Are the optics of EF-S lenses inherently inferior?

[Cadenza]

Obviously, Canon is agressively pushing the
EF-S lenses, duplicating their effective 1.6x
ranges within those ranges most popular in
its full frame line.

Haven't read very much about this, but I was
wondering if we can assume in a general
way that the optics of the EF-S lenses will be
inherently of lower quality compared to their
35mm equivalent counterparts.

Obviously, using full frame lenses in 1.6x
DSLRs only uses the center portion of the
glass, where quality is at its best. With EF-S
lenses, the more compact system means that
it will use more of the glass, and closer to
the edges of the lens.

Opinions, anyone?


Regards, Cadenza

[Nic]

I don't know how you can make such an asumption without trying the lenses for yourself. Thousands of these lenses are sold and more thousands of pictures are taken with them - and that includes me.

Buy one and try it yourself.

[robertwgross]

I won't make any assumptions about the actual optics, but I consider EF-S lenses inherently poor for me, since I have two Canon EOS cameras where they will not work.

---Bob Gross---

[JZaun]

Because of its poor build, the 18-55mm kit lens catches a lot of hate mail :) but I did a side by side test with it and a 17-40mm (L) and found the el cheepo almost as good optically. IHO that is. Don't want to start a war :)

Just my observation

JZ

[PacAce]

If Canon maintains the same quality standards and design on the EF-S versions as they do on the EF counterpart, then I would think that the EF-S optics should perform just as well as the EF optics on a full-frame camera. Of course, using an EF lens on a 1.6x camera may have an advantage image quality-wise, as you pointed out due to more of the central area of the lens being used, but not necessarily since you can't really make an apples-to-apples comparison.

[Tomsk]

The 10-22EFS and 17-40L are similarly priced.
Canon must be confident of the optical quality to do this.

[pierrot]

...the more compact system means that
it will use more of the glass, and closer to the edges of the lens.

Aha, and what would you say of all the "normal" EF lenses used with "normal" full format bodies? Don't they use the most of the glass?
Seems you're standing on a kinda weak basis to make such assumptions... but you'll be forgiven as you didn't read and think of that very much, as you tell us. ;)

[Adam Hicks]

Exactly pierrot... as he puts it, the 1DS MkII with it's full frame sensor would yield inferior images with standard lenses. What a pity!

Anyways, while I promptly discarded the 18-55, I really love the 10-22. It's oh-so-wide and the images are contrasty and sharp. Very sharp wide open as well for a zoom lens in this range.

My next EF-S lens will be the 60mm Macro, and that'll be a good test of the EF-S lens quality, since all things are revealed in the macro shots :)

[Cadenza]

Aha, and what would you say of all the "normal" EF lenses used with "normal" full format bodies? Don't they use the most of the glass?
Seems you're standing on a kinda weak basis to make such assumptions... but you'll be forgiven as you didn't read and think of that very much, as you tell us. ;)

So my point is, having a choice between
EF-S and EF lenses on a 1.6x type sensor,
quality wise should one favor the EF or
the EF-S?

I'm not even considering that, when
Canon releases down the road Rebel or
20D level cameras with 1.3x or 1.0x
sensors, all these lenses will be obsolete
on the new models. The kit lens is fairly
disposable and cheap, so no loss there...
but the more I think about it, it just doesn't
make sense to invest in premium EF-S
lenses, on the long run.

Regards, Cadenza

[Adam Hicks]

In the long run it probably doesn't make sense, but the magazine I shoot for is published every other month, not in the long run.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Cadenza,. like any comparison (EF Vs. L, Canon Vs. Sigma) there is no hard and fast rule. (there are EF primes better than some L lenses,. there are Sigma lenses better than some L lenses,. etc)

The first EFS lenses relesed were kit lenses intended to fit the low cost needs of a kit lens.

But we can no more judge the entire EFS line based on the very affordable kit lens than we would jusdge the entire EF line based on one of the 28-90mm peices of junk that come bundled with certian 35mm film Rebel kits.

It remains to be seen in what direction Canon will continue the EFS line,. but for now they there is an EFS-L in the form of the 10-22mm. All it lacks is a red ring.

[PacAce]

I'm not even considering that, when
Canon releases down the road Rebel or
20D level cameras with 1.3x or 1.0x
sensors, all these lenses will be obsolete
on the new models. The kit lens is fairly
disposable and cheap, so no loss there...
but the more I think about it, it just doesn't
make sense to invest in premium EF-S
lenses, on the long run.

Regards, Cadenza
What would be the driving factor in making Canon want to make any of the future 1.6x anything other than a 1.6x camera? Why would there even be a desire to go from 1.6x to 1.0x in the first place? The only reason there is one now is because the EF lenses were designed specifically for full-frame 35mm cameras and a wide angle lens no longer becomes that on a 1.6x camera. However, if there is a wide angle EF-S lens that gives the same FOV on the 1.6x camera as a wide angle EF lens does on a ff camera, what other reason would there be for a ff sensor. AAMOF, I would wager that once EF-S lenses become common place for the 1.6x camera, 1.6x will be another obsolete term to be found only in the historical archives of photography.

[jterlecki]

Lots of assumptions here with no basis of fact. EF lenses were developed to replace FD lenses for auto focus cameras. FD lenses had been around since the early 70's when full aperture metering was developed. Before that everything used stopped down metering with the old FL lens system. Over the years, optics have only gotten better and the cost of the EF-s lenses is by no means trivial so why would anyone ever think that they were inferior? I don't know of any basis to think that Canon would come out with a 1.3x or 1.0x 20D, at least in the immediate future. Why would they? The 20D is the hottest thing on the market and I'm sure Canon makes a good profit on it. I've got a half dozen EF lenses now for my EOS 3 and I certainly plan on filling in the gaps with EF-s lenses for my new 20D.

[HJMinard]

What would be the driving factor in making Canon want to make any of the future 1.6x anything other than a 1.6x camera? Why would there even be a desire to go from 1.6x to 1.0x in the first place? The only reason there is one now is because the EF lenses were designed specifically for full-frame 35mm cameras and a wide angle lens no longer becomes that on a 1.6x camera. However, if there is a wide angle EF-S lens that gives the same FOV on the 1.6x camera as a wide angle EF lens does on a ff camera, what other reason would there be for a ff sensor. AAMOF, I would wager that once EF-S lenses become common place for the 1.6x camera, 1.6x will be another obsolete term to be found only in the historical archives of photography.

I completely concur. I think 1.6 and EF-S are here to stay ... and I think it's obvious that Canon expects that to be the case.

[Citizensmith]

I completely concur. I think 1.6 and EF-S are here to stay ... and I think it's obvious that Canon expects that to be the case.

I agree. People need to let go of the idea of 35mm as a standard. Sure you can get full frame digital, but you can medium format film and the vast majority of photographers never bothered with it despite the obvious advantages quality wise.

Secondly, why are people worried about wasted investment in EF-S lenses. You spend $1500 on a DSLR that will be technically out of date 12 months later, but spending $600 on a lens that will still be good in 3 or 4 years is a bad investment? Anyone worried about investing in EF-S lenses should stay the hell away from digital. And computers. And cars.

[HJMinard]

Secondly, why are people worried about wasted investment in EF-S lenses. You spend $1500 on a DSLR that will be technically out of date 12 months later, but spending $600 on a lens that will still be good in 3 or 4 years is a bad investment? Anyone worried about investing in EF-S lenses should stay the hell away from digital. And computers. And cars.

The exception, of course, is folks like Bob Gross who have film bodies and want all lenses to be compatible with all bodies. Completely understandable.

Also understandable is someone who already has a 35mm size sensor body or intends to upgrade to one relatively soon. They better expect to pay the 1-series premium, however, because the Canon prosumer DSLR's are going to remain APS-C.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Also understandable is someone who already has a 35mm size sensor body .

Or 1.3X sensor.. which there are quite a few of us on this forum,. nearly as many as those who own fild bodies I would guess.

[HJMinard]

Or 1.3X sensor.. which there are quite a few of us on this forum,. nearly as many as those who own fild bodies I would guess.

Oh yeah ... you too :o

[Lenny_D]

Suppose you take two pictures, one with a 1.6x crop factor DSLR and one with a 35mm film camera using the same EF lens. The distance to the object is taken the same.
If you print the two pictures at the same size, the picture of the 1.6x camera is blown up by a factor 1.6 (fooling you to think that you use a higher focal length). This implies that the overall quality/resolution of the printout from the 1.6x camera is actually worse.
Thus..... if you design EF-S lenses and you want the same quality you need higher quality of the centre of the lens to reach the same overal quality of the entire print. Thus maybe the EF-S lenses are optically better than the EF lenses????!!!

Lenny

[DocFrankenstein]

Suppose you take two pictures, one with a 1.6x crop factor DSLR and one with a 35mm film camera using the same EF lens. The distance to the object is taken the same.
If you print the two pictures at the same size, the picture of the 1.6x camera is blown up by a factor 1.6 (fooling you to think that you use a higher focal length). This implies that the overall quality/resolution of the printout from the 1.6x camera is actually worse.
Thus..... if you design EF-S lenses and you want the same quality you need higher quality of the centre of the lens to reach the same overal quality of the entire print. Thus maybe the EF-S lenses are optically better than the EF lenses????!!!
Wrong. False logic.

I don't know how you can make such an asumption without trying the lenses for yourself. Thousands of these lenses are sold and more thousands of pictures are taken with them - and that includes me.

Buy one and try it yourself.
So is the case with Tamron 28-300... thousands and thousands of people.... That sounds like marketing 101 poop.

In the long run it probably doesn't make sense, but the magazine I shoot for is published every other month, not in the long run.
IMO that's the real reason for EF-S...

What would be the driving factor in making Canon want to make any of the future 1.6x anything other than a 1.6x camera? Why would there even be a desire to go from 1.6x to 1.0x in the first place? The only reason there is one now is because the EF lenses were designed specifically for full-frame 35mm cameras and a wide angle lens no longer becomes that on a 1.6x camera. However, if there is a wide angle EF-S lens that gives the same FOV on the 1.6x camera as a wide angle EF lens does on a ff camera, what other reason would there be for a ff sensor. AAMOF, I would wager that once EF-S lenses become common place for the 1.6x camera, 1.6x will be another obsolete term to be found only in the historical archives of photography.
Same reason you got yourself a DSLR and not a small PS...

Did you know that the distance between the railroad rails is equal to the distance between 2 horses' asses? :p

Desire to go from 1.6 to 1.0 is natural and is governed by a multitude of reasons:
1) your balls feel bigger
2) 1.0 sensor gets 2.5 times more light
3) full frame sensor is compatible with film, for those folks that shoot both

And IMO the most important reason:
4) full frame sensor gives you better bokeh.

Do u know how sigma's 30mm f/1.4 "normal" EF-S lens is gonna give you bokeh equivalent to 50 f/2.3 on full frame???

Take a look:
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p11670568.html
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p11670569.html

Basically 2 drawings illustrating the formation of bokeh in full frame, 1.6 and a PS cameras.

And with mass production and miniaturization, give china 5-7 years, and they'll be able to stamp you a few pounds of full frame sensors for under a buck. Or if not china... then canon's competition...

EF-S must DIE!

[PacAce]

Wrong. False logic.


So is the case with Tamron 28-300... thousands and thousands of people.... That sounds like marketing 101 poop.


IMO that's the real reason for EF-S...


Same reason you got yourself a DSLR and not a small PS...

Did you know that the distance between the railroad rails is equal to the distance between 2 horses' asses? :p

Desire to go from 1.6 to 1.0 is natural and is governed by a multitude of reasons:
1) your balls feel bigger
2) 1.0 sensor gets 2.5 times more light
3) full frame sensor is compatible with film, for those folks that shoot both

And IMO the most important reason:
4) full frame sensor gives you better bokeh.

Do u know how sigma's 30mm f/1.4 "normal" EF-S lens is gonna give you bokeh equivalent to 50 f/2.3 on full frame???

Take a look:
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p11670568.html
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p11670569.html

Basically 2 drawings illustrating the formation of bokeh in full frame, 1.6 and a PS cameras.

And with mass production and miniaturization, give china 5-7 years, and they'll be able to stamp you a few pounds of full frame sensors for under a buck. Or if not china... then canon's competition...

EF-S must DIE!
I think you desperately need to double check your information. Half of the information you gave are not correct and the other half are absolutely nonesense. :p :p :p

[DocFrankenstein]

I think you desperately need to double check your information. Half of the information you gave are not correct and the other half are absolutely nonesense. :p :p :p
Care to elaborate as to which is which? :confused:

[CoolToolGuy]

So if full frame gives better bokeh, why don't we all just sell this DSLR crap and go get Hasselblad - or 4x5?

What a bunch of hooey.

Have Fun,

[Tom W]

NOOOoooooo.....

shaking head

[CoolToolGuy]

NOOOoooooo.....

shaking head

CDS really started this over in General Chat:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=421004#post421004

Have Fun,

[Tom W]

So I guess this is IT! :D

[CoolToolGuy]

So I guess this is IT! :D

Amazing - in the '50s, IT referred to something else that sometimes happened on a date. Now we have an equally unmentionable topic in digital photography. :cry:

Have Fun,

[Tom W]

Yes, its the new "C" word. :)

[CoolToolGuy]

Yes, its the new "C" word. :)

And four letters, no less:rolleyes:

Have Fun,

[kawter2]

it isn't an issue with quality for me.

I REALLY want a wide angle (preferably a fisheye) solution for my 20D my only real option is the 10-22 EF-s It isn't the quality that I am afraid of, it is that I am afraid that the midrange dSlrs will abandon the 1.6 very soon. I feel that the rebels will be there for a LONG TIME but I very serriously doubt the newer versions of the 10/20d line being the 1.6

[Tom W]

Honestly, I think Canon's going to have 2 camera lines in the EF-S mount for a good while. They wouldn't have developed the lenses that they did if they weren't going to stick with it.

I do see a change with the top end in the future - the 1-series will merge into one camera, and the 1.3X may (or may not) become the 3-series. This will be 2-3 years down the road, though.

[DocFrankenstein]

whatever... might as well close the thread.

[kawter2]

whatever... might as well close the thread.

haha! i love it

[FlyingPete]

Honestly, I think Canon's going to have 2 camera lines in the EF-S mount for a good while. They wouldn't have developed the lenses that they did if they weren't going to stick with it.

The same logic was probably used when APS was released. I remember Minolta for one released a whole new lens format for their APS SLR. Now what has happened?

Granted the demise of APS could in part be blamed on digital, but then again, perhaps not.

[Bodog]

And with mass production and miniaturization, give china 5-7 years, and they'll be able to stamp you a few pounds of full frame sensors for under a buck. Or if not china... then canon's competition...

EF-S must DIE!

How do you miniaturize a full frame sensor and still keep it full frame? More photo sites on the sensor yes; but only so many sensors will fit on a silicon wafer. This is what everyone forgets when the say there will be a cheaper full frame camera soon... :rolleyes:

[DocFrankenstein]

How do you miniaturize a full frame sensor and still keep it full frame? More photo sites on the sensor yes; but only so many sensors will fit on a silicon wafer. This is what everyone forgets when the say there will be a cheaper full frame camera soon... :rolleyes:
K... no miniaturization... mass production only.

The point was that it was gonna become cheaper and cheaper... We just need Canon's competition to catch up at least a bit.

Canon is a monopoly! WAaaaaaah! :lol: ;)

[Tom W]

The same logic was probably used when APS was released. I remember Minolta for one released a whole new lens format for their APS SLR. Now what has happened?

Granted the demise of APS could in part be blamed on digital, but then again, perhaps not.

My thought is that in the case of film, APS was a solution looking for a problem. There wasn't enough compelling reason to give up 35mm for APS film.

If digital full-frame cameras were close to 35 mm cameras in price, I'd venture to say that people wouldn't be as interested in APS digital either. There's a pretty big price jump between the formats.

[HJMinard]

EFS Must Die! APS Too!

I've said it before but it seems to be an appropriate place to repeat ... some - perhaps many - of us like and prefer the APS sensor cameras. We enjoy the tighter crop per mm of lens.

I lust after the professional build quality, autofocus capability, and other features of the 1-series cameras, but I have no desire for the larger sensor. None ... zero ... zip ... zilch.

[CoolToolGuy]

I don't think we have to worry about the APS-C sensor size going away any time soon. Olympus is totally committed to the FourThirds format which is a 2.0 crop factor, and no other DSLR vendor (save Kodak) has ventured to even full frame. The competition in the consumer arena will be in that range for quite some time. Canon will probably keep the prosumer bodies there too. The general consumer market will walk away from Canon if they go full-frame only and the competition stays where they are.

The pro cameras will be the full-frame, and I think Canon may try something like what Ni*on has done with the D2X - crop in the camera. They may even try all three formats - full-frame, 1.3 and 1.6.

My 2 cents.

Have Fun,

[FlyingPete]

The pro cameras will be the full-frame, and I think Canon may try something like what Ni*on has done with the D2X - crop in the camera. They may even try all three formats - full-frame, 1.3 and 1.6.


What does the D2X look like in the viewfinder between the two formats? Does it just have markings for the smaller of the two?

[CoolToolGuy]

What does the D2X look like in the viewfinder between the two formats? Does it just have markings for the smaller of the two?

The D2X doesn't actually ship until this week (or is it next week?) so I haven't seen any reviews. Here's what Phil Askey (dpreview) says about it:
Phil: Although the cropped 6.8 megapixel mode sounds odd it's actually very easy to use as the area is indicated by a box on the focus screen (view through the viewfinder). It's just like a "sports finder" in that mode and of course means that your 300 mm lens produces the same FOV as a 600 mm lens, at 6.8 million pixels.

Have Fun,

[nosquare2003]

I won't make any assumptions about the actual optics, but I consider EF-S lenses inherently poor for me, since I have two Canon EOS cameras where they will not work.

---Bob Gross---

On the contrary, I wonder if my cameras are inherently inferior as they cannot adapt to the EF-s lenses.

[kawter2]

The D2X doesn't actually ship until this week (or is it next week?)



"IF" it ships

[CoolToolGuy]

"IF" it ships

Geez, I was trying to be nice...

Have Fun,

[ron chappel]

Good point cadenza -about comparing them to a cropped 35mm lens.
So far though the 's' lenses seem to be very consistant across the frame.No doubt that's part of the reason for their high price

[FlyingPete]

On the contrary, I wonder if my cameras are inherently inferior as they cannot adapt to the EF-s lenses.

Quick duck for cover :shock:

[CoolToolGuy]

On the contrary, I wonder if my cameras are inherently inferior as they cannot adapt to the EF-s lenses.

A brave statement to make among this crowd, but potentially true a couple years from now - if you rate it by residual value. If Canon sticks with EF-S lenses and fleshes out the line, at that point the 10D, D60 and D30 will likely be lower in relative value than those bodies that accept the EF-S lenses.

Have Fun,

[RJSorensen]

I like my 17-85 IS lens . . . I figure I got it for 400 bucks. The hundred you get off for buying it in the "KIT" and the hundred I did not waste on the 18-55. I don't think this is a bad lens in any way. The way it talks to the EX flash units is way nice. Even on a 'short' lens IS is nice. So I think EFS lens will be fine for those who got in with the 20D and don't have legacy bodies in the closet. And that is what this thread IS about. Heck give us lighter, quicker, shorter, faster, as good as for equal or LESS money. Red Ring Fever is fine, and has its place but is not always the best for everyone.

[Citizensmith]

Did you know that the distance between the railroad rails is equal to the distance between 2 horses' asses? :p


2) 1.0 sensor gets 2.5 times more light


Huh, I think you are remembering it wrong. Its equal to the wheel base of a wagon but that is not necessarily the distance between 2 equine butts.

Oh yeah, and 2) while true, misrepresents the facts. For any given part of the sensor it receives exactly the same amount of light, its just larger and is therefore receiving an equal amount of light over a larger area. Doesn't make any difference to shutter speed though. :)

[Adam Hicks]

Keep this thing going! Here's my take on the EF-S thing, similar to what was mentioned before. We all sit around and live and breathe Canon, and we feel they have made mostly excellent decisions with their lens variety and applications (maybe not so much with that 35-350 but I digress), so who are we to second guess the EF-S line? I don't know what it costs to develop a line of lenses, but I'm guessing it ain't cheap, and I'm also guessing Canon doesn't plan on making enough EF-S lens money from 20D owners to cover their R&D costs up front. Canon has found a perfect balance of entry, prosumer and pro digital cameras, and I think they'll keep it this way as long as we keep dumping buckets of cash on it :) So even if our 20D moves towards the prosumer line, and goes 1.3 or 1.0, the DRebel line(s) will be 1.6 for a while. And like others have said, why not? You can't b!tch about the lack of a true wide angle lens for a 1.6x crop now that the 10-22 is out... So what's the big problem.

[DocFrankenstein]

Oh yeah, and 2) while true, misrepresents the facts. For any given part of the sensor it receives exactly the same amount of light, its just larger and is therefore receiving an equal amount of light over a larger area. Doesn't make any difference to shutter speed though. :)
I never said the shutter speed is gonna be different. Per unit area, even S1 IS at f/2 gets the same amount as hasselblad at f/2. (There are no f/2 hasselblad lenses, are there?)

But my point is trying to form an image when you have 2.5 times more photons to work with is way easier.

Huh, I think you are remembering it wrong. Its equal to the wheel base of a wagon but that is not necessarily the distance between 2 equine butts.
The latter quote is easily arguable, but has a point of sorts:
Does the statement, "We've always done it that
way" ring any bells... ? The US standard railroad gauge (distance between
the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an
exceedingly odd number.

Why was that gauge used?

Because that's the way they built them in England,
and English expatriates built the US Railroads.

Why did the English build them like that?

Because the first rail lines were built by the
same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and
that's the gauge they used.

Why did "they" use that gauge then?

Because the people who built the tramways used
the same jigs and tools that they used for building
wagons, which used that wheel spacing.

Okay! Why did the wagons have that particular
odd wheel spacing?

Well, if they tried to use any other spacing,
the wagon wheels would break on some of the old,
long distance roads in England, because that's
the spacing of the wheel ruts.

So who built those old rutted roads?

Imperial Rome built the first long distance
roads in Europe (and England) for their legions. The
roads have been used ever since.

And the ruts in the roads?

Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts,
which everyone else had to match for fear of
destroying their wagon wheels.
Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome, they
were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.

The United States standard railroad gauge of 4
feet, 8.5 inches is derived from the original
specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot.
And bureaucracies live forever. So the next time you
are handed a specification and wonder what horse's
ass came up with it, you may be exactly right,
because the Imperial Roman war chariots were made
just wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two
war horses. Now the twist to the story...

When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its
launch pad, there are two big booster rockets
attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These
are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are
made by Thiokol at their factory at Utah. The
engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred
to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to
be shipped by train from the factory to the launch
site. The railroad line from the factory happens to
run through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs had
to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly
wider than the railroad track, and the railroad
track, as you now know, is about as wide as two
horses' behinds.

So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what
is arguably the world's most advanced transportation
system was determined over two thousand years ago by
the width of a horse's ass. ... and you thought
being a HORSE'S ASS wasn't important!

[CyberDyneSystems]

So I guess this is IT! :D


I knew IT!!!

I could feel it stirring in the pits of the forum bowels!

It called to me like a giant fart!

I a precog! :lol:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Huh, I think you are remembering it wrong. Its equal to the wheel base of a wagon but that is not necessarily the distance between 2 equine butts.


Yeah,. the distance for the wheels was dictated by the width of the Roman chariot,. the chariot was as wide as it was,. because it was as wide as the two horses pulling it.

[Bodog]

Doc, great piece of information!!! :D :D :D :D

[Tom W]

Originally Posted by DocFrankenstein
Did you know that the distance between the railroad rails is equal to the distance between 2 horses' asses?

The one glowing relationship that I see between railroads and the backside of a horse these days is the sudden belief on the part of a few folks that the train doesn't have the right-of-way. That, and the fact that they somehow blame the railroad when Aunt Millie somehow manages to get her car stopped on the tracks in front of a moving train.

[René Damkot]

So if full frame gives better bokeh, why don't we all just sell this DSLR crap and go get Hasselblad - or 4x5?
What a bunch of hooey.
Have Fun,
Well, the bokeh is not caused by the sensor, but there _is_ a difference between 1.6 crop, 1.3 crop and FF sensors in regard to the transition in focus / out of focus. IMHO FF looks like 35mm film, 1.6 crop doesn't. All comes down to taste. I like my 1DMk2 :D

EDIT: By the way, I don't think there's any reason to assume EF-S offers worse quality than EF. If anything, it should be a lot easyer to make an EF-S lens faster/better/cheaper (pick one) than an EF lense of the same focal length and aperture, due to the smaller image circle, and therefore amount of glass, needed.

[PacAce]

Yeah,. the distance for the wheels was dictated by the width of the Roman chariot,. the chariot was as wide as it was,. because it was as wide as the two horses pulling it.

I think the exact quote was:

just wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two
war horses
"Just wide enough" does not mean "equal to" or "as wide as". It means it can accommodate a varied number of horse's butts of differing widths since not all horses are going to be the same size. However, the width of the chariots or wagons will always be the same size because they were dimensioned that way.

[Hellashot]

The 10-22EFS and 17-40L are similarly priced.
Canon must be confident of the optical quality to do this.

Since when is price needed to be linked to quality? If you can get someone to buy something with a huge markup attached onto it, the more power to you!

Price is more often linked to demand and supply versus quality.