# 600mm L DO patented with 5.6 max. aperture



## xps (Dec 18, 2015)

Seen at: http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2015-12-18

shorter, no weight mentioned
for EF-M


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 18, 2015)

Thanks for sharing, xps! 

Did you recognize, that it's an EF-M (APS-C) patent? 
I didn't look for translation but it seems that the 
13.66 value is the image circle and the 
299.25 could be the length of the optical formula with the lens itself even shorter of course.

I'd like to see the performance and price in RL of this one.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 18, 2015)

Now with some Google translation here:
http://www.cameraegg.org/eos-m-mirrorless-lens-patent-ef-m-600mm-f5-6-do-is/

Translated by Google:
Patent Publication No. 2015-215437 
Published 2015.12.3
Filing date 2014.5.9

Example 

Focal length 585.00
F-number 5.74
Half angle (in degrees) 1.34
Image height 13.66
Overall length of the lens 299.25


----------



## xps (Dec 18, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Thanks for sharing, xps!
> 
> Did you recognize, that it's an EF-M (APS-C) patent?
> I didn't look for translation but it seems that the
> ...



Sorry Mr. Maximilian, I have forgotten to write this. Thats an cerebral effect from my resuscitation.

I heared from wildlife photographers some days ago (when I was allowed to test the "big whites") that Canon is planning to build an Semi/pro mirrorless body with well designed pro lenses. An hot discussion followed, if someone would use an ML body for wildlife... 
But the rumorer seemed to be true that there are plans to compete Sony...


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 18, 2015)

JMZawodny said:


> I can barely aim and track anything with the 200mm on my Eos M. At 600mm, this seems ridiculous. I assume this will promptly degrade into a discussion of how no one will buy the rumored Eos M4, let alone this lens, if it does not have a built-in EVF.


I was just about to mention the EVF - not really - but they will need to build a serious M body to go with this for sure. I ditched my M and switched to a SL1 when they released the M10 - I was tired of waiting for a semi-pro model - but I'd jump right back in if they released an M built like the 7DII with a 600 DO lens. This is likely a protective patent given Nikon's foray into the DO world, but maybe it will lead to something exciting one day.


----------



## Quackator (Dec 18, 2015)

M4 or M Pro - who cares?

There will be a much more capable EOS M before Photokina 2016 
the latest, and the viewfinder option for the M3 exists.

BUT!

This equates to 860 mm on full frame, with dramatically reduced
weight and girth while at the same time providing enough depth 
of field for more of the complete birdie than just the tip of his pecker.

Also it will be much more cost effective in production because 
the lenses can be so much smaller.

Getting rid of the back pain at a substantially lower price than 
with the 4.0/600mm+1.4x Converter combo will be reason enough
for *every* birder out there to queue up for the next M and this lens.

While folks wait for lame things like a portrait prime or so,
Canon simply overruns a complete genre. Wow.


----------



## wsmith96 (Dec 18, 2015)

Personally, I would like to see Canon retain a native EF mount for their mirrorless future. I know there are reasons that a new mount would be better, but I'm going to be selfish and want to preserve my existing kit.

This is an interesting find. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 18, 2015)

Patents are for a optical formula, and they usually have multiple working models to demonstrate it. Picking out just one of those models (4) and then proclaiming that the patent is for that one alone is misleading at best.

The patent has five examples, but the formula can be used for almost any telephoto lens.

1. 
Focal distance 390.97 
F number 4.12 
a half field angle (degree) -- 3.17 
Image height 21.64 
Whole length of the lens 255.66 
BF 71.87 

2.
Focal distance 392.00 
F number 2.90 
a half field angle (degree) -- 3.16 
Image height 21.64 
Whole length of the lens 337.95 
BF 73.47 

3.
Focal distance 391.00 
F number 4.12 
a half field angle (degree) -- 3.17 
Image height 21.64 
Whole length of the lens 255.66 
BF 63.84

4.
Focal distance 585.00 
F number 5.74 
a half field angle (degree) -- 1.34 
Image height 13.66 
Whole length of the lens 299.25 
BF 29.45 

5.
Focal distance 786.20 
F number 5.80 
a half field angle (degree) -- 1.58 
Image height 21.64 
Whole length of the lens 485.25 
BF 127.41

6.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 18, 2015)

Why EF-M + crop image circle for this?

If you are going to go crop-only, why lock out the 7D2 owners who would want this more, and more likely have the coin to pay for it?

- A


----------



## Quackator (Dec 18, 2015)

It's not necessarily EF-M, can be EF-S as well 
and work with the EF/EF-S to EF-M adapter.

But then...... EF-S might die in favor of EF (Full Frame)
and EF-M (APS-C). I don't see much future for lower
level DSLRs.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 18, 2015)

Quackator said:


> It's not necessarily EF-M, can be EF-S as well
> and work with the EF/EF-S to EF-M adapter.
> 
> But then...... EF-S might die in favor of EF (Full Frame)
> ...



In the bigger picture / longer term, mirrorless will absolutely take over, starting from the bottom price points and climbing up the SLR chain, I agree.

But that's not happening anytime soon. EF-S related products (i.e. Rebel SLRs) are the bread and butter of the company and continue to sell very well despite mirrorless competition. EF-S will be with us for quite some time.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 18, 2015)

Quackator said:


> It's not necessarily EF-M, can be EF-S as well
> and work with the EF/EF-S to EF-M adapter.
> 
> But then...... EF-S might die in favor of EF (Full Frame)
> ...



Thanks for the clarification. So let me ask this: why would canon make a pricey 600mm prime sized/weighted just for crop? That's a birding/reach-loving shooter's dream, which Canon heretofore has never offered because they want those shooters buying the $10k+ superwhites.

So this is a candyland / fairy dust sort of patent in my eyes. I don't see this product ever being offered.

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 18, 2015)

Notice there is a 800mm f/5.6 FF DO in there as well. Of the 5 examples, 4 are FF, one is APS-C


----------



## NancyP (Dec 18, 2015)

FF 800 f/5.6 DO? intriguing. Fun with patents!


----------



## Quackator (Dec 18, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> So let me ask this: why would canon make a pricey 600mm prime sized/weighted just for crop?
> That's a birding/reach-loving shooter's dream, which Canon heretofore has never offered because
> they want those shooters buying the $10k+ superwhites.



Maybe they think that selling ten of those makes 
more profit than selling one of the super whites?

Remember that nobody in the market would have 
anything to compete......

Might well be decisive for Nikon birders to make 
the switch. Or at least buy the lens and maybe 
an EOS M3 plus EVF for starters. Or whatever the 
current top m will be at release time of the lens.

Mind you: By the time this lens materializes, the 
M3 will be well under 400 USD. That translates to
a pricey lenscap in relation to the lens. Peanuts.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 18, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The patent has five examples, but the formula can be used for almost any telephoto lens.
> ...


Thanks, Mt Spokane for pointing that out.

I came over this, too. But when I tried to get it straight I found different filing dates and also Nikon patents because I pushed the wrong lin, so it seems. 
I am not so much into that patent reading thing, even more complex when displayed in foreign language, translated to English, which is still not my native language.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2015)

Quackator said:


> It's not necessarily EF-M, can be EF-S as well
> and work with the EF/EF-S to EF-M adapter.



I don't think a backfocus distance of <30mm is consistent with EF-S, it means the rear element would be extend 1.4 cm inside from the mount surface, plus additional distance for the structural parts of the lens holding the rear element (very few lenses have the rear element right at the back like the 85L). 

This is almost certainly a design for an APS-C mirrorless body.


----------



## JMZawodny (Dec 18, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> JMZawodny said:
> 
> 
> > I can barely aim and track anything with the 200mm on my Eos M. At 600mm, this seems ridiculous. I assume this will promptly degrade into a discussion of how no one will buy the rumored Eos M4, let alone this lens, if it does not have a built-in EVF.
> ...



Not sure where my original post went. Glad you managed to preserve it before it mysteriously evaporated. I suspect you are correct about it being a protective move.


----------



## Nininini (Dec 18, 2015)

Quackator said:


> But then...... EF-S might die in favor of EF (Full Frame)



The opposite is happening, crop outsells full frame 40 to 1. Full frame is still popular in studios, but for outside work and wlldlife.....nah, not many people want to carry around those bulky cameras anymore.


----------



## Nininini (Dec 18, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> why would canon make a pricey 600mm prime sized/weighted just for crop?



because most wildlife photographers are now shooting crop

they can't try to sell pricey full frame lenses anymore when the shooters themselves have already rejected the format

they will need to face the music and realize the market of bulky and weighty full frame DSLR is dying, and if they don't provide all the crop shooters with tele for wildlife, sigma, tamron and micro 4/3 will

Fuji said it better than me:

"We aimed for the system with the optimum balance of high image quality and compact lightweight body that professionals can use. With that idea in mind, we came to the conclusion that APS-C is the way to go as opposed to full frame"


----------



## AlanF (Dec 18, 2015)

As has been pointed out by many others many times in these forums, a 600mm EF-S or EF-M lens has the same size diameter front element as a FF lens and so very little weight is saved by having an EF-S rather than an EF telephoto lens.


----------



## Nininini (Dec 18, 2015)

AlanF said:


> very little weight is saved by having an EF-S rather than an EF telephoto lens.



false, my 55-250 EF-S STM lens has a puny weight compared to every full frame lens I compared ti with, from Canon to Sigma to Tamron, they were all at least twice the weight

a lot of weight can be saved by making dedicated crop lenses, not to mention the massive cost reduction


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 18, 2015)

Nininini said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > very little weight is saved by having an EF-S rather than an EF telephoto lens.
> ...



+1

A few examples to consider, with a crop-only lens on the left and a FF equivalent on the right:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=838&LensComp=941&Units=E

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=271&LensComp=949&Units=E

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=856&LensComp=972&Units=E

(yes, DOF will be different, but light gathering will be the same -- you have to pick your poison with these comparisons)

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 18, 2015)

Nininini said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > very little weight is saved by having an EF-S rather than an EF telephoto lens.
> ...


You can't compare an F5.6 lens to an F4 lens and claim it means APSC is lighter than FF....

I can just as easily say that the EF-S 17-55 lens, being heavier than the 24-70 F4 L lens means that FF lenses are lighter than the equivalent crop lens, and I would be equally wrong.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 18, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



See my three comparisons above. I tried my best to match max aperture. 

The bottom line is that you need less real estate (in the barrel, optics, etc.) to do a similar job on a crop sensor than a FF sensor. So it's natural the lenses would be smaller and lighter.

- A


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 18, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Patents are for a optical formula, and they usually have multiple working models to demonstrate it. Picking out just one of those models (4) and then proclaiming that the patent is for that one alone is misleading at best.
> 
> The patent has five examples, but the formula can be used for almost any telephoto lens.
> 
> ...





YES! 

They're moving ALL the Big Whites to Mirrorless!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



–1

Note that Alan stated "telephoto lens" – your first two comparison links do not include any telephoto lenses and your third comparison link contains only one telephoto lens. Note that in context, we're referring to a telephoto lens _design_, i.e. the lens is physically shorter than the focal length (not an arbitrary categorization of lenses as wide/normal/telephoto/supertelephoto), and the EF-S 55-250 is not a telephoto lens design, whereas the patented 600mm lens under discussion is a telephoto lens. One aspect of the design for a telephoto lens is that the entrance pupil (the apparent optical location of the iris diaphragm) is approximately at the position of the front element, and since light must fill that entrance pupil, the diameter of the front element is approximated by focal lemgth divided by aperture number of the lens. It a telephoto design, the diameter of the image circle is not a limiting factor – but, there is not a significant advantage to designing an EF-S telephoto lens (but combining DO with the short flange focal distance of mirrorless could result in a meaningful length reduction).


----------



## AlanF (Dec 18, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Nininini said:
> ...



+1
You have to compare like with like. The 55-250 EF-S weighs only 390 g because it is made of light plastic. The similarly made cheap 75-300mm III EF f/5.6 full frame weighs only 480 g, despite having a bigger front element. The two are similar in weight because they have been built down to a flimsy construction. The L lenses are heavy because of their heavy professional grade construction.

When it comes to a 600mm lens, the front element has to be 107mm or more on both FF and crop f/5.6 because of the fundamental laws of optics (diameter = 600/5.6 for both). The weight of the front element and the rugged body to hold the same major glass will be the same for both crop and FF lenses.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 18, 2015)

AlanF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Forgive me, I missed the word telephoto. You are correct. 

The word isn't bossing me, though. In the broader sense, I linked three ways to _get the same reach and same max aperture_ with a crop lens, which is perhaps more pertinent for me -- can I do the same job in a smaller package? In all three cases, the crop lenses were much smaller/lighter than their FF counterparts. 

As to like-for-like materials, we're out of luck. People don't make crop lenses as solidly as they do with FF (save perhaps that Sigma to Sigma comparison I posted, or perhaps this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=468&LensComp=469&Units=E)

- A


----------



## Wizardly (Dec 19, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Patents are for a optical formula, and they usually have multiple working models to demonstrate it. Picking out just one of those models (4) and then proclaiming that the patent is for that one alone is misleading at best.



YES! Thank you! Makes me wonder if anyone actually reads the patent before posting these "articles."

What I'm really curious about is how the distortions presented in the patents compare to the existing lenses. The size of the lenses seems to compare similarly with existing designs; the DO elements do not appear to make the lenses any smaller than the existing lenses. Also I noticed a lack of IS groups in the design, something that exists in the current 400 f/4 DO design.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > (yes, DOF will be different, but light gathering will be the same -- you have to pick your poison with these comparisons)
> ...



Seems you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. You cannot have the same reach, same aperture, and same total light gathering. In your same reach/aperture comparison, you'd need a lens 1.3-stops faster to gather the same total light...for a telephoto lens, an extra stop can add inches and pounds and cost thousands of dollars, and for a fast prime it may not be possible. Or, you can live with less total light and more image noise. 

Equivalence is a bitch. 

Of course, at lower ISOs the noise isn't significant, so the crop sensor/lens combo is a good, inexpensive option. It's when you start needing high shutter speeds in less bright light (which occurs at what are often the best times of day to shoot) that that ~1.3-stop difference really becomes an advantage for the FF body.


----------



## RickWagoner (Dec 19, 2015)

AlanF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Is it easily possible to build a light weight version of this lens, simply look at the Sigma spot vs the Tamon 150-600s. I would not call the Tamon anything near Flimsy construction. designing and producing a lens for ff vs aps-c are two very different beasts esp when the design of the front element is concerned. The 250 stm will walk the 75-300 crap any day in optics and Equivalent Reach is still greater by 100mm. 

Canon is just piling on patents they themselves will never use, pointless thought of the company actually producing such a lens as it would destroy their ff 600mm and down L lenses. Nobody would bother using the 600mm prime at $12k when they can buy 600mm ef-s for $1k even the build like a tank L would be pointless to a pro that can buy a few back ups and still be well ahead in cost savings with the ef-s only.


----------



## tron (Dec 19, 2015)

I wish they make a 600 5.6 DO BR Full Frame too. The f/4 prototype seems rather big and heavy.

OK not really monstrous big and heavy (apart from the diameter of the front element) but I am thinking of portability in the context of camera bags too.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 19, 2015)

Rick, the point under discussion is that it would be of similar weight for both full frame and crop. Neither the Tamron 150-600mm or the Sigma C are "light", both are close to 2kg, and the plastic Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 is 2.3kg. The robustly made Sigma S 150-600mm is only 600g heavier than the C. Most of the weight is the glass.


----------



## FEBS (Dec 19, 2015)

Nininini said:


> because most wildlife photographers are now shooting crop
> 
> they can't try to sell pricey full frame lenses anymore when the shooters themselves have already rejected the format
> 
> ...



most wildlife photographers are now shooting crop??? I don't know where you did get that info. That's not what I see when on Safari. I do see a lot of 1Dx, 5D3 over there. The 7D2 is also used more and more for birding. 

Other APS-C ? No forget it. The conditions that you are shooting are very hard for the gear. I think no one will buy my 5D3 anymore. Full of scratches caused by the harsh conditions of safaris. These 3 cameras of Canon can be used for wildlife photography without any fear, but when it is really extreme, there is only left one and that's the 1Dx. 

And trust me, the photos of the crops can't reach most of the cases the quality of the FF. 

A 7D2 with grip and a big battery like 1Dx, now that could be something for which wildlife photographers could let there 1Dx at home, but then there is no longer a difference in weight. So what are you talking about? 

Don't mix up the commercial info of a manufacturer with the reality on the field.


----------



## rs (Dec 19, 2015)

Nininini said:


> they will need to face the music and realize the market of bulky and weighty full frame DSLR is dying, and if they don't provide all the crop shooters with tele for wildlife, sigma, tamron and micro 4/3 will



Good luck shooting erratic moving subjects with an EVF.

Additionally, compare mild tele lenses like the cheap and small Canon 85/1.8 to its nearest m43 equivalent, the Panasonic 42.5/1.2. It's the same weight, larger, equivalent of 85/2.4, and costs four times as much!

Or take the cheap, small and light Canon 75-300/4-5.6 to the nearest m43 equivalent, the Olympus 40-150/2.8. The Olympus has a narrower equivalent zoom range (80-300) and a narrower equivalent aperture across most of the zoom range (5.6). And the Olympus is pushing twice the weight, significantly larger, and is more than seven times the price!

Where's this advantage of m43?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2015)

Nininini said:


> they will need to face the music and realize the market of bulky and weighty full frame DSLR is dying, and if they don't provide all the crop shooters with tele for wildlife, sigma, tamron and micro 4/3 will



Did you mistype your username when you registered? I think you meant ninny.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 19, 2015)

Nininini said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > why would canon make a pricey 600mm prime sized/weighted just for crop?
> ...


As a wildlife photographer, you want to be shooting at ISO 100 for maximum DR, you want to be shooting at F8 or higher lots of depth of field, and you want to be shooting at 1/2000 or faster to freeze the subject motion with that long lens you are using...... And unless the sun goes supernova, you are not going to get enough light.

Light is your limiting factor. You need as large of a final element as you can afford/carry and you need to focus all that light onto your sensor. No matter what camera, sensor, or lens you have, you need more light but you can't get it, so you make compromises and balance factors..... The sensor format is not your biggest limiting factor, it is the lens!

So why make one just for crop? perhaps to focus all the gathered light onto the sensor and not throw 60 percent of it away......


----------



## AlanF (Dec 19, 2015)

But, if you focus all the light on the sensor and not throw 60% away, you also focus the image to make it 40% of the original area and shorten the focal length of the lens. That's what a Metabones speedbooster does.


----------



## Nininini (Dec 20, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



my camera is always on auto-ISO, ISO is clean enough up to 800 on crop DSLR


----------



## rs (Dec 20, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > they will need to face the music and realize the market of bulky and weighty full frame DSLR is dying, and if they don't provide all the crop shooters with tele for wildlife, sigma, tamron and micro 4/3 will
> ...


----------



## AlanF (Dec 20, 2015)

I know what I am saying is absolutely obvious and well known but it is missing in this discussion. The way you make telephotos smaller, in effect, is to use small sensors with the same number of megapixels as FF and use the crop factor. The Canon G3 X with a 20.2 mpixel crop factor of 2.7 and a 220mm lens is equivalent in terms of resolution to about 600mm on a 1Dx. But, you lose out with diffraction limitation, noise etc with a small sensor.

A 300mm f/2.8 on a 7DII has about 1.6x greater resolution than on a 20 mpixel FF. If you put on a speed booster that concentrated the light by 1.6x in both height and width, you would have about the same amount of light falling on each pixel of the 7DII as on a 20 mpixel FF sensor, but the lens would now be a 190mm f/1.75. Now that is an awesome lens for a crop. You get as good signal to noise from each pixel as with the FF and you lower the effects of diffraction.


----------



## rs (Dec 20, 2015)

AlanF said:


> A 300mm f/2.8 on a 7DII has about 1.6x greater resolution than on a 20 mpixel FF. If you put on a speed booster that concentrated the light by 1.6x in both height and width, you would have about the same amount of light falling on each pixel of the 7DII as on a 20 mpixel FF sensor, but the lens would now be a 190mm f/1.75. Now that is an awesome lens for a crop. You get as good signal to noise from each pixel as with the FF and you lower the effects of diffraction.


If someone made a 1.6x Telecompressor for EF to EF-S mount, then yes, that would be possible. As far as I know, all recent telecompressors have been made by metabones, are 1.4x, and don't mount on EF-S. So a 300/2.8 would work out to be a 215/2 lens, and would not work with any EF-S bodies.

Having said that, if it did exist, the resulting combination would be larger than FF and there are more optical elements there to worsen the situation. You'd lose out on transmission, flare and sharpness to name a few, and with the reliance on reducing the image circle yet more, even more enlargement is required to reach the same viewing sizes. The end result would not be as good, although to be fair the feature set of the 7D mk II is great for the price (AF spread, FPS etc).

You could just buy an off the shelf 200/2 and a 7D mk II if a 300/2.8 and 1D X is out of your budget?


----------



## dufflover (Dec 20, 2015)

Some of these posts are a little ridiculous; ANY photographer wants to be shooting as low ISO as possible after their desired shutter speed and apertures.


----------



## rs (Dec 20, 2015)

dufflover said:


> Some of these posts are a little ridiculous; ANY photographer wants to be shooting as low ISO as possible after their desired shutter speed and apertures.



I don't quite understand the point of your post. If you assume exposure and lighting of the scene is consistent, ISO is constrained by shutter speed and aperture.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 20, 2015)

rs said:


> dufflover said:
> 
> 
> > Some of these posts are a little ridiculous; ANY photographer wants to be shooting as low ISO as possible after their desired shutter speed and apertures.
> ...


The point is that we wish to be shooting at the lowest ISO, our desired shutter speed, and our desired aperture, but most often we can not because there just isn't enough light to do it, so we have to make compromises. The big reason for fast glass is that it allows us more freedom in our choices. Quite often we need to keep the shutter speed high to freeze action and adding light is not practical, so that leaves us with ISO and aperture as the only variables left to play with..... and if your lens has limited aperture range, then ISO is the one to take the hit......


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> The point is that we wish to be shooting at the lowest ISO, our desired shutter speed, and our desired aperture, but most often we can not because there just isn't enough light to do it, so we have to make compromises. The big reason for fast glass is that it allows us more freedom in our choices. Quite often we need to keep the shutter speed high to freeze action and adding light is not practical, so that leaves us aperture as the only variable left to play with.....



Rather, we are usually left with ISO to play with. If you prefer to play with aperture, a few thousand dollars for a stop of light is a very expensive game.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 20, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > The point is that we wish to be shooting at the lowest ISO, our desired shutter speed, and our desired aperture, but most often we can not because there just isn't enough light to do it, so we have to make compromises. The big reason for fast glass is that it allows us more freedom in our choices. Quite often we need to keep the shutter speed high to freeze action and adding light is not practical, so that leaves us aperture as the only variable left to play with.....
> ...



OOPS!!!!!

I wrote it wrong! I meant to say ISO!

I went back and edited my post!

The point is that we wish to be shooting at the lowest ISO, our desired shutter speed, and our desired aperture, but most often we can not because there just isn't enough light to do it, so we have to make compromises. The big reason for fast glass is that it allows us more freedom in our choices. Quite often we need to keep the shutter speed high to freeze action and adding light is not practical, so that leaves us with ISO and aperture as the only variables left to play with..... and if your lens has limited aperture range, then ISO is the one to take the hit......


but getting back to topic.....

600mm DO F5.6.....

This should be a more affordable way to hit 600mm than the 600F4.... It would be shorter, lighter and almost as good optically. Would it sell? I don't know.... it sort of falls between price ranges.... it would be too expensive for most people, but the "money is no object" crowd would probably continue with the 600F4....


----------



## Nininini (Dec 20, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > they will need to face the music and realize the market of bulky and weighty full frame DSLR is dying, and if they don't provide all the crop shooters with tele for wildlife, sigma, tamron and micro 4/3 will
> ...



I don't understand your argument. I carry around spindle from lathe every day, if you ever carried one, you know they're not light, they can take off your toes if you drop one.

But I still don't enjoy carrying around heavy and bulky full frame DSLR and heavy lenses, it has nothing to do with any inability to do so, I can carry around a heavy camera and heavy L lenses, I don't want to. I don't want to take a 1500g kit with me everywhere I go just to have some extra reach.

If you see a benefit from a full frame camera and large tele lenses, carry one around by all means. Me, I have nothing to prove I'll carry the lightest kit I can find that suits my needs. Switching to a crop camera with a few EF-S lenses gives me the same range and, to me, indistinguishable quality for about 1/4th the weight. The ISO difference is negligible.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 20, 2015)

Nininini said:


> But I still don't enjoy carrying around heavy and bulky full frame DSLR and heavy lenses, it has nothing to do with any inability to do so, I can carry around a heavy camera and heavy L lenses, I don't want to. I don't want to take a 1500g kit with me everywhere I go just to have some extra reach.
> 
> If you see a benefit from a full frame camera and large tele lenses, carry one around by all means. Me, I have nothing to prove I'll carry the lightest kit I can find that suits my needs. Switching to a crop camera with a few EF-S lenses gives me the same range and, to me, indistinguishable quality for about 1/4th the weight. The ISO difference is negligible.


To my way of thinking, when quality is the greatest concern, go FF. If portability (and affordability) are your biggest concern, go crop.... 

If you want to "go crop" and are not concerned with maintaining compatibility with FF bodies, have you looked at the Olympus micro 4//3 cameras? They are surprisingly good and unless you want the kick-ass AF system of the 7D2, they might be your best bet for a crop system....


----------



## FEBS (Dec 20, 2015)

Nininini said:


> But I still don't enjoy carrying around heavy and bulky full frame DSLR and heavy lenses, it has nothing to do with any inability to do so, I can carry around a heavy camera and heavy L lenses, I don't want to. I don't want to take a 1500g kit with me everywhere I go just to have some extra reach.
> 
> If you see a benefit from a full frame camera and large tele lenses, carry one around by all means. Me, I have nothing to prove I'll carry the lightest kit I can find that suits my needs. Switching to a crop camera with a few EF-S lenses gives me the same range and, to me, indistinguishable quality for about 1/4th the weight. The ISO difference is negligible.



The longest EF-S lens is the 55-250. Place that on your crop, so your 250mm is comparable to a 400mm on a FF. Yes that weight is a lot less compared to a 600, even if it might be a DO 5.6, on a FF camera.
But you think you can get from the crop and the 55-250 an "indistinguishable quality for about 1/4th the weight" ? 


No way that the quality will be comparable.. And if that all doesn't matter why don't you take the G3X, 1" sensor, 0.75kg, 24-600 zoom


----------



## Nininini (Dec 20, 2015)

FEBS said:


> No way that the quality will be comparable.. And if that all doesn't matter why don't you take the G3X, 1" sensor, 0.75kg, 24-600 zoom



The difference between a 1" sensor and APS-C is very very noticeable. The difference between full frame and APS-C is hard to tell under most conditions.

Can you tell the difference in darker scenes at ISO 3200, yes. Can you tell the difference at 100-800 ISO? Unless you pixel peep, no. How many times do I shoot at very high ISO? Rarely.

But I can tell the difference between weight and my wallet can tell the difference too.


----------



## Nininini (Dec 20, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> To my way of thinking, when quality is the greatest concern, go FF. If portability (and affordability) are your biggest concern, go crop....
> 
> If you want to "go crop" and are not concerned with maintaining compatibility with FF bodies, have you looked at the Olympus micro 4//3 cameras? They are surprisingly good and unless you want the kick-ass AF system of the 7D2, they might be your best bet for a crop system....



I have rented a mirrorless before, I find it hard to look through an EVF and feel connected to the scene. I use a 70D right now. 

It has the option to have 3x digital lossless zoom in video @1080P (it will select the center pixels).
(T6S and T6I have this option too) 

My 55-250mm STM becomes a 400mm equivalent at 1.6 crop factor, with 3x lossless digital zoom, it's a 1200mm lens for video. At 1200mm you can start to see the heat waves crop up, it's superzoom territory, but at a crazy f/5.6, letting in much more light than bridge cameras. If I wanted that in full frame format, I'd be lugging around a massive kit.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 20, 2015)

Nininini said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > To my way of thinking, when quality is the greatest concern, go FF. If portability (and affordability) are your biggest concern, go crop....
> ...


Yes, but at least your wallet would be a lot lighter


----------



## AlanF (Dec 20, 2015)

Nininini said:


> FEBS said:
> 
> 
> > No way that the quality will be comparable.. And if that all doesn't matter why don't you take the G3X, 1" sensor, 0.75kg, 24-600 zoom
> ...



Don't knock the G3 X, it delivers great results when you know how to use it. The 55-250mm STM is a fantastic lens, not just for the money but also in shear optical quality. Canon has become expert at making lenses of this range of focal length. The G3 X lens goes up to 220mm f/5.6 and looks just as good optically. Using the 1" sensor of the G3 X is like using the centre of an APS-C, with 1.7x greater resolution.


----------



## rs (Dec 20, 2015)

Nininini said:


> The difference between a 1" sensor and APS-C is very very noticeable. The difference between full frame and APS-C is hard to tell under most conditions.



Proportionally, the difference is pretty much identical.

FF is 36x24mm, totalling 864mm2.
Canon APS-C is 22.3x14.9, totalling 332mm2. That's 38% of FF area.
A 1" sensor is 13.2x8.8mm, totalling 116mm2. That's 35% of Canon APS-C.

If you can't appreciate the difference between FF and APS-C, I struggle to see how the difference between APS-C and 1" is so very very noticeable to you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2015)

Nininini said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Nininini said:
> ...



The problem with your original point is that there's no evidence that the FF dSLR market is 'dying'. MILC sales aren't growing, dSLR sales have been falling, and both Canon and Nikon have stated sales of FF models remain strong. You're not the only one in these forums – or in this thread – to believe that their own opinions trump reality. 

As for your other points, if you're happy with the reach from EF-S lenses, the IQ from a crop sensor, and find the ISO difference 'negligible', good for you. Everyone has different needs and standards – for many people, an iPhone camera delivers all the quality them want. 

I frequently shoot in low light with distant subjects requiring a fast shutter speed. Can you recommend a small, light crop body kit that will give me a negligible difference in quality when shooting at 840mm f/5.6 at 1/2000 s and ISO 6400? I'd be happy to carry something lighter...


----------



## FEBS (Dec 20, 2015)

Nininini said:


> The difference between a 1" sensor and APS-C is very very noticeable. The difference between full frame and APS-C is hard to tell under most conditions.
> 
> Can you tell the difference in darker scenes at ISO 3200, yes. Can you tell the difference at 100-800 ISO? Unless you pixel peep, no. How many times do I shoot at very high ISO? Rarely.
> 
> But I can tell the difference between weight and my wallet can tell the difference too.



The difference between a crop with most of the ef-s lenses, for sure the 55-250 and a FF with L glass like 100-400 II is very noticeable. 

But hey, you are right. Price and weight are completely different. Just as is Quality, and this was the point you did make over here, that for quality reasons, everyone is changing from FF to APS-C. And that's were I don't agree.

And to be honest, I shoot a lot more of action above 800ISO then 800 or lower. I just need the shutterspeed, even with lens wide open.


----------



## rs (Dec 20, 2015)

Nininini said:


> My 55-250mm STM becomes a 400mm equivalent at 1.6 crop factor, with 3x lossless digital zoom, it's a 1200mm lens for video. At 1200mm you can start to see the heat waves crop up, it's superzoom territory, but at a crazy f/5.6, letting in much more light than bridge cameras. If I wanted that in full frame format, I'd be lugging around a massive kit.



If you crop a 1.6x crop sensor to the central 3.0x crop of that, it totals a 4.8x crop. That results in using an area of the projected image the same as a 1/1.8" sensor compact camera. The lens might be letting in more light than a typical compact, but far from all of that is being captured. If you do want to quote it in terms of FF equivalence, it's like a 1200/27 lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2015)

rs said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > My 55-250mm STM becomes a 400mm equivalent at 1.6 crop factor, with 3x lossless digital zoom, it's a 1200mm lens for video. At 1200mm you can start to see the heat waves crop up, it's superzoom territory, but at a crazy f/5.6, letting in much more light than bridge cameras. If I wanted that in full frame format, I'd be lugging around a massive kit.
> ...



You're just not going to let him live in his happy little place where his opinion trumps reality, are you?


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 20, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> The problem with your original point is that there's no evidence that the FF dSLR market is 'dying'. MILC sales aren't growing, dSLR sales have been falling, and both Canon and Nikon have stated sales of FF models remain strong. You're not the only one in these forums – or in this thread – to believe that their own opinions trump reality.
> 
> As for your other points, if you're happy with the reach from EF-S lenses, the IQ from a crop sensor, and find the ISO difference 'negligible', good for you. Everyone has different needs and standards – for many people, an iPhone camera delivers all the quality them want.
> 
> I frequently shoot in low light with distant subjects requiring a fast shutter speed. Can you recommend a small, light crop body kit that will give me a negligible difference in quality when shooting at 840mm f/5.6 at 1/2000 s and ISO 6400? I'd be happy to carry something lighter...


reminds me of an incident last year when I stopped on the way home to take pictures of a snowy owl.... shooting with a 7D2 and a 150-600 lens zoomed out to the max and the bird in about a quarter of the width of the frame, a car stops behind me, passenger gets out, asks what's up, and takes an iPhone picture of the owl and explains to me how my big heavy camera is obsolete and phones are the future of photography... sigh!

As to reach on a budget, try an SX-60, but good luck at ISO6400


----------



## Nininini (Dec 20, 2015)

rs said:


> If you crop a 1.6x crop sensor to the central 3.0x crop of that, it totals a 4.8x crop. That results in using an area of the projected image the same as a 1/1.8" sensor compact camera. The lens might be letting in more light than a typical compact, but far from all of that is being captured. If you do want to quote it in terms of FF equivalence, it's like a 1200/27 lens.



That's not right at all. Pixel pitch between APS-C and compact cameras is very different. If it wasn't, ISO would be similar, it's not. An APS-C with 20MP has around 6µm pixel pitch, a compact camera has about 2µm pixel pitch.

It's those differences that determine ISO, the larger your sensor, the larger your light gathered per pixel.

When the 3X digital crop happens during 1080P video, the amount of light per pixel is still EXACTLY THE SAME (christopher frost has a nice video about it). You don't need to adjust anything, you receive exactly the same amount of light per pixel from your viewing frustum.

What doesn't happen, and what some thought happened, is that at 0X digital lossless zoom, the camera gathers light from all pixels and averages, it doesn't, it simply "skips" pixels, there's no fancy algorithm taking place reducing a 20MP sensor data to full HD video data.

So when I turn on 3X digital crop, I have the full pixel pitch of APS-C sized pixels, and the amount of light I'm receiving is much much greater than a compact camera. I can shoot fine in low light, not the case on my Lumix compact camera.



In short, when I turn on 3X lossless digital video zoom on my 70D, the amount of light gathered per pixel, is exactly that same as when I didn't. There is no noticeable drop of light, the only thing you see, is a free, 3 times zoom, at no cost at all. I tend to actually see a slight increase in quality, it might be because the center portion of the lens, in general, tends to give you the sharpest image.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 20, 2015)

Nininini said:


> An APS-C with 20MP has around 6µm pixel pitch,



An APS-C with 20MP has 4.1 µm pixel pitch.


----------



## Nininini (Dec 20, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > An APS-C with 20MP has around 6µm pixel pitch,
> ...



It's possible, I don't know the exact numbers.


----------



## Nininini (Dec 20, 2015)

rs said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > The difference between a 1" sensor and APS-C is very very noticeable. The difference between full frame and APS-C is hard to tell under most conditions.
> ...



let me use a car analogy

"I can't appreciate the difference between 60 miles per hour .. and 100 miles per hour .. if I almost never need to drive 100 miles per hour. But I would notice the difference between a car that can do 30 and 60 miles per hour. It would annoy me constantly wanting to do 60 and being limited to 30."


Well, there is an upper limit of light needed to have proper exposure, when enough light from your viewing frustum hits your sensor, it doesn't matter how much more light you could gather. Your camera will actively block light by increasing shutter speed or aperture, it's no longer about potential.

It doesn't matter anymore how much more light full frame could potentially gather for APS-C users, just like it doesn't matter for full frame users how much more light a medium format camera could gather.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 21, 2015)

Nininini said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Nininini said:
> ...


According to Canon, the 7D2 with a 20.2Mpixel sensor has a 4.1 µm pixel pitch.....


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 21, 2015)

Nininini said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Nininini said:
> ...


Let me use a car analogy....

The speed limit on the road is 100KPH....
The FF car can do 200KPH.... lots of power to pass.... (most cars)
The APSC car can do 125Kph... more than enough for everyday driving.... (economy car)
The micro 4/3 car flat out can hit the speed limit as long as there isn't a head wind.... (quadrunner)
The 1" car can hit 44KPH.... (golf cart)
Your brand new iPhone 6S does 11KPH (ride-on mower)

oh yes, my 4X5 does 2,896KPH  (fighter jet)


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 21, 2015)

Nininini said:


> there is an upper limit of light needed to have proper exposure, when enough light from your viewing frustum hits your sensor, it doesn't matter how much more light you could gather. Your camera will actively block light by increasing shutter speed or aperture, it's no longer about potential.


The problem is, for a great many photographers, most of the time there is not enough light.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2015)

Nininini said:


> That's not right at all. Pixel pitch between APS-C and compact cameras is very different. If it wasn't, ISO would be similar, it's not. An APS-C with 20MP has around 6µm pixel pitch, a compact camera has about 2µm pixel pitch.
> 
> It's those differences that determine ISO, the larger your sensor, the larger your light gathered per pixel.
> 
> When the 3X digital crop happens during 1080P video, the amount of light per pixel is still EXACTLY THE SAME (christopher frost has a nice video about it). You don't need to adjust anything, you receive exactly the same amount of light per pixel from your viewing frustum.



There seems to be a serious gap in your understanding. Pixel pitch does not determine ISO, it's 'determined' by light per unit area (real area, regardless of the number/size of pixels) falling on the sensor. That means an exposure of 1/60 s, f/4, ISO 200 will have approximately the same brightness whether on a 12 MP 'big' FF sensor with 8.2 micron pixels or a 41 MP 'small' Nokia cell phone camera sensor with 1.1 micron pixels. Exposure is determined by light per unit area, so at a fixed aperture and shutter speed, a 'metered' exposure will yield the same ISO setting regardless of sensor or pixel size.

However, image noise is determined by total light gathered...and under the same conditions a larger sensor will gather more total light. Thus, for a fixed aperture, shutter speed and ISO, although images captured with different sensor sizes will have the same brightness, the resulting image noise is inversely proportional to sensor size. 

If you want similar noise with a smaller sensor, that means you need more light – a wider aperture (if you have that capability and provided you can tolerate narrower DoF) or a slower shutter speed (provided your subject won't give unwanted motion blur). 

If you're shooting in bright light, you can use a low ISO setting and the differences between large and small sensors aren't too significant in terms of noise. We don't all shoot in situations that allow us to stay at ISO 800 and lower.


----------



## Nininini (Dec 21, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > That's not right at all. Pixel pitch between APS-C and compact cameras is very different. If it wasn't, ISO would be similar, it's not. An APS-C with 20MP has around 6µm pixel pitch, a compact camera has about 2µm pixel pitch.
> ...



Pixel pitch greatly affects ISO performance. If you somehow don't believe this, then there's no point in reading the rest of your post, because your disagreement is not with me, but with physics.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2015)

Nininini said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Nininini said:
> ...



You seem to have left something out your previous post. A rather important something that you included in your subsequent post. Something that makes a significant difference in meaning. It's difficult to have a cogent discussion with someone who fails to say what they mean.


----------



## Nininini (Dec 21, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Yes, I added *performance* to make sure we didn't start a semantics altercation. I know the difference between ISO determined in the camera after metering, and the signal-to-noise ratio determined by sensor size and signal quality. It's my fault for not being more clear.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2015)

Nininini said:


> Yes, I added *performance* to make sure we didn't start a semantics altercation. I know the difference between ISO determined in the camera after metering, and the signal-to-noise ratio determined by sensor size and signal quality. It's my fault for not being more clear.



I see. Perhaps if you'd read the rest of my post, discussing ISO as exposure vs. ISO-dependent image noise, things would have been clearer earlier. 

Incidentally, for people who look at _pictures_, *sensor area* is what primarily determines image noise, not pixel pitch. The pixel pitch which you describe as such an important factor determines noise (or ISO performance, if you prefer) only for those who look at pixels, not pictures. Compare a high ISO image (the same ISO, obviously) between the 5DII and 30D, or the 5Ds and 7DII – in both cases the same pixel pitch but different sensor sizes, and you'll easily see that the larger sensor delivers lower noise. 

If you compare sensors with the same area but different pixel sizes, e.g. the 5DIII vs. the 5Ds, you'll see more apparent noise with the smaller pixels if you view the resulting images at 100% (one camera pixel = one monitor pixel), but if you compare the _pictures_ (same final viewing size, so the image with the higher pixel density is downsampled to a greater extent), you'll see almost no difference in the image noise. 

There's a rather disappointing tendency of people on 'photography' forums to fail to see the forest for the trees, or the picture for the pixels in this case.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 21, 2015)

Yep. There are even some MF sensors with equal pixel pitch as some FF sensors and whip them quite handedly in noise and DR.


----------

