EF-S = Short life ?

[Sailare]

Does the EF-S lens really have a long future considering the rate of new introductions on sensors? Will there be a 1.6 two years from now?

I think putting the EF-S capability on the 20D is to encourage Rebel users to keep there kit lens and upgrade the body.

Moving from a G series or no camera to a 20D and selecting an EF-S lens doesn't make a lot of long term sense to me.

I think a new 20D buyer should look at the 28-135 ISM IS instead of the new EF-S lens.

Comments?

[Belmondo]

It impresses me that Canon is firmly commited to the EF-S lens and the 1.6X sensor that it mates with. As sensor technology improves, the clamor for a full-size sensor will lose impetus, especially if there are professional quality lenses and bodies which can fully utilize that technology.

Canon builds the 1Ds with a full frame sensor, and it is not a coincidence that it is the most expensive camera that Canon sells; large sensors are very expensive to make. As the quality and performance of smaller sensors improve, expect Canon to start trying to push the pro market to cameras that will fully utilize such technology. They will likely be successful as long as pro-caliber optics are available, and provided image quality reaches or exceeds the quality of the current large-sensored bodies.

IMHO

[Andy_T]

Obviously, Canon plans to keep the 1.6 crop factor on its 'prosumer' DSLR's and to sell the EF-S lenses for some time in the future ...

... but then, all camera manufacturers also planned to be selling lots of APS cameras, right :lol: ?

Best regards,
Andy

[Cadwell]

Whilst I don't want to re-ignite the debate about whether it's a crop or a multiplier :shock: as someone who's shooting is nearly all done at the telephoto end of the scale, I kinda like the 1.6 "factor". Long may it continue.

(of course, if you're a wide angle merchant I can understand the frustration ;) )

[Cadwell]

I think a new 20D buyer should look at the 28-135 ISM IS instead of the new EF-S lens.

Comments?

The 28-135mm cannot provide distance information to the camera for E-TTL II. I would hope the new lenses can. Whilst E-TTL II will still work, my understanding is it works better with lenses that can provide distance information.

[DocFrankenstein]

Obviously, Canon plans to keep the 1.6 crop factor on its 'prosumer' DSLR's and to sell the EF-S lenses for some time in the future ...

[iwatkins]

(of course, if you're a wide angle merchant I can understand the frustration ;) )

And that is why I still like to play with film. Got to love those chemicals and a full frame with the Sigma 12-24mm is a lot of fun. :D

Cheers

Ian

[evilenglishman]

expect Canon to start trying to push the pro market to cameras that will fully utilize such technology. They will likely be successful as long as pro-caliber optics are available, and provided image quality reaches or exceeds the quality of the current large-sensored bodies.

IMHO

I know a press photographer in sweden who uses a 1Ds to shoot celebrities in LA and Stockholm and also some sports. He generally buys all the high end canon gear.
I was talking on the phone to him one night about the 1DMK2 when it was announced (he owns a mk1) and he said he wouldn't buy it because when he buys a 14mm lens he wants it to be a 14mm lens - not something else.

I think this is a valid point and something that needs addressing by canon and all camera manafacturers - maybe a standard needs to be created.
At the moment is is very confusing for someone who doesn't know about crop factors etc. Some companies are producing lenses that will work on digital and not film, or will be bad on a full frame.
I think its all a bit messy and all cameras should use a full frame sensor, even if it has to start with an 8mp camera and progress into a 25mp camera over time as production costs decrease.

[Andy_T]

I think a new 20D buyer should look at the 28-135 ISM IS instead of the new EF-S lens.

Comments?

True ... if he needs a lens with a focal length of 44 - 216 mm.

If he needs wide angle, he'll go for the other one.

Best regards,
Andy

[PacAce]

[
I think its all a bit messy and all cameras should use a full frame sensor, even if it has to start with an 8mp camera and progress into a 25mp camera over time as production costs decrease.

But which full frame are you talking about? 35mm? 120? APS? 16mm? How about one of those huge plate negative sizes? :mrgreen:

Get my drift? There is no one standard size film frame.
Also, a 50mm lens would be a 50mm lens whether it's on a 35mm camera, a Hasselblad, a micro-spy camera and every other type of camera for that matter. The only difference in the images of each is how big or small an area is used in each application.

[evilenglishman]

[
I think its all a bit messy and all cameras should use a full frame sensor, even if it has to start with an 8mp camera and progress into a 25mp camera over time as production costs decrease.

But which full frame are you talking about? 35mm? 120? APS? 16mm? How about one of those huge plate negative sizes? :mrgreen:

Get my drift? There is no one standard size film frame.
Also, a 50mm lens would be a 50mm lens whether it's on a 35mm camera, a Hasselblad, a micro-spy camera and every other type of camera for that matter. The only difference in the images of each is how big or small an area is used in each application.

we are talking about 35mm - I think that is pretty clear. Dslr's are based on 35mm and use 35mm lenses. medium format digital backs - still use a film cameras full frame body.

[Persian-Rice]

I don't really think that Canon has really completely committed itself to the EF-S yet.
They have two bodies as of next month that are EF-S systems. How many quality lenses do they have? Better yet, how many lenses to they have?

The day they put out 2 "L" EF-S lenses is they day I think we can be pretty sure that EF-S is in it for real. Problem is, most of the very serious photographers who are in it for the long haul own expensive non EF-S system and are not looking to upgrade for several years, and if they do own an EF-S system, there is no lens worth buying and most likely are looking to upgrade to a better non EF-S camera.

The EF-S is a new thing, only one of the already very few Canon bodies is even EF-S compatible. If Canon start branding all their new SLR's EF-S's and creates some better then mediocre lenses, then were talking.

In Conclusion, ya EF-S is here to stay, but are we the photographers ready to bite?

Cheers.

[Persian-Rice]

Second time in two days it double posted when I pressed submit once. Pekka, I think there is something wrong that you might want to look into..............Cheers.

Plz delete.

[timmyquest]

I think a new 20D buyer should look at the 28-135 ISM IS instead of the new EF-S lens.

Comments?

The 28-135mm cannot provide distance information to the camera for E-TTL II. I would hope the new lenses can. Whilst E-TTL II will still work, my understanding is it works better with lenses that can provide distance information.

Is there a list of these leneses anywhere?

[timmyquest]

we are talking about 35mm - I think that is pretty clear. Dslr's are based on 35mm and use 35mm lenses. medium format digital backs - still use a film cameras full frame body.

What makes you think canon isnt try to force change apon us.

Isnt it cheaper for everyone to keep it at 1.6 for now?

Just a thought, i've been having the same thoughts that pacAce has of late.

The only reason i personally would demand change is the darn viewfinder. Pickiing up my film bodies is like, heaven...

[evilenglishman]

if canon intended to push smaller sensors and EF-s on pros then why didn't the MK2 come with EF-s?

[timmyquest]

if canon intended to push smaller sensors and EF-s on pros then why didn't the MK2 come with EF-s?

Because i havnt seen many MK2 owners who rely on WA lenses...

Because the same reason these EF-S lenses arnt L quality. The whole point of EF-S lenses is that they are cheaper to make. Someone spending $4,500 on a camera isnt worried about a cheap way to make lenses.

[KennyG]

if canon intended to push smaller sensors and EF-s on pros then why didn't the MK2 come with EF-s?

The main pro marketplace isn't really for wide-angle anyway. The majority of pro body users are PJ's, sports photogs, studio phtotogs with some wedding, fashion and product types thrown in for good measure. The shortest lens that most of them own is 50mm and maybe, just maybe the odd 35mm. I see a few with the 17-40 (I have one for goodness sake) but half of them can't remember the last time they used it.

The biggest market for WA EF-S (no point in anything other than WA) is consumer, where most of the time the cameras are used at the short end. Note at this point, users on this forum are not representitive of most consumers, so put away your flame throwers. Users here are, in the main, gearheads (sorry, but it is true) and as such push their use of a camera/lens system further than most.

EF-S will continue as long as the 1.6 factor (I'll not get into the crop/multiplier issue) exists. Who really wants to call if Canon have nailed the 1.6 colors to the mast for the foreseeable future or if in a couple of years it is 1.3, or 1.2 or FF? Lottery anyone?

[RDKirk]

evilenglishman>>If canon intended to push smaller sensors and EF-s on pros then why didn't the MK2 come with EF-s?<<

Because the Mk2 is so LAST year.

[RDKirk]

Evilenglishman>>we are talking about 35mm - I think that is pretty clear. Dslr's are based on 35mm and use 35mm lenses. medium format digital backs - still use a film cameras full frame body.<<

Says who? Canon is free to decide which format is more marketable, based not only on consumer clamor, but also what the sales figures really say and what their developers can produce at a marketable cost. All they have to do is provide acceptable image quality (based on what real sales figures say customers are willing to accept).

Let's get something straight: "Good enough" rules the market. 35mm never did get AS good as 4x5. It's only gotten "good enough" for its other benefits (cost and operating convenience) over 4x5 to carry the market. Digital imaging only has to get "good enough" for its other benefits over film to carry the market. Smaller than 24x36mm sensors only have to get "good enough" for their other benefits over large sensors to carry the market. If smaller formats manage to get AS good, that will be gravy for the manufacturer, regardless of the clamor of the minority of "Absolute Quality, Absolutely!" wienies.

So there is no standard--no ISO has made such a judgment. There is no guarantee that a 24x36mm digital sensor will ever get cheap enough to be a major moneymaker in the Canon lineup (I doubt the 1Ds is more than a fraction of a percent of their income now). Even if it does, there is still the question of whether Canon can develop good enough wide angle lenses for it. Digital sensors demand more from wide angle lenses than film does--the 16-35 L zoom is barely adequate on the 1Ds.

It's in a race with other technology: Will the quality of smaller-format sensors plus lenses designed for them manage someday to equal 24x36mm sensors and film-designed lenses AT LESS COST?

Which will happen first? Cheap 24x36mm sensors or "good enough" smaller sensors? Canon would be foolish to bet all their R&D money on either one. Because they make their sensors, they can work at both (and there may be two divisions of Canon in actual competition).

[ron chappel]

One factor that is not thought about much is 'in body' image stabilization.
Minolta are just about to release a body with it so canon and nikon *should* follow suit in the next few years.
I hope so anyway!!!
In camera IS is a HUGE advantage----but requires a normal full frame image circle from the lens to have 'room to move'

[Tom W]

Canon might be the only company that can go both ways at this time. I lean towards the larger sensor sizes, but I don't lean enough to drop $4500 on a 1D Mk II (yet). Not everyone will lean that way. And really, I've produced (considering my modest skills, anyway) about as good of results from the 10D as I have from film - perhaps a bit better even.

I think Canon can sustain both tracks for a long time. The fact that there is overlap is good - only short lenses really benefit from the EF-S mount anyway. One thing's for certain - the EF-S, like it or not, is here to stay.

[Tom W]

One factor that is not thought about much is 'in body' image stabilization.
Minolta are just about to release a body with it so canon and nikon *should* follow suit in the next few years.
I hope so anyway!!!
In camera IS is a HUGE advantage----but requires a normal full frame image circle from the lens to have 'room to move'

I think we might want to give that technology a little time to see if it pans out for Minolta. It could be problem-prone. Or it could be the best thing since sliced bread. Let Minolta spend their R&D money. Canon can whip up a good system in 6 months, I'd bet.

[RDKirk]

I think we might want to give that technology a little time to see if it pans out for Minolta. It could be problem-prone. Or it could be the best thing since sliced bread. Let Minolta spend their R&D money. Canon can whip up a good system in 6 months, I'd bet.

Minolta has beaten everyone else out of the gates more than once only to lose steam at the second turn. They had a nice XK system that could have whipped both Nikon F2 and Canon F-1, had they kept it going. They were first on the shelves with viable autofocus, too. They just never seem to be in the game to win.

[Jesper]

if canon intended to push smaller sensors and EF-s on pros then why didn't the MK2 come with EF-s?

Because the 1.3x crop factor sensor is too large for the EF-S lenses; the image circle of the EF-S lenses only covers the area of an 1.6x crop factor sensor.

I think it's time people need to think about why they want a full-frame camera so much. The major disadvantage of the crop factor is that all your wide angle lenses are suddenly not really wide angle anymore - but that problem is being solved since Canon and other manufacturers start making lenses like the EF-S 10-22mm. If there are good wide angle lenses available for 1.6x crop factor cameras, there's little reason left to want a full frame camera.

I think it's time people start to accept the new, 22.5mm x 15mm sensor format on its own instead of seeing it as an intermediate step to 36mm x 24mm sensors.

[nosquare2003]

I still believe that Canon is keeping 3 lines: 1.0x, 1.3x and 1.6x. With the new WA EF-s lenses, I see no reasons that Canon will abandon the 1.6x cameras.

The problem lies with the users. Will you upgrade from 1.6x camera to a 1.3x camera? This makes EF-s lens useless.

For a 20D or Drebel users, I think that 28-135 is a good choice in terms of focal length if he also gets the 10-22.

[Andy_T]

I go exactly with Nosquare ... the 1.6 is going to stay ... like it or not.

It's been repeated over and over ... it's simple marketing. Apparantly, more people like it than dislike it.

Look at Canon's (or Nikon's etc...) lens lineup.
Do you see more wide angle or more telephoto lenses? What about sales figures?
Does the 17-40L outsell the 70-200L? Maybe not.
Does Canon sell teleconverters? You bet.

So it might be save to assume that consumers in sum are more interested in telephoto lenses than in wide angle.
We're talking statistics here. The total number of telephoto lenses sold is a lot higher than the total number of wide angle lenses sold in a given time.

If you look at people's gear lists in the sig.lines here, you normally see one ... maybe two wide angle lenses. Then comes the middle range and then starts the list of tele lenses.... Go figure.

On the telephoto end, the 1.6 crop multiplier (that's a great compromise, right) and a sufficient amount of pixels helps you a lot, actually :lol:
Your 200 mm/2.8 lens behaves like a 300 mm/2.8 lens ... compare the prices!
You get a similar result from the 1.8/85 on the 10D that you would get from the 135/2 L on film. Great news for tele fans!!!!

If Canon would abandon the 1.6 crop factor, then all those consumers who are eager to have telephoto lenses would maybe go for Nikon instead, in order to save money on long lenses.

So what does Canon do? The smart thing ... they offer something for everybody.
The 1.6 crop for the majority of consumers and many pros.
The 1.3 crop for pros - but maybe for other reasons, as sports photographers are normally more interested in the tele end.
The 1.0 crop for those who need wide angle real badly.
In addition, a 1.6 crop sensor is *a lot less expensive* than a 1.0 crop sensor.

(And if you don't want to afford the 1Ds, you can always buy a Sigma 12-24 or now a 10-22 EF-S lens.
Or you could pick up a used film body for a song.
Or you could continue to rant on the forum and demand a consumer full frame camera every year :roll: )

Just my 0.02 € ... hmm, that diatribe was maybe more like 0.04 € :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

PS: Mind you ... I'd LOVE a full frame camera, as I am also a sucker for landscape photography.
On my N**** SLR, about 50% of my photos were taken at 24 mm.
But I try to be a realist and appreciate a great camera like the 10D, DRebel or 20D.

[evilenglishman]

I go exactly with Nosquare ... the 1.6 is going to stay ... like it or not.


okay, if that is the case then the megapixel count can't improve much more - people are already wondering about the 8mp of the D20

[Andy_T]

8 MP should be sufficient for the time being....

Best regards,
Andy

[HJMinard]

okay, if that is the case then the megapixel count can't improve much more. people are already wondering about the 8mp of the D20

I disagree - who knows what technology will bring? Look at how many pixels they cram onto those little point and shoot sensors. Yes, there's potential for noise, but early reviews of the 20D refute most of those fears. Besides, are we unhappy with the results from our 6 MP SLR's? I'm not. Just how many pixels do we need?

[Roger_Cavanagh]

okay, if that is the case then the megapixel count can't improve much more. people are already wondering about the 8mp of the D20

I disagree - who knows what technology will bring? Look at how many pixels they cram onto those little point and shoot sensors. Yes, there's potential for noise, but early reviews of the 20D refute most of those fears. Besides, are we unhappy with the results from our 6 MP SLR's? I'm not. Just how many pixels do we need?

It's not just a question of how many pixels you can fit onto the head of a pin. The optics of the lenses also place a limiting factor on image quality. This technology is so much more mature that digital, I'm sure the pace of improvement will be much slower in that arena.

I expect we'll see more software/peripheral improvements - noise reduction, buffer sizes and frame rates - more than continuing increases in pixel density.

Regards,

[Vlad]

I think a new 20D buyer should look at the 28-135 ISM IS instead of the new EF-S lens.

Comments?

The 28-135mm cannot provide distance information to the camera for E-TTL II. I would hope the new lenses can. Whilst E-TTL II will still work, my understanding is it works better with lenses that can provide distance information.


That does not seem to be true. EF 28-135mm can provide distance information with E-TTL II. See ** note in
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/EFLensChart.pdf

[evilenglishman]

Besides, are we unhappy with the results from our 6 MP SLR's? I'm not. Just how many pixels do we need?


17.2mp please for an A3 with no resampling.

I'm not disputing if people are happy with the quality - however when producing images for printed magazines, dimensions count and the 1Ds isn't enough - its okay for 1 A4 page but what when that magazine wants a double page photo? What if someone wants to crop 50% of the image?
Cropping has always been the job of magazine editors and designers - if a magazine wants to use digital they currently have to rely on the photographer to do their job - which isnt the best situation.

Generally new cameras come with more mp's as they improve. With the current size of the sensors there isnt much further they can take it.
It's like the current situation with dvd recorders. When 16x (or is it 32x) hit the shelves that will be it. They cannot get faster.

[timmyquest]

I'd sure hope that this is going to be the truth some day, and i dont doubt that we will see "full framed" sensors, perhaps larger.

But i just dont think it's going to be anytime soon.

[RDKirk]

>>okay, if that is the case then the megapixel count can't improve much more - people are already wondering about the 8mp of the D20<<

People who have actually shot with it aren't wondering--they're all saying it's great.

The "conventional wisdom" regarding upping pixels on a sensor without increasing the size, everything else being equal, is that noise increases because the photosites must be made smaller (thirty percent more photosites in the same space must mean 30 percent smaller photosites, right?). However, in this case everything else is not equal. Canon didn't just make the photosites smaller. Their CMOS sensors previously used sensor space for transistor components that Canon made significantly smaller in the 20D--so there is room for more photosites without making them as much smaller as one might think. Plus Canon has improved noise reduction algorithms--we may see the 20D producing images fully as good as the 1.3x sensor, and certainly better than the 10D.

This is a dilemma about the way the manufacturers integrate new technology--they don't withhold technological improvements for certain classes of camera. The latest and best incremental improvements are always in their latest cameras. Take DIGIC II, for instance. It's not relegated to cameras by class, but by release date. We're seeing techonology in both the 300D and 20D that's advanced over the 1D Mark II. We will have to wait until the 1D Mark III to see how that same technology fares there--but by then, we'll be seeing even newer technology.

At the same time, the 1Ds hasn't been upgraded for at least three technology generations now--the edge it originally had has been degraded. I'd like to see some careful comparison tests done between the 1Ds and the 20G to see how much difference still exists.

[Andy_T]

I'm not disputing if people are happy with the quality - however when producing images for printed magazines, dimensions count and the 1Ds isn't enough - its okay for 1 A4 page but what when that magazine wants a double page photo? What if someone wants to crop 50% of the image?
Cropping has always been the job of magazine editors and designers - if a magazine wants to use digital they currently have to rely on the photographer to do their job - which isnt the best situation.


Shooting A3 photographs for glossy magazines sounds like a typical application for prosumer digital SLR's :wink:

If you say that it can't be done with the 1Ds today, then why would you expect it from the 20D or its successors?

Horses for courses ... if this is what your job demands from you, then you'll have to get yourself a medium format camera with a C1 back.

Best regards,
Andy

[evilenglishman]

I'm not disputing if people are happy with the quality - however when producing images for printed magazines, dimensions count and the 1Ds isn't enough - its okay for 1 A4 page but what when that magazine wants a double page photo? What if someone wants to crop 50% of the image?
Cropping has always been the job of magazine editors and designers - if a magazine wants to use digital they currently have to rely on the photographer to do their job - which isnt the best situation.


Shooting A3 photographs for glossy magazines sounds like a typical application for prosumer digital SLR's :wink:

If you say that it can't be done with the 1Ds today, then why would you expect it from the 20D or its successors?

Horses for courses ... if this is what your job demands from you, then you'll have to get yourself a medium format camera with a C1 back.

Best regards,
Andy

its just an example I used to illustrate a point :roll:

[jylitalo]

Does the EF-S lens really have a long future considering the rate of new introductions on sensors? Will there be a 1.6 two years from now?
...
Moving from a G series or no camera to a 20D and selecting an EF-S lens doesn't make a lot of long term sense to me.

I think a new 20D buyer should look at the 28-135 ISM IS instead of the new EF-S lens.
Comments?

It depends on what your looking for. I am one of those people, who haven't earn a penny with photography, but who spentd lot of time on holidays for taking nice pictures about each holiday destination.

I just analyzed my Canon G3 pictures once again and statistics still show that 40-60% of my shots (starting from Dec 2002-) have been taken on wide angle (35mm), less than 20% on tele (140mm) and rest of the individual focal lenghts are below 10%. With that in mind, if/when I will eventually upgrade to DSLR, EF-S 18-85mm lens with 1.6x would be ideal lens for most of my needs.

Then again, my view on equipment is probably different from most of the readers in this forum, because 70-200mm L lens for example wouldn't be useful for me. Its physical dimensions are simply so big that it wouldn't nicely fit into my hiking gear (which quite often has things like tent, sleeping bag, etc. in it).

- Juha, http://www.ylitalot.net/photos/public/

[Andy_T]

I just analyzed my Canon G3 pictures once again and statistics still show that 40-60% of my shots (starting from Dec 2002-) have been taken on wide angle (35mm), less than 20% on tele (140mm) and rest of the individual focal lenghts are below 10%. With that in mind, if/when I will eventually upgrade to DSLR, EF-S 18-85mm lens with 1.6x would be ideal lens for most of my needs.


My rationale exactly :lol:.

When the DRebel came out, I thought about the same question because of the 18-55 lens, but quickly realized that I didn't like the Rebel as much as the 10D for its feel and that you definitely 'shouldn't base your purchase decision on a single lens'.

The 20D now has - for me - the advantages of the 10D (look&feel, flexibility) and the DRebel (possibility to also use EF-S lenses), plus all its other improvements over the other two cameras.

And there will always be the option to also get the 10-22, if you want to get even wider.

Best regards,
Andy

[Longwatcher]

In debating with myself as to whether on not to put this in this thread or start a new one, well I went with this one...

Having talked with image scientists I know that eventually we can get a camera with 20-25MP within the 1.6x format and a 40-60MP camera in the 35mm full frame format and with the current noise levels of the 10D/20D/1DM2 series. The pixel detector size can get down to around 4um (which means maybe as low as 2.8um) before the noise starts getting to be opressive (as is seen in the 8MP P&S cameras). So there is plenty of room for growth along these lines.

I feel Canon has made a noticable (although not significant) improvement in noise reduction for the 20D, which has allowed a slightly higher pixel count at the same quality. This is to be expected. If they could get the same noise levels from the P&S class with their 2.8um sensors that would be significant. Take into account these P&S cameras have an eve,oin smaller sensor then the 1.6x sensor.

I don't know what the detector size is on the 20D, but it could easily be 7um or larger, which is not significantly different then the 10D's 7.8um size.

While I am disappointed in the fact that Canon did not see fit to make the 10-22mm lens compatable with my 10D and D60 cameras, I did want them to make a wider lens if they were going to keep that format. Please note that they have only gone EF-S on the wide lenses. So until this class of lenses will have value until the theoretical limits have been reached, which current projections I would put at 5-6 years. Thus I would find the logevity of an EF-S lens to be about 10 years before they go away again at the earliest. The fact that they will only fit selected cameras lends me to lean towards it is a long-term plan to maintain that sensor size by Canon. If they had made the lenses compatable with the 10D/D60 then I would lean towards the more short term life of this class of lenses.

Finally as to me getting the 10-22mm EF-S lens, only if I got the 20D and only if I feel it will not frustrate me shooting RAW, which I am still not having a warm fuzzy about yet. [Thanks to those that pointed me to the source of the faster CF card write times]

Just my opinion,

[HJMinard]

I don't know what the detector size is on the 20D, but it could easily be 7um or larger, which is not significantly different then the 10D's 7.8um size.

20D = 6.4um

[TonyKInTexas]

That was said about 6.3MP a few years ago. As long as people keep clamoring for more, there will be more given whether it is needed or not. Just take a look at our super sized drinks and burgers.

8 MP should be sufficient for the time being....

Best regards,
Andy

[TonyKInTexas]

I saw a Sports Illustrated spread a few years back down with a 4MP camera that looked very good.

With a good starting image and the right software, there is no reason why a 6.3MP or 8MP image cannot be upsized to meet the requirements.

17.2mp please for an A3 with no resampling.

I'm not disputing if people are happy with the quality - however when producing images for printed magazines, dimensions count and the 1Ds isn't enough - its okay for 1 A4 page but what when that magazine wants a double page photo? What if someone wants to crop 50% of the image?
Cropping has always been the job of magazine editors and designers - if a magazine wants to use digital they currently have to rely on the photographer to do their job - which isnt the best situation.

Generally new cameras come with more mp's as they improve. With the current size of the sensors there isnt much further they can take it.
It's like the current situation with dvd recorders. When 16x (or is it 32x) hit the shelves that will be it. They cannot get faster.

[TonyKInTexas]

The wedding I photographed this month saw me shooting with 2 512MB CF cards and a 256CF card. One 512 card was the new 45x. The other I believe is a 32x though it is not marked as such. Could be as slow as 24x.

The 256 is 1x. Boy was there a difference in write speeds on the 10D. No looking back for this person.

And when it counts, I only shoot RAW. Just too much flexibilty during the processing to get the best results. JPG has already been processed meaning information may have already been lost.

Just my thoughts though.

Take care,
... will not frustrate me shooting RAW, which I am still not having a warm fuzzy about yet. [Thanks to those that pointed me to the source of the faster CF card write times]

Just my opinion,

[Jesper]

I think a new 20D buyer should look at the 28-135 ISM IS instead of the new EF-S lens.
I think a new 20D buyer should do some research and make his/her own personal decision.... :P

[Andy_T]

In debating with myself as to whether on not to put this in this thread or start a new one, well I went with this one...

Having talked with image scientists I know that eventually we can get a camera with 20-25MP within the 1.6x format and a 40-60MP camera in the 35mm full frame format and with the current noise levels of the 10D/20D/1DM2 series. The pixel detector size can get down to around 4um (which means maybe as low as 2.8um) before the noise starts getting to be opressive (as is seen in the 8MP P&S cameras). So there is plenty of room for growth along these lines.

Longwatcher,
thank you very much for sharing your experience [as opposed to speculations :wink: ]on this issue.
I maybe wouldn't want to see a 25 MP 1.6 crop camera, because then the more limited DOF control of the small sensor digicams (e.g. G5, Pro1) might be a problem on a DSLR.

However, it also shows that the 1.6 crop hasn't reached its limit yet.


While I am disappointed in the fact that Canon did not see fit to make the 10-22mm lens compatable with my 10D and D60 cameras, I did want them to make a wider lens if they were going to keep that format. Please note that they have only gone EF-S on the wide lenses. So until this class of lenses will have value until the theoretical limits have been reached, which current projections I would put at 5-6 years. Thus I would find the logevity of an EF-S lens to be about 10 years before they go away again at the earliest. The fact that they will only fit selected cameras lends me to lean towards it is a long-term plan to maintain that sensor size by Canon. If they had made the lenses compatable with the 10D/D60 then I would lean towards the more short term life of this class of lenses.


That reasoning sounds pretty logical to me.
And bear in mind that your word 'obsolete' means 'a mere 20 MP is no longer acceptable for my holiday snapshots' :wink:

Best regards,
Andy