Still waiting for high MP canon while Nikon is coming out with new 800

[Loswr]

However, why do the "higher-end" cameras have (or should that be, need) AFMA? Whatever the reason (manufacturing tolerances or deliberate), just because the "Rebel" jobbies lack said functionality, an L-prime in all probability will not work/focus 100% (or even 98%) on said "Rebel" camera(s). This effectively prevents "Rebel" owners from using L-primes on their cameras ... or the other way around, preventing people already owning L-primes from using "Rebel" cameras.

Lack of AFMA prevents Rebel/xxxD owners from using L-series primes on their cameras?!? Do you honestly believe that tripe? Wow. Just...wow.

How many casual users pixel peep, much less conduct careful focus testing? I suspect not many, and what standard of comparison would a new L prime owner have?

Most lenses (as judged by my testing of many and FoCal's aggregated data) seem to require just a few units of adjustment. That means half the depth of focus or less. Consumer lenses (slower than f/2.8 ) are accurate within one full depth of focus. An f/2.8 or faster lens (like most L-series primes...well, not my 600/4) is accurate to within 1/3 the depth of focus, so even needing (and not able to get) a 4-unit AFMA, the fast L-series prime will still fall within the precision range of the slower consumer lens that came with the Rebel. Then...there's noticing the problem in the first place. If the user shoots wide open, a slightly misfocused L prime may still appear sharper than the wide open kit lens (they can be great stopped down, but wide open isn't their forte). Finally, if the person does notice a problem, if the lens was bought new, Canon will calibrate it for free.

 

[unfocused]

I would love to see actual numbers on the percentage and demographics of people who actually use AFMA. I would be willing to bet that among professionals, it is a very small minority.

I suspect it is one of those features that camera forum readers obsess about, but photographers in the real world...not so much.

 

[Sella174]

Most lenses (as judged by my testing of many and FoCal's aggregated data) seem to require just a few units of adjustment. That means half the depth of focus or less. Consumer lenses (slower than f/2.8 ) are accurate within one full depth of focus. An f/2.8 or faster lens (like most L-series primes...well, not my 600/4) is accurate to within 1/3 the depth of focus, so even needing (and not able to get) a 4-unit AFMA, the fast L-series prime will still fall within the precision range of the slower consumer lens that came with the Rebel. Then...there's noticing the problem in the first place. If the user shoots wide open, a slightly misfocused L prime may still appear sharper than the wide open kit lens (they can be great stopped down, but wide open isn't their forte). Finally, if the person does notice a problem, if the lens was bought new, Canon will calibrate it for free.

So what you are saying is that AFMA is not really that much of a necessary feature ... that it is more of a plaything for gearheads? Or a gimmick to sell expensive cameras to gearheads?

 

[100]

If everything revolves around everything else, the sun must also revolve around the earth unless the sun and/or the earth aren’t part of everything.

Basic physics. Perhaps read a book about it ... or go watch Takalani Sesame.

“everything revolves around everything else” is basic physics?
You mean like one of the Newton's laws of motion, or Kepler's laws of planetary motion?

 

[Sella174]

You mean like one of the Newton's laws of motion, or Kepler's laws of planetary motion?

Ain't Google great? Punch, punch, click ... and you have a plethora of cool names to amaze and impress all with.

 

[100]

You mean like one of the Newton's laws of motion, or Kepler's laws of planetary motion?

Ain't Google great? Punch, punch, click ... and you have a plethora of cool names to amaze and impress all with.

Sure, but please do explain which basic physics you are talking about when you say “everything revolves around everything else”.

 

[Loswr]

So what you are saying is that AFMA is not really that much of a necessary feature ... that it is more of a plaything for gearheads? Or a gimmick to sell expensive cameras to gearheads?

Of course not. Please don't try to put words in my mouth, especially not asinine ones. They taste bad.

AFMA allows users to critically optimize the performance of their system. A bicycle used for competition racing needs to be meticulously tuned. The bike I ride to the store and back to pick up a few groceries...not so much. Maybe I'd like it to be, but honestly, in all likelihood I would even notice the difference. My bike ride for groceries is like dSLR use by the vast majority of Rebel/xxxD shooters.

 

[unfocused]

So what you are saying is that AFMA is not really that much of a necessary feature ... that it is more of a plaything for gearheads? Or a gimmick to sell expensive cameras to gearheads?

That is a distinct possibility.

 

[3kramd5]

None of those three are primes. All L-primes are "full-frame" and a thus "wasted" on a "crop-frame" camera.

Obviously they are not wasted. A great many people shoot primes designed for 135 format image circles on smaller platforms (APS-H and -C). But I'm struggling with why you put the word in quotation marks. Are you purposefully arguing a point which you don't believe?




There was another post (not sure by whom, can't find it, maybe it was in a different thread) about a lack of frame-equivalent primes for small sensors. I have to ask the question: why would someone with no interest in a different sensor platform (e.g. a fully satisfied APS-C customer) care one iota about how his lenses frame on a different sensor platform? Gone, I think, are the days when long-time 135 format shooters made the transition to digital and would have experienced culture shock via crop factor." In the coming years, many or most new DLSR consumers will have no inkling of what a certain focal length would look like on a 35mm sensor, or larger formats for that matter. Crop factor is a useful tool for people like me who occasionally shoot with two platforms simultaneously. For folks who tend to stick with one, it's trivial information to relate one arbitrarially to another. Just buy the focal length you want for your subject and don't worry about what your subject would have looked like had you strapped your 200mm lens on an iphone.


This thread has really jumped the shark. It's devolved (amusingly so) into a series of skirmishes about "why doesn't Canon" or "why does Canon," all of which can be answered at once: because Canon doesn't / does think it worthwhile to the bottom line.

 

[Sella174]

Obviously they are not wasted.

Yes, L-primes are wasted on a "crop-frame" camera, because one of the characteristics of L-primes - and also that which makes them more costly - is the better corner performance. Only on a "crop-frame" sensor these, shall we say, quality corners are discarded/disregarded/wasted.

But I'm struggling with why you put the word in quotation marks. Are you purposefully arguing a point which you don't believe?

Because terms like "full-frame" and "crop-frame" mean absolutely zip ... unless your point of reference is the old 35mm films and the lenses made for that size, like L-primes.

There was another post (not sure by whom, can't find it, maybe it was in a different thread) about a lack of frame-equivalent primes for small sensors. I have to ask the question: why would someone with no interest in a different sensor platform (e.g. a fully satisfied APS-C customer) care one iota about how his lenses frame on a different sensor platform? Gone, I think, are the days when long-time 135 format shooters made the transition to digital and would have experienced culture shock via crop factor." In the coming years, many or most new DLSR consumers will have no inkling of what a certain focal length would look like on a 35mm sensor, or larger formats for that matter. Crop factor is a useful tool for people like me who occasionally shoot with two platforms simultaneously. For folks who tend to stick with one, it's trivial information to relate one arbitrarially to another. Just buy the focal length you want for your subject and don't worry about what your subject would have looked like had you strapped your 200mm lens on an iphone.

Yes. I am of that singular crowd who would really like manufacturers to rather state the magnification factor of the lens, instead of the silly field of view equivalent.

This thread has really jumped the shark. It's devolved (amusingly so) into a series of skirmishes about "why doesn't Canon" or "why does Canon," all of which can be answered at once: because Canon doesn't / does think it worthwhile to the bottom line.

Or as we say: gone totally pear-shaped.

 

[Orangutan]

Obviously they are not wasted.

Yes, L-primes are wasted on a "crop-frame" camera, because one of the characteristics of L-primes - and also that which makes them more costly - is the better corner performance. Only on a "crop-frame" sensor these, shall we say, quality corners are discarded/disregarded/wasted.

FP.

Do you measure your food to 0.1 gram accuracy to make sure all your meals are perfectly in accord with the recipes?

Dude, you worry too much about stuff that's just not worth worrying about.

 

[3kramd5]

Obviously they are not wasted.

Yes, L-primes are wasted on a "crop-frame" camera, because one of the characteristics of L-primes - and also that which makes them more costly - is the better corner performance. Only on a "crop-frame" sensor these, shall we say, quality corners are discarded/disregarded/wasted.

One facet of a good lens can be corner performance (unless that's not what you want, e.g. 50L), but I don't know if it's fair to say that a lens is wasted because the sensor can't see the edges. I think most people using primes do so for speed. Not having zoom glass generally improves optical performance and weight too, but it's the max aperture that draws me to primes. YMMV.

But I'm struggling with why you put the word in quotation marks. Are you purposefully arguing a point which you don't believe?

Because terms like "full-frame" and "crop-frame" mean absolutely zip ... unless your point of reference is the old 35mm films and the lenses made for that size, like L-primes.

It was the quotes around the word wasted that got me curious.

 

[Sella174]

Dude, you worry too much about stuff that's just not worth worrying about.

You pay for those excellent corners, but don't use them on a "crop-frame" camera. Bad economy and a waste of good money ... like driving grandma to church in your Ferrari. It does the job, but at what expense?

 

[3kramd5]

Dude, you worry too much about stuff that's just not worth worrying about.

You pay for those excellent corners, but don't use them on a "crop-frame" camera. Bad economy and a waste of good money ... like driving grandma to church in your Ferrari. It does the job, but at what expense?

What you're doing seems more like suggesting a Ferrari is a waste of money because you can't hear the stereo over the engine noise...

 

[Sella174]

It was the quotes around the word wasted that got me curious.

I placed the "wasted" in quotes because an L-lens has other properties than excellent corners that makes it better than non-L's. Thus the lens is not totally wasted, just one of its greatest attributes.

 

[traingineer]

Dude, you worry too much about stuff that's just not worth worrying about.

Like driving grandma to church in your Ferrari. It does the job, but at what expense?

Well a lot more can happen in that trip to the church with a Ferrari, especially if it's a 458 Speciale.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Obviously they are not wasted.

Yes, L-primes are wasted on a "crop-frame" camera, because one of the characteristics of L-primes - and also that which makes them more costly - is the better corner performance. Only on a "crop-frame" sensor these, shall we say, quality corners are discarded/disregarded/wasted.

One facet of a good lens can be corner performance (unless that's not what you want, e.g. 50L), but I don't know if it's fair to say that a lens is wasted because the sensor can't see the edges. I think most people using primes do so for speed. Not having zoom glass generally improves optical performance and weight too, but it's the max aperture that draws me to primes. YMMV.

But I'm struggling with why you put the word in quotation marks. Are you purposefully arguing a point which you don't believe?

Because terms like "full-frame" and "crop-frame" mean absolutely zip ... unless your point of reference is the old 35mm films and the lenses made for that size, like L-primes.

It was the quotes around the word wasted that got me curious.

your drawing thin on valid points here --- so yeah, the extra you pay you lose the corners in the crop --- but you also get a fast lens, and of course (on EF-S the fasted you get is 2.8, and the price is fairly high to get that too) ---- L lenses are desired not only due to their IQ but also because of their more rugged build quality - one of the reasons why you buy L you own and use it for quite a few years.

That's I think the key you are missing - you buy a body to get you through, but you buy lenses to last. IMO, buying an L prime for a rebel is like making a downpayment on an upgraded body at some point in the future...

 

[Orangutan]

Dude, you worry too much about stuff that's just not worth worrying about.

You pay for those excellent corners, but don't use them on a "crop-frame" camera. Bad economy and a waste of good money ... like driving grandma to church in your Ferrari. It does the job, but at what expense?

You're suggesting that Ferrari needs to make an SUV, minivan, economy car (like a Honda Civic) and a commuter bike with saddle-bags, so I can always use precisely the correct transport for my needs. Ferrari makes Ferraris; other people make SUVs, minivans, economy cars and bicycles.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

It was the quotes around the word wasted that got me curious.

I placed the "wasted" in quotes because an L-lens has other properties than excellent corners that makes it better than non-L's. Thus the lens is not totally wasted, just one of its greatest attributes.

Again, with all things in photography unless you have an unlimited budget you make compromises. The real waste would be to spend 1K or more for an EF-S prime then realize you want to upgrade to a FF camera cause then your stuck. Better to make the investment in glass.

also, the same argument can be made as you upgrade. If you shoot sports and are on a budget, you get a 7d instead of a 5d3 because the frame rate is higher and you get the reach. You buy the 100 macro 2.8 instead of the L because you know your not actually doing enough macro work to justify it. You buy a 6d instead of a 5d3 because you want to move to FF but don't have the budget for a 5d3 and you also want a pair of 600 Rt's. Compromise goes on all the time because all of these things are EXPENSIVE.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Dude, you worry too much about stuff that's just not worth worrying about.

You pay for those excellent corners, but don't use them on a "crop-frame" camera. Bad economy and a waste of good money ... like driving grandma to church in your Ferrari. It does the job, but at what expense?

You're suggesting that Ferrari needs to make an SUV, minivan, economy car (like a Honda Civic) and a commuter bike with saddle-bags, so I can always use precisely the correct transport for my needs. Ferrari makes Ferraris; other people make SUVs, minivans, economy cars and bicycles.

it's more like putting racing tires on your honda civic (L glass on a rebel) then complaining that you can't get the speed of a ferrari (1dx with L glass)....