see how some of my opponents have started to say what I said and for which I got flamed back then. But that's Scopenhauer for you.

A Fujifilm XT-1 if I remember. A really neat little camera that has so much going for it - except it's not a FF 6D, with a crisp OVF.

Do I detect a hint of jealousy there?

 

[Don Haines]

As for the latter (the 7dII), it is a weather-sealed camera, but has no decent weather-sealed companion lens!?

I wish someone had told me this before I spent 4 hours on a hike in the rain with a 7D2 and the 100L lens attached...I just assumed that it was weather sealed.... the rubber ring on the lens mount tricked me! (SARCASM TAG) yet somehow it survived......

(Ignoring the sarcasm tag for a bit ...) The 100L is a "full-frame" lens, whereas the 7DII is a "crop-frame" camera. Yes, it works ... but so would a 1DX have worked. My point is that it is silly to buy a "crop-frame" camera and then use brilliant "full-frame" lenses on it ... 'cause you're wasting that part of the lens you paid through the nose for: the edges. Bad economy, but the shareholders love it!

but the lens works so well on the 5D2.....

It is a case of the same lens being great on both Crop and FF and not having to buy a separate lens for both. I like how Canon can use FF lenses on it's crop cameras......

 

[Sella174]

but the lens works so well on the 5D2.....

It is a case of the same lens being great on both Crop and FF and not having to buy a separate lens for both. I like how Canon can use FF lenses on it's crop cameras......

It's great if you use both "full-frame" and "crop-frame" cameras. However, for those of us who do not need *GASP* "full-frame", having to purchase "full-frame" lenses for our "crop-frame" cameras 'cause Canon neglected to cater to our needs, is bad economy: we pay for what we cannot even use.

 

[Marauder]

but the lens works so well on the 5D2.....

It is a case of the same lens being great on both Crop and FF and not having to buy a separate lens for both. I like how Canon can use FF lenses on it's crop cameras......

It's great if you use both "full-frame" and "crop-frame" cameras. However, for those of us who do not need *GASP* "full-frame", having to purchase "full-frame" lenses for our "crop-frame" cameras 'cause Canon neglected to cater to our needs, is bad economy: we pay for what we cannot even use.

Waste to use FF lenses on a crop frame Canon camera??? LOL Now I really have heard everything!!! One of he great strengths of the Canon crop-frame line is that it can use the entire family of EF-S and EF lenses! Moreover, issues like corner softness and vignetting either 'go away' or become far less acute. AND my 100-400mm becomes a 160-640mm equivalent!

Ah, the silly, silly things people complain about!

 

[Sporgon]

but the lens works so well on the 5D2.....

It is a case of the same lens being great on both Crop and FF and not having to buy a separate lens for both. I like how Canon can use FF lenses on it's crop cameras......

It's great if you use both "full-frame" and "crop-frame" cameras. However, for those of us who do not need *GASP* "full-frame", having to purchase "full-frame" lenses for our "crop-frame" cameras 'cause Canon neglected to cater to our needs, is bad economy: we pay for what we cannot even use.

Waste to use FF lenses on a crop frame Canon camera??? LOL Now I really have heard everything!!! One of he great strengths of the Canon crop-frame line is that it can use the entire family of EF-S and EF lenses! Moreover, issues like corner softness and vignetting either 'go away' or become far less acute. AND my 100-400mm becomes a 160-640mm equivalent!

Ah, the silly, silly things people complain about!

Also due to the pixel densities of current crop cameras, and so the potential for resolution, these cameras need the best glass possible. OK so you lose some of the outer image circle, but as Marauder says, that has its benefits too. Producing lenses of this quality is going to be relatively large and expensive whether they have an aps-c image circle or FF one.

 

[allanP]

but the lens works so well on the 5D2.....

It is a case of the same lens being great on both Crop and FF and not having to buy a separate lens for both. I like how Canon can use FF lenses on it's crop cameras......

It's great if you use both "full-frame" and "crop-frame" cameras. However, for those of us who do not need *GASP* "full-frame", having to purchase "full-frame" lenses for our "crop-frame" cameras 'cause Canon neglected to cater to our needs, is bad economy: we pay for what we cannot even use.

We pay for what we cannot even use?
It's realy not significant EF or EF-S Lens. I don't know any 100mm Macro lens for EF-S only and price of 100mm IS (non L) ist quite the same as EF-S 60. I prefer 100mm over 60mm.

 

[Sporgon]

A Fujifilm XT-1 if I remember. A really neat little camera that has so much going for it - except it's not a FF 6D, with a crisp OVF.

Do I detect a hint of jealousy there?

;D No. I have always liked Fuji, right from my days as a teenager using an old Fujica ST701, and I think the XT-1 system is quite appealing. But; I don't feel that the slimmer body is worth trading the OVF for, or losing the full frame. And, as has been pointed out here on CR many times, to achieve the equivalent in lens speed on these crop systems is actually very expensive, more so than FF. Add these factors to the reduced versatility and no, the system isn't for me.

 

[Sella174]

Waste to use FF lenses on a crop frame Canon camera??? LOL Now I really have heard everything!!! One of he great strengths of the Canon crop-frame line is that it can use the entire family of EF-S and EF lenses!

Yes, it is a marketing angle. However, please tell me the point of a small camera like the 100D, when you have to put huge "full-frame" lenses on it to get decent optics, like the 70-200mm lenses or the 400mm lens?

Moreover, issues like corner softness and vignetting either 'go away' or become far less acute.

L-lenses are not supposed to have these "issues" and that is why they are so expensive. Thus, by using the "full-frame" L-lenses on a "crop-frame" camera, you just paid for something of which you cannot enjoy the benefit. Bad economy ... or simply wasting your money.

AND my 100-400mm becomes a 160-640mm equivalent!

No, your 100-400mm lens stays a 100-400mm lens. You just lose the great edge performance you paid for, 'cause of a reduced field of view due to in-camera, "hardware" cropping. (Honestly, do you really still believe that line of marketing hokey about the focal length increase?)

Ah, the silly, silly things people complain about!

You got that right, at least.

 

[Sella174]

;D No. I have always liked Fuji, right from my days as a teenager using an old Fujica ST701, and I think the XT-1 system is quite appealing. But; I don't feel that the slimmer body is worth trading the OVF for, or losing the full frame. And, as has been pointed out here on CR many times, to achieve the equivalent in lens speed on these crop systems is actually very expensive, more so than FF. Add these factors to the reduced versatility and no, the system isn't for me.

OK, this actually raises one of the issues I have with Canon ... what you term "lens speed on these crop systems". FUJIFILM made the 56mm f/1.2 lens, yet Canon offers nothing similar for their "crop-frame" cameras. It seems that their (Canon) philosophy is that if you want "fast lenses" then you must buy into their "full-frame" products.

Now this being the case, and given the collapse of the consumer market, why does Canon still persist with "crop-frame" cameras. None of their (Canon) current "crop-frame" stuff can compete with FUJIFILM, Panasonic, etc. in terms of "fast" lenses, without resorting to "full-frame" lenses. (And I'll concede that for now none of the current "other" manufacturers' "crop-frame" products can really compete with Canon's "full-frame" gear in terms of "fast" lenses. But we're comparing oranges to oranges and not oranges to apples here.)

 

[Loswr]

However, for those of us who do not need *GASP* "full-frame", having to purchase "full-frame" lenses for our "crop-frame" cameras 'cause Canon neglected to cater to our needs, is bad economy: we pay for what we cannot even use.

Bad economy for you, you mean. Canon cares about their economy, but about yours only insofar as you give them your money.

Consider the reverse...if you as a crop user did buy a FF body, how would you like to have to buy a complete new set of lenses for it? The economy of EF lenses mounting on crop bodies works both ways.

 

[Sella174]

Bad economy for you, you mean. Canon cares about their economy, but about yours only insofar as you give them your money.

Now THAT is bad business, 'cause what happens when I decide not to give them any more of my money?

You can argue that the loss of my - singular - business won't put Canon in the poorhouse, but the flipside of that argument is that my - again singular - business probably isn't even a teensy-weensy blip on their revenue graph. However, many I's - singular - makes up crowds, mobs and the masses - plural - which do indeed affect Canon's revenue. Remember the trees in the wood? Same thing.

Consider the reverse...if you as a crop user did buy a FF body, how would you like to have to buy a complete new set of lenses for it? The economy of EF lenses mounting on crop bodies works both ways.

If the lenses are there - meaning I don't have to buy "full-frame" lenses, because the equivalent "crop-frame" lens exists - then why should I eventually "upgrade" to "full-frame"? The only reason anyone today actually does buy a Canon "full-frame" camera is because all their (Canon) best lenses are only available in "full-frame" size. Get the idea? (COUNTER-ARGUMENT TRAP: low-light sensors.)

 

[Loswr]

Now THAT is bad business, 'cause what happens when I decide not to give them any more of my money?

No, bad business would be to spend money developing and marketing products to meet the needs of every single individual or minuscule minority. You want Canon to 'cater to your needs' and they neither will not need to you. Seems that it's hard for you to deal with those facts, but Canon doesn't care about that either.

The only reason anyone today actually does buy a Canon "full-frame" camera is because all their (Canon) best lenses are only available in "full-frame" size. Get the idea?

There are far more numerous and better reasons than that. Obviously you don't get the idea. Your inability to comprehend that you and your views are in the minority as far as dSLR gear is concerned is rather sad.

 

[Don Haines]

However, for those of us who do not need *GASP* "full-frame", having to purchase "full-frame" lenses for our "crop-frame" cameras 'cause Canon neglected to cater to our needs, is bad economy: we pay for what we cannot even use.

Bad economy for you, you mean. Canon cares about their economy, but about yours only insofar as you give them your money.

Consider the reverse...if you as a crop user did buy a FF body, how would you like to have to buy a complete new set of lenses for it? The economy of EF lenses mounting on crop bodies works both ways.

So let's look at the 100L....

Suppose Canon also made an APS-C only and a FF only version of the lens.....

The first think that would happen is that sales of the FF version would drop, we would loose economies of scale, and the price would probably go up.

The APS-C version of the lens would still be the same size and the end element would still be the same size. We could shave a bit off of the internal elements and the resulting lens would be a few percent lighter than the FF version, but once again, we would have lost some of the economies of scale and the resulting lens would cost more.

Realistically, you have to go shorter than 50mm to get any significant size savings on an APS-C lens. There are a few lenses (17-55F2.8 comes to mind) which are "L" quality, but with anything longer, it just isn't worth it.

 

[fragilesi]

Technology has moved quite a distance since the previous decade and production cost have equally dropped. The question which answers my statement above, is why does Canon persist with a "crop-frame" line-up, especially since all their good lenses are "full-frame" stuff? They should just drop it and concentrate on "full-frame" exclusively: the 6D is a "Rebel", the 5D is the 70D, and the 1D is the equivalent of the new 7D. Only difference is in the size of the sensor and the price that is asked by Canon.

Also, anyone who today (or tomorrow) considers buying a "crop-frame" camera will also look seriously at the mirrorless offerings from other companies. Only in the "full-frame" segment is Canon still tops. So unless you have an investment in "full-frame" Canon lenses, which would make "upgrading" to a "full-frame" camera a financial no-brainer, Canon's "crop-frame" line-up offers very little to the enthusiast ... because if the enthusiast with a Canon "crop-frame" camera wants a decent lens, then a "full-frame" lens must be bought. This is very wasteful for the enthusiast - although great for the shareholders!

(Just to clarify, I am not saying that "crop-frame" is dead, just that Canon's versions thereof are well past their sell-by date.)

Really? Honestly? The 7DII is by the accounts I'm reading being very highly rated. Some of the new features in the 70D (eg DPAF) and the 7DII (The optimisation under artificial lights) are being received very, very well - genuine innovation. I can't see any logic in saying that they are "dead" except to you in that they don't meet your needs / wants.

As for the L-series lenses, they do so much more than just cover a full frame. The IS, the AF, weather sealing and so on all add to the value proposition whether you're a crop or full-frame user. And L series lenses do not "eliminate" any of the problems, they just reduce them by a significant amount.

So, are you really suggesting that Canon should duplicate development efforts and costs just to produce a set of crop L-series equivalent across the range to justify crop cameras? That would add so much to the development, production and inventory costs that they would end up costing much closer to the full-frame variants than you seem to expect. I think Canon have thought this through a bit more.

 

[Sporgon]

;D No. I have always liked Fuji, right from my days as a teenager using an old Fujica ST701, and I think the XT-1 system is quite appealing. But; I don't feel that the slimmer body is worth trading the OVF for, or losing the full frame. And, as has been pointed out here on CR many times, to achieve the equivalent in lens speed on these crop systems is actually very expensive, more so than FF. Add these factors to the reduced versatility and no, the system isn't for me.

OK, this actually raises one of the issues I have with Canon ... what you term "lens speed on these crop systems". FUJIFILM made the 56mm f/1.2 lens, yet Canon offers nothing similar for their "crop-frame" cameras. It seems that their (Canon) philosophy is that if you want "fast lenses" then you must buy into their "full-frame" products.

Now this being the case, and given the collapse of the consumer market, why does Canon still persist with "crop-frame" cameras. None of their (Canon) current "crop-frame" stuff can compete with FUJIFILM, Panasonic, etc. in terms of "fast" lenses, without resorting to "full-frame" lenses. (And I'll concede that for now none of the current "other" manufacturers' "crop-frame" products can really compete with Canon's "full-frame" gear in terms of "fast" lenses. But we're comparing oranges to oranges and not oranges to apples here.)

Fuji offer this lens because they don't have a FF stable. Lets assume you were starting from scratch and want to shoot shallow dof portraits. You have a choice between the XT-1 + 56/1.2 or a 6D + 85/1.8. Both will achieve pretty much the same thing in good light. Using UK prices the cost of the Fuji kit is £1771, the cost of the 6D kit is £1569, so the FF system works out cheaper. If a manufacturer has a number of FF cameras in their line up it is not economical for the customer to pay out for expensive, very fast prime crop sensor lenses.

So Fuji's production of these lenses would suggest they aren't going to bring a FF camera to market any time soon.

Now Pentax, that's another thing. What most people don't realize is that those APS-c primes that Pentax make - many have a full frame image circle.

 

[Sella174]

So, are you really suggesting that Canon should duplicate development efforts and costs just to produce a set of crop L-series equivalent across the range to justify crop cameras? That would add so much to the development, production and inventory costs that they would end up costing much closer to the full-frame variants than you seem to expect.

Obviously you cannot read properly, so let me quote myself:

They (meaning Canon) should just drop it (meaning "crop-frame") and concentrate on "full-frame" exclusively.

 

[Sella174]

No, bad business would be to spend money developing and marketing products to meet the needs of every single individual or minuscule minority. You want Canon to 'cater to your needs' and they neither will not need to you. Seems that it's hard for you to deal with those facts, but Canon doesn't care about that either.

Yes, at a glance Canon's financial health is not dependent on the single individual purchasing heaps of their products. However, it is dependent on hundreds of thousands of individuals purchasing heaps of their products. The common denominator is the individual purchasing their products. Thus, whether or not I (an individual) purchases Canon's products do indeed have an impact on their financial health. Therefore Canon should care.

There are far more numerous and better reasons than that. Obviously you don't get the idea. Your inability to comprehend that you and your views are in the minority as far as dSLR gear is concerned is rather sad.

Tell me why would anyone purchase a 6D instead of a 70D?

 

[Sella174]

So let's look at the 100L....

Suppose Canon also made an APS-C only and a FF only version of the lens.....

The first think that would happen is that sales of the FF version would drop, we would loose economies of scale, and the price would probably go up.

...

All the more reason for Canon to pick a form factor (preferably "full-frame") and do that exclusively.

 

[Khalai]

Yes, at a glance Canon's financial health is not dependent on the single individual purchasing heaps of their products. However, it is dependent on hundreds of thousands of individuals purchasing heaps of their products. The common denominator is the individual purchasing their products. Thus, whether or not I (an individual) purchases Canon's products do indeed have an impact on their financial health. Therefore Canon should care.

Canon cares about majority of the market, you're obviously not in that majority. Bad luck for you I'm afraid, but there is really no win-win scenario, which would cater all needs of all the photographers out there...