Still waiting for high MP canon while Nikon is coming out with new 800
- Thread starter Jglaser757
- Start date
Chuck Alaimo said:
Yup, he don't get that. He's not stupid, but he seems challenged when it comes to business acumen. For example, given the sales volume difference, it's possible that EF-S L primes would be more expensive than comparable EF L primes.
Upvote
0
Chuck Alaimo said:
I never said I wanted all that in a "Rebel" camera. If Canon had released the 60D with the same (general) specs as the 70D, then I would have bought one ... then. However, technology has moved on, hence I did not and will not buy the 70D.
Upvote
0
Orangutan said:
The first two are likely, the third... I don't know.
Here's a question, though: All else being equal, would a smaller (EF-S) image circle have equivalent corner performance on APS-C as a larger (EF) image circle has on 135 format? Put another way, is the difficulty in maintaining corner quality a function of size, or is it merely a function of approaching the perimeter of the elements? It may be a little of both, but I lean tend towards the latter not being insignificant given how TS-E lenses (which necessarily have larger image circles) perform in the neutral position (pretty damn good edge to edge).
And so, perhaps an EF-S L Prime would be less desirable than an EF L Prime on APS-C for that particular trait (you know, the one after EF lenses were useless but before color became the important quality).
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
True, because a "full-frame" sensor covers a larger area (864mm2) than a "crop-frame" sensor (337.5mm2). Basic geometry.
neuroanatomist said:
Wrong, because it is the size of the photosites (and cross-talk between them) that determines image quality, together with the lens.
neuroanatomist said:
You're still at stage one, neuroanatomist. Others are already at stage four. Come on, hup, hup, hup!
Upvote
0
3kramd5 said:
You are moving the goalposts, but what the hey ... I'll walk right into it, so's you-know-who can have a giggle.
An EF-S L-prime would take advantage of the shorter "back-focus" distance. This could possibly eliminate the need for a retro-focal design in certain focal lengths, as an example. If you don't know why this is desirable, then you also wouldn't understand it if I explained it to you. And I suspects you don't, which why you also cannot fathom the point of EF-S primes (L or not).
Upvote
0
Sella174 said:
So total light doesn't matter for image noise, only pixel size? You do, indeed, have a sense of humor…perhaps that is some compensation for your poor understanding of how sensors work.
Upvote
0
Chuck Alaimo said:
Price check on the 70D is about $1000. The upcoming 7D2 will be, what, about $1500. Whatever, because the price of the camera is irrelevant to this "EF-S L-prime" discussion. The fact is that such lenses would be, as some have said, an "investment" that will last several cameras.
Orangutan said:
I was not asking for Canon to make EF-S lenses for which there are already EF lenses available. I was asking for lenses for which there are no equivalent EF primes, like for example an EF-S 35mm f/1.8 L MACRO or an EF-S 10mm f/4 L or an EF-S 75mm f/1.2 L ... or an ...
Upvote
0
Orangutan said:
Actually, I only moved them once: back to their original positions. It is you and your friends who keep moving them about due to assumptions based on hero-worship and indoctrination.
Upvote
0
Honestly Sella, are you trying to be the representative of the niche of the niche of the niche group? The group of Canon users who, just will not agree to anything or anyone and want the most bizarre products to be produced by Canon, and only make up 0.00............1% of Canon users?
Upvote
0
Sella174 said:
That's not "moving the goalposts." I don't have any goalposts; I'm just asking a question about what you want. It was a typo.
Sella174 said:
In other words, not
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
You stated that "larger sensors collect more total light". By using the term "sensors", you imply the whole sensor, i.e. all the photosites together. Then you use the phrase "total light", which implies all the light illuminating the total area of the sensor.
Now, because a "full-frame" sensor is larger in area than a "crop-frame" sensor, by simple geometric calculation a "full-frame" sensor indeed does collect more "total" light than a "crop-frame" sensor. BUT, the amount of light collected by the "full-frame" sensor for the area in its centre equal in size to that of the "crop-frame" sensor, is the same amount of light that the "crop-frame" sensor collects in totality.
(For the sake of the following, assume both sensors have the same end-resolution of, say, 18MP.)
The rub comes with the size of the photosites. As we stand today, the size of the photosites of a "full-frame" sensor are larger than those of a "crop-frame" sensor. This means that one photosite of a "full-frame" sensor collects more light than a photosite of a "crop-frame" sensor simply because it has a larger area that is illuminated. On a "crop-frame" sensor, that same area equal to the size to one photosite of a "full-frame" sensor is shared by several photosite. Thus they also have to share the light falling on said area.
This means that a "full-frame" sensor with the same photosite density as a "crop-frame" sensor will perform equally to the "crop-frame" sensor in terms of image quality ... and, of course, vice versa.
Upvote
0
traingineer said:
Read what I wrote, not what others told you that I wrote. Then learn to think for yourself, instead of having others think for you.
Finished? Now go look up the profit Canon's photographic division made last year and calculate what is 1% (the figure you so randomly plucked from others' posts) of that amount. That is the amount of additional money Canon could have made on each and every product made specially for us "niche of a niche of a niche 1% group of Canon users". Instead, we're spending that amount as a baseline elsewhere.
Think for yourself. Am I right or am I wrong?
Upvote
0