lifetime of the EF Mount

[drewmk2]

So i was reading the thread titled Average lifetime of a Digital SLR, and it got me thinking. Is it worth investing $1000 in glass when i dont know if the mount will be the same 3 years from now?

What do you think?

[rent]

three years from now your gear can produce the same quality image as it can today and will probably continue to do so many years to come. in addition, even at $330 per year, the enjoyment of photography it buys is definately worth it for me.

-alex

[ddelallata]

EF mounts have been around for more than 20 years and it looks like its here to stay.....EF-S on the other hand is a different story. No one can say for sure if it is here to stay or just a temporary solution to smaller sensors on amateur and pro-sumer cameras. My gut feeling is that in a few years full size sensors will replace the APS-C sensors altogether. In either case, since I plan on upgrading to a 1 series camera in a year or two I'll steer away from any EF-S mount lenses for the time being.

[Mohawk]

I would worry about the E-FS lenses. I think they are a stop-gap till full frame sensor prices drop price wise. The EF is here to stay.

Mike

[shiato storm]

yeah, i think we'll soon see full sized sensors on pretty much all cameras in the near future

[Andy_T]

So what happens if EF-S is no longer around in, say, 5 years?

- You can throw away your 18-55 kit lens or sell it with your DRebel/DRebelXT/10D/20D/30D/40D?
- You can ponder the 100$ it cost you annually to use the 17-85 or 10-22.
Compare this with the images you would not have been able to get otherwise ... what's the price per image?
(Always assuming that there will be nobody else left using a camera with EF-S mount that might be interested in buying it)

Bottom line is ... in 5 years from now, your camera will be as good as it it today.

If you want to take pictures, buy a camera, and buy some lenses for it. There are no real alternatives to that, if you want to take pictures.

If you rather want to fret about 'what-if' ... easy ... don't buy a camera. Don't take any pictures.
You are perfectly on the safe side (financially, not photographically, that is :lol: )

My other camera is a NOINK 601 AF ... if you are any familiar with NOINK products, you will be able to figure out that I had it in my possession for something like 15 years :wink: (not that I would use it any more now that I am digital, but that's another issue :lol: )

Best regards,
Andy

[shiato storm]

i still use an Olympus OM1...30yrs old and it still produces pictures that get published. can't say fairer than that now can we?

[ScottE]

I disagree with all those who forcast the demise of the APS sized sensors. The image quality already matches 35 mm film. Nikon now has a 12 megapixel APS sized sensor that approaches the abilities of medium format film. Canon is sure to match and exceed anything Nikon brings out in the near future. (Then Nikon will do the same to Canon again.)

The full frame cameras with 16 megapixels can only improve and will certainly exceed medium format film quality.

If anything is likely to disappear, it will be the 1.3x format of cameras like the 1D Mk II. These are likely to be replaced by professional quality 1.6x cameras that will offer great quality and be more econonical to produce in the competition with Nikon. The current batch of EF-S lenses are likely just the first glimpse of the future.

Also, consider that EF-S can get away with smaller diameter lens elements that are cheaper to produce to give the same or better image quality. Someone should compare a 10-22 EFS with a 14/2.8L. (I don't know what the result would be, but doubt that the prime lens would be that much better.)

Scott

[Leorooster]

Scott, I am with you on this. I don't think Canon will get rid of the EF-S mounts any time soon. I don't know how much R&D Canon put in toward the EF-S mounts, but the amount is for sure in tens if not hundreds of millions. It just doesn't make business sense to discontiue any new line of products after a few years in the market. In addition, the quality of the 1.6x cameras are currently very good and are getting even better. Another thing is that Canon would always want to differentiate their professional line of products from the prosumer line of products, so that they can charge a premium price to their prefessional line customers; and keeping the 1.6x is one of the easy ways to go.

All in all, I just don't think the EF-S mount would be discontinued in the foreseeable future. Going back to the original question, IMHO, it's definitely worth investing $1000 in glasses.

[Bill Ng]

I disagree with all those who forcast the demise of the APS sized sensors. The image quality already matches 35 mm film. Nikon now has a 12 megapixel APS sized sensor that approaches the abilities of medium format film. Canon is sure to match and exceed anything Nikon brings out in the near future. (Then Nikon will do the same to Canon again.)

The full frame cameras with 16 megapixels can only improve and will certainly exceed medium format film quality.

If anything is likely to disappear, it will be the 1.3x format of cameras like the 1D Mk II. These are likely to be replaced by professional quality 1.6x cameras that will offer great quality and be more econonical to produce in the competition with Nikon. The current batch of EF-S lenses are likely just the first glimpse of the future.

Also, consider that EF-S can get away with smaller diameter lens elements that are cheaper to produce to give the same or better image quality. Someone should compare a 10-22 EFS with a 14/2.8L. (I don't know what the result would be, but doubt that the prime lens would be that much better.)

Scott

Where are you getting this info from? Popular Photography a few months back ran the 1DS mkII through its paces and declared it the first Digial SLR based on a 35mm body that actually beat the resolution of 35mm film. How does Nikon's 12MP camera have resolution to "approach the abilities of medium format film" when the clearly superior 16.7 MP Canon just barely beat out 35mm film?

Bill in Brooklyn

[Andy_T]

On a lighter note ... $1000 in glass will cover the bare necessities of everyday shooting :p

I'm talking of EF-S 18-55 + Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI + Canon EF 70-200/4.0 L.
Depending on prices, you might also throw in a 50/1.8 for good measure...

Scary, isn't it?
You should know what you have coming, if you keep reading the forum :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[rdenney]

The full frame cameras with 16 megapixels can only improve and will certainly exceed medium format film quality.


No way. If the pixel density gets high enough, we might be able to do without the anti-aliasing filter, because the patterns that would cause aliasing with the pixel grid will be sufficiently blurred by the lens's maximum resolution.

But we will never be able to get medium-format quality from an APS sensor, even with a billion pixels, and the reason is that sensor resolution is only one link in a chain, and all the other links are at their limits. One of those links is the ability of very small pixels to accurately count photons, especially when it's dark. Light is neither continuous nor uniform, and the smaller the sample you take, the higher the error. Another link in the chain is the lenses. Yes, you might be able to improve on lenses for the smaller format, but only at high cost. Lenses are subject to the law of diminishing returns. Leica lenses may be fractionally better in some cases than Canon lenses, but only with extreme extra cost. I suspect the reason they are so much more costly is that Leitz would reject lenses that didn't measure up a little more rigorously than Canon--not because their manufacturing skill was any better.

The other problem is raw information. The information that goes into a photograph is light, and the more of it we start with, the more we have. An APS sensor starts with 345 square millimeters of information-gathering surface. Medium format is at least 2350 square millimeters. Granted, film is not as accurate as digital, and some of the information is lost. But a digital sensor of medium format size will blow away the results from an APS sensor. Even if the pixels are bigger, they integrate more information and are thus a more accurate sample. You can tell the difference even in small prints.

Those who think the Noink 12-MP APS sensor will perform as well as medium format are comparing apples (digital) to oranges (film). When we have a good-quality medium-format sensor, we'll see the real difference. That's why I'm saving up for the Pentax 645 Digital (for which I have a decent system) instead of a 1DsII.

All that said, I agree with your that APS is here to stay. And I agree with you that digital cameras with APS sensors will replace consumer 35mm. Can DSLR's with 24x36 sensors replace medium format? It's quite possible, and I think that is what Canon and, to a lesser extent, Nikon are hoping to achieve. Pentax sees that as a potential niche, and I think they are more likely to exploit it than Mamiya, whose digitial solution is very, very expensive. But Canon's edge on Nikon is the 24x36 sensor, and I think they'll keep that edge as long as possible. Thus, their high-end lenses will always be in the EF mount to support that format. Cheaper lenses will migrate to EF-S. The big question is what happens to the middle prosumer line. Will the successors to the 20D have small or large sensors? I'm hoping they'll gain larger sensors as time goes on, but it's just a hope.

Rick "format is king" Denney

[Andy_T]

Another thing ... although I basically agree with Rick 'Format is King' Denney :lol:

As far as the 1.6 crop is concerned, keep in mind that there are at least as many people who think the 1.6 crop is great, as there are those who would rather have a full frame sensor - most likely more :shock:

Now, maybe not openly, but implicitely.

Surely, most users bitch around that the 16-35/2.8 is a 1200$ lens, whereas a 28/2.8 on a film body costs a few hundred $$$.

But once you compare the price of a 200/4.0 and a 300/4.0 lens, you quickly get in contact with reality again. Everybody who has ever seriously thought about getting a 1.4 t-con or even bought it should really consider if he likes the crop factor or not... just my 2 pixels :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[ScottE]

Where are you getting this info from? Popular Photography a few months back ran the 1DS mkII through its paces and declared it the first Digial SLR based on a 35mm body that actually beat the resolution of 35mm film. How does Nikon's 12MP camera have resolution to "approach the abilities of medium format film" when the clearly superior 16.7 MP Canon just barely beat out 35mm film?


35 mm film may have a slight edge in resolution, but have you compared the actual prints. I have been having 16x24 prints made from 35 mm slides for years using Cibachrome (Ilfochrome) and digital prints from professional labs. These are no better than the prints I can now get from my D20. The eveness of colour and lack of grain are simply better on digital. In order to get the slightly superior resolution out of a 35 mm slide you have to use a very expensive drum scan. Most labs that produce prints from 35 mm slides simply don't do that well.

My comparisons are based on the real world experience of the prints I have actually seen, not some theoretical hypothesis about resolution that is almost impossible to obtain.

Think about it. It is impossible to get a print from a slide without running the picture through another lens, either on the enlarger or the scanner. Every optical process results in a loss of resolution, if that is how you describe quality. Also, how do you keep the slide perfectly flat while it is being projected or scanned? Any curviture is going to result in some portion of the image being slightly out of focus. Film is made up of crystals that are not completely uniform to the extent that digital pixels are. When you make very big enlargements, the variations in crystals start to show up.

Next compare commercial lab prints made from a 1DsMkII to a 4.5x6 medium format camera. I can't see much difference in quality.

Scott

[Bob_A]

35 mm film may have a slight edge in resolution, but have you compared the actual prints. I have been having 16x24 prints made from 35 mm slides for years using Cibachrome (Ilfochrome) and digital prints from professional labs. These are no better than the prints I can now get from my D20. The eveness of colour and lack of grain are simply better on digital. In order to get the slightly superior resolution out of a 35 mm slide you have to use a very expensive drum scan. Most labs that produce prints from 35 mm slides simply don't do that well.

My comparisons are based on the real world experience of the prints I have actually seen, not some theoretical hypothesis about resolution that is almost impossible to obtain.

Think about it. It is impossible to get a print from a slide without running the picture through another lens, either on the enlarger or the scanner. Every optical process results in a loss of resolution, if that is how you describe quality. Also, how do you keep the slide perfectly flat while it is being projected or scanned? Any curviture is going to result in some portion of the image being slightly out of focus. Film is made up of crystals that are not completely uniform to the extent that digital pixels are. When you make very big enlargements, the variations in crystals start to show up.

Next compare commercial lab prints made from a 1DsMkII to a 4.5x6 medium format camera. I can't see much difference in quality.

Scott

Hi Scott,

IMO (just my opinion, really), I don't feel that my 20D matches what I can get using 35mm B&W film ... 16MP might be close, but not 8.2, and something else seems to be lacking, but I'm not sure what yet. It may be because I'm used to B&W, where resolution probably plays a more important role than with color.

As for using another set of optics in the darkroom, I really don't see this as a big issue. Using a focus finder you can get the image sharp based on grain, and you always stop down the lens on the enlarger to get excellent edge to edge sharpness. I've also never had problems with images because the negatives did not lay flat in the carrier.

I also think one of the advantages of film is that the grain is somewhat random.

Don't get me wrong, please, I'll probably be retiring my darkroom and switching entirely to digital, but mainly because the post processing is so easy and inexpensive compared to darkroom work and digital has much less time committment.

I'm not trying to start a digital vs film debate, I just wanted to point out that for some of us that are using both it is not a clear case of one being better than the other. I'm very happy that digital is advancing at a pace that will probably eliminate any differences within the next few product cycles, and I'm also happy that film is still around as a choice.


Bob

[Rob612]

Scott, I am with you on this. I don't think Canon will get rid of the EF-S mounts any time soon. I don't know how much R&D Canon put in toward the EF-S mounts, but the amount is for sure in tens if not hundreds of millions. It just doesn't make business sense to discontiue any new line of products after a few years in the market.

Agree with that. It just does not make sense to invest a ton of money in R&D, production lines etc for only a few years. Sure, full size sensors will be cheaper every year (and probably with better performance!) but still I believe that Canon (and others, BTW, Olympus is really pushing its 4:3 system) won't invest in a whole line of lenses (AFAIK, EF-S lenses as of today are what ? 3, 4 ?) without a reason.

What I see as a possibility is that APS-C will turn more to the consumer side and prosumer will turn to full frame. But that's a different story becuse of the market type involved.

There will be a market for used EF-S lenses for many years from now, IMHO.

Personally, I plan to move to a full frame as soon as it gets affordable for my wallet, so I do not really stick with EF-S with the exception of the 10-22 that is the only way to have a real wide lens with an APS-C sensor, so I've got that. But I know its going to be sold for something different when I move towards full frame.

[ScottE]

Hi Scott,
IMO (just my opinion, really), I don't feel that my 20D matches what I can get using 35mm B&W film ... 16MP might be close, but not 8.2, and something else seems to be lacking, but I'm not sure what yet. It may be because I'm used to B&W, where resolution probably plays a more important role than with color....
Bob

Hi Bob,

I agree, but then a print made from a 35 mm colour slide won't match a well made B&W print from B&W film either. Part of the problem may be that I haven't yet seen a digital printer that can do B&W as well as a traditional wet process and a skilled technician.

My experince is with colour prints made from 35 mm slide film, usually Velvia or Provia and from Canon D60 and 20D cameras. Comparing commecial prints, IMO, at ISO 100 there is not much difference between a print from a Provia 100F slide and from a 20D, except that the lab seems to have a higher error rate with the slides. (That may be because I do the pre-processing on my own computer with digital so I am more likely to get what I want.) At ISO 400, a print from the 20D is visibly better looking than a print from Provia 400 because of the effects of film grain. We won't even talk about ISO 800 (Provia 400 pushed one stop or Sensia) because the grain in ISO 800 slide file is generally objectionable. For my wildlife shots it is often necessary to use ISO 400 or 800 due to low light conditions and subject movement.

The point I was trying to make is that absolute resolution numbers determined by an optical bench test don't necessarily indicate the visual quality of the finished product. You have to look at the type of prints that are readily available.

Scott