# why????



## recon photography (Jul 24, 2011)

why does no one make say a 16-50mm f2.0 or something similar for crop cameras sure it would be expensive but i think people would be willing to pay for it, i would pay 70-200mm is f2.8 is money for it.

On a side not canon should make an L-s range for good crop for lenses like this. i aim fairly certain within a few years full frame will be less popular with the ridiculous iso performance of new crop cameras and the possibility of photo binning (don't ask me about it i'm a noob but basically you have option to reduce megapixels to get better iso performance)


----------



## Canihaspicture (Jul 24, 2011)

Why not use the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS like everyone else who needs that range. One stop is not going to make that much difference in your photos especially at wide angles and using a crop sensor. 

If you want something better for low light and wide angle then you should be using a prime EF 24 f/1.4L II on a full frame.

Personally I am of the opposite opinion. I think in the next few years we will see full frame gain more popularity simply because it's better in every way except cost.


----------



## motorhead (Jul 24, 2011)

recon,

I tend to think that crop will fade as full-frame begins to regain it's natural place in the scheme of things. For that reason I would not be tempted to spend large sums on lenses that will only fit crop framers. I currently use a 30D, but all my lenses are "L" EF for that reason. Even a "35mm" full frame is tiny compared to "proper" medium or large format cameras.


----------



## recon photography (Jul 24, 2011)

there is really very little IQ difference between a t31/600d and 1ds with the same lens and look at the price difference. iso is very important to me i like stars and hope to shoot some mma in the future but with what i heard to expect from the next version of the 7d 60d etc its looks to be pretty impressive i do like the 1.3x crop and i'll be sad to see that go i really feel like that is the perfect sensor size but ultimately the price difference with the 5d and the t3i or 600d is almost is a little IQ and some iso if the gap is closed again with this next line-up i really cannot see the point in full-frame unless you are peter lik or a model photographer but for me this is just a hobby


----------



## NormanBates (Jul 24, 2011)

given nobody makes such fast zooms, it must be difficult to get decent image quality out of them, even with a smaller (APS-C) sensor

what I'd want is EF-S fast and cheap primes, like a 35mm f/1.4 with the same quality as the L version but only covering APS-C, and for $600 to $800; it is much cheaper to design and build lenses for smaller sensors, so this must not be THAT difficult

@motorhead: I think aps-c or similar will be with us for a long, long time
no matter how much technology improves, building a full-frame sensor will always be much more expensive than building an APS-C one, precisely because it takes up a bigger area so you get fewer of them from each silicon wafer
given yields also fall exponentially with die size, my guess is a full-frame chip will always be about 3 times as expensive as an APS-C chip
and Moore's law won't help you here: it will make both APS-C and full-frame sensors better (less noise, higher Mpix, higher DR) but it won't hake full-frame sensors any cheaper compared with equivalent APS-C sensors
that's why I think it's foolish not to put more effort into delivering good APS-C glass (as, as I said before, designing a lens for a smaller sensor is much easier and cheaper; that's the reason a $400 camcorder can have a 6-34mm f/1.8-3.1 (for a 6x crop sensor)


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 24, 2011)

NormanBates said:


> given yields also fall exponentially with die size, my guess is a full-frame chip will always be about 3 times as expensive as an APS-C chip



I can't find the link, but i read very recently that a FF sensor actually costs 20x an APS-C sensor because of the yield and possibility of defects...

As for the OP, i've always wondered why they can't do a smaller f/2.0 zoom, even a f/2.0-3.5 variable-aperture zoom would be nice (i think sigma did this, but it went 'slow' fairly early in the zoom range).

But the marketing department obviously has strong opinions or reasons, canon are among the last hold-outs not producing an APS-C prime lens yet.
Their thinking is probably going along the lines of only producing/updating L-primes for FF, we APS-C users haven't spent enough on a camera so we don't care 'that' much about IQ, so we're content with our current range (efs 10-22, 17-55/2.8, and 15-85 being the only standout-IQ designs in the efs range, still nothing's sealed).
(and the sooner they realise that's BS the better for all of us, the more people shout in places like this the sooner it might come, we can only hope  )


----------



## DJL329 (Jul 24, 2011)

If you consider the fact the widest EF lenses (14mm, 15mm fisheye and 16-35mm) are all f/2.8, not 2.0, and I think you will find your answer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 24, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> But the marketing department obviously has strong opinions or reasons, canon are among the last hold-outs not producing an APS-C prime lens yet.



EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro?


----------



## aldvan (Jul 24, 2011)

recon photography said:


> there is really very little IQ difference between a t31/600d and 1ds with the same lens and look at the price difference. iso is very important to me i like stars and hope to shoot some mma in the future but with what i heard to expect from the next version of the 7d 60d etc its looks to be pretty impressive i do like the 1.3x crop and i'll be sad to see that go i really feel like that is the perfect sensor size but ultimately the price difference with the 5d and the t3i or 600d is almost is a little IQ and some iso if the gap is closed again with this next line-up i really cannot see the point in full-frame unless you are peter lik or a model photographer but for me this is just a hobby



That a crop sensor has very little IQ difference versus an 1Ds Mk3 or also a 5D Mk2 sensor is less than an urban legend. And I'm considering, here also the top of the APS-C sensor camera, the 7D. You can love the 7D for many reason but not for the IQ, if confronted with a FF. I sold the really nice 7D after few months since whenever I took a picture with it, instead of the 5D Mk2, I had to regret in terms of IQ. For every enhancements that APS-C will get, the same enhancements transferred on a FF will be amplified...
Furthemore, I think that to be a pro or an amateur is insensitive if you aren't taking just birthday pictures. If IQ is not important for you, a bridge camera is just enough. In my opinion, my free time (i.e. time spent in no business activities) is more precious than my business time and I pretend the best from that...


----------



## NormanBates (Jul 24, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> NormanBates said:
> 
> 
> > given yields also fall exponentially with die size, my guess is a full-frame chip will always be about 3 times as expensive as an APS-C chip
> ...



well, it depends on the yields

my guess was based on an assumtion of 90% yields on APS-C sensors, which would lead to a 71% yield on full-frame sensors

20x cost is what you get if yields are below 70% for APS-C, and thus below 10% for full-frame

initially that would sound too low to my ears, but maybe you're right: with such low yields, each full-frame chip would cost around $500 just for the chip (ten working chips out of a $5000 wafer), which would be outrageous for a PC processor (which is where my limited knowledge about yields and wafers comes from), but wouldn't be a huge problem on a $3K to $8K camera

and that would mean $30 per APS-C sensor (166 working chips out of a $5000 wafer), which sounds pretty reasonable, and tells me this format is not going away anytime soon


----------



## Flake (Jul 24, 2011)

Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion Full Frame is definitley not better in all ways than Crop. Problems with Vignetting and edge & corner softness exist even in the most expensive lenses, they are much much less of an issue with crop bodies.

Then there's the Field of view bonus which makes longer lenses into much longer telephotos without the phenomenal cost FF demands. Or Macro where it's much easier to fill the frame and there's a depth of field bonus equivalent to the crop factor.

Flash sync is faster too at 1/250th compared to 1/200th sec maybe not much but it is better.

Full frame scores in brighter viewfinders, better low light performance, lower noise & higher dynamic range (not as much as you might think). Depth of field is much more controllable, it's easier to blur backgrounds, and personally I think wide angle is better, although crop wide angles have become much better.

FF is not a panacea for perceived camera shortcommings, there are positives & negatives to both & to be honest I think it's worthwhile having one of each body to get the best out of both systems.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 24, 2011)

I'd say it is a matter of price. A person can step up to FF for less money than the lens might cost, and the better ISO performance would give you a stop or even more advantage.


----------



## UncleFester (Jul 24, 2011)

Flake said:


> Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion Full Frame is definitley not better in all ways than Crop. Problems with Vignetting and edge & corner softness exist even in the most expensive lenses, they are much much less of an issue with crop bodies.



I'm surprised that this is such a big issue with a lot of full-frame users. Maybe it's more apparent on landscapes with dark, polarized skies, but then that is already pushing the limits of ff.


----------



## Flake (Jul 24, 2011)

UncleFester said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion Full Frame is definitley not better in all ways than Crop. Problems with Vignetting and edge & corner softness exist even in the most expensive lenses, they are much much less of an issue with crop bodies.
> ...



It's apparant on nearly every shot! Architechture is particularly susceptable - skies on the other hand are not. The 5D MKII has peripheral illumination control, and the sensible do enable that!


----------



## aldvan (Jul 24, 2011)

Flake said:


> Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion Full Frame is definitley not better in all ways than Crop. Problems with Vignetting and edge & corner softness exist even in the most expensive lenses, they are much much less of an issue with crop bodies.
> 
> Then there's the Field of view bonus which makes longer lenses into much longer telephotos without the phenomenal cost FF demands. Or Macro where it's much easier to fill the frame and there's a depth of field bonus equivalent to the crop factor.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry to say that the so called FF defects are a typical Internet forum hyperbole. Comparing a FF image with a APS-C image is an easy test, that everybody owns both the worlds can easily perform. I own just L series lens, now, and two FF bodies. Until few weeks ago I owned also a 7D and one year and half ago, I owned a 50D with many EF-S lenses. Comparing my FF and APS-C pictures (thousands and thousands of both) is something that leaves me regretting for all the pictures not taken by the FF camera, unless you don't limit yourself to watch your pictures in a small monitor and without magnification.
Vignetting (also at 16mm on FF) is something happening just under particular situations, and in a way easily eliminated in PP (RAW+PP is my only way). By the way, my old 50D+EF-S 10-22, for obvious reasons, had the same chance to vignet. The same apply for telephoto lenses. My illusion to gain focal lenght applying the same lens to an APS-C body, immediately disappeared when I compared a cropped FF picture to a full APS-C. The IQ quality was, in the worst case, the same. The pixel sharpness of a FF is uncomparable. And if I had the right budget,I would pass to a medium format, without any esitations...


----------



## lol (Jul 24, 2011)

NormanBates said:


> given nobody makes such fast zooms, it must be difficult to get decent image quality out of them, even with a smaller (APS-C) sensor



Kinda - if you go to the slightly smaller sensor FourThirds world, they have two f/2 zooms: 14-35mm and 35-100mm. Sit down before you look at the price though.

I've also seen some long f/1.4 or was it f/1.8 zooms in C-mount (think it was a Sony 18-100mm) which was tempting me but someone else beat me to it. They cover an even smaller image circle than 4/3 though.

I think f/2 zooms in APS-C are very possible, but they would be of even shorter range than existing f/2.8 zooms and the price would be rather insane. So overall you might as well stick to the f/2.8 zooms or get the faster primes.

As for the long term survival of APS-C DSLRs, that depends entirely on what happens with mirrorless systems. Can they gain enough traction to displace APS-C DSLRs, leaving only full frame DSLRs taking a niche at the high end. Or will mirrorless fail to make an impact, where APS-C DSLRs will remain a sweet spot for a long time? We'll have to wait and see.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 24, 2011)

recon photography said:


> why does no one make say a 16-50mm f2.0 or something similar for crop cameras sure it would be expensive but i think people would be willing to pay for it, i would pay 70-200mm is f2.8 is money for it.
> 
> On a side not canon should make an L-s range for good crop for lenses like this. i aim fairly certain within a few years full frame will be less popular with the ridiculous iso performance of new crop cameras and the possibility of photo binning (don't ask me about it i'm a noob but basically you have option to reduce megapixels to get better iso performance)


The lens that you want is an excellent walk around lens. However, it may be a monster in size and weight. just look at the 17-50 f2.8 EF-S. It is 4.4 inches long, using 77 mm filter and weights 1.4 lbs. If it was f2.0 and 16- 50 mm, it might be using 90mm filter or larger and weighed over 2 lbs easily. The 16-35 already uses 83 mm filter. How many people will like to have a monster like tah tas a walk around lens and can be spotted from far away???


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 24, 2011)

Rocky said:


> recon photography said:
> 
> 
> > why does no one make say a 16-50mm f2.0 or something similar for crop cameras sure it would be expensive but i think people would be willing to pay for it, i would pay 70-200mm is f2.8 is money for it.
> ...



Since he is rerferring to APS-C, I assume he means EF-s, which would be about the size and weight of a 16-35, but it would likely cost more.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 24, 2011)

NormanBates said:


> and that would mean $30 per APS-C sensor (166 working chips out of a $5000 wafer), which sounds pretty reasonable, and tells me this format is not going away anytime soon


You must have been using the number from the white paper by Canon. the APS-C potential site is REALLY wrong. My estimate is that there may be only 75 sites for the 8 inch wafer for APS-C sensor. Let us assume the yield for APS-C is 75 %, then we will have 56 sensor per wafer, $5000 per wafer, that will be $90 per sensor. Assuming the yield for FF is 25% (1/3 of the yield of APS-C, being pressimistic ). then each wafer will yield 5 FF sensor. that will be $1000 per sensor. That seems about right. If wecompare the price of &D to 5D MkII, It is about $800 difference.
My personal opinion is that the Canon white paper is used to justify the high price of the FF body. The site of the FF sensor on the wafer may be 22 to 24. That will bring the yield up to be 6 sensor per wafer. and the difference in cost will be $770 instead of $1000.We are assuming that the wafer cost is $5000. Which is extremely high for a CMOS process. What if the wafer cost is $2500, than the difference of FF sensor and APS_C snesor will only be $450 or even $370.


----------



## Canihaspicture (Jul 24, 2011)

Canon uses 300mm wafers


----------



## bvukich (Jul 24, 2011)

Haven't they moved up to 12"/300mm wafers yet?

I haven't been able to find any current pricing, the only reference to 12" wafer pricing I could find was from 2003; and at that time they cost about $200USD, and 8" were $30-40USD. 12" were relatively new at that point, and I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the cost per in^2 of 8" vs. 12" has since reversed. Although I'm sure actual prices have gone way up. The feature widths back in 2003 were 2-4x the sizes used today, so probably needed less perfect wafers.

I had always been under the impression that the cost of the actual silicon though, while not trivial, was a relatively small part of the equation. It's the $1B+ that a fab costs, along with labor, litho equipment, masks, design/engineering, etc. that truly set the cost to get a good die out the door. And the fact that a fab is basically a fixed capacity manufacturing facility, only compounds that. You can't just move faster to increase output, you have to increase yield to have any gains.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 24, 2011)

Canihaspicture said:


> Canon uses 300mm wafers



I am glad that someone confirms that Canon is using 300MM wafer. I have been suspecting it for a while but I have no way to find out. If Canon is really using the 300mm wafer, then the price gap between APS-C and FF sensor will even be smaller due to: 1. the cost per unit area of finished wafer is smaller. 2. The ratio of site between FF and APS-C is closer due to the ratio between perifferal partial site to whole site is smaller. May be the difference in final cost can be down to around $200.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 24, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > recon photography said:
> ...


17-50 EF-S and 16-35 EF is already the same length and weight. I was using the 17-50 EF-S fiter size of 77mm
as starting point and use the 18-55 EF-S (F3.5) 58mm filter size and the 16-35mm Filter size (77 mm) to guestimate the filter size. If between f3.5 and f2.8 (both EF_S) with increase of 19mm in filter size, I guest an increase of only 13 mm between f2.8 and f2.0 is very stingy. I have not yet taking the increase in viewing angle between 16mm and 17mm into account. With increase in the size of optical elements, the weight will increase also. It fact I may have already under estimate the size and weight of the 16- 50mm APS-C f2.0 lens.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jul 25, 2011)

I don't see Canon (or any other manufacturer) ditching APS-C size sensors simply because they can fit many more of them on the wafer. This gives them more leeway to deal with increased reject rates and simply put out more for the same cost. Even if the larger wafer sizes could be produced more cheaply than the smaller ones, the cost effectiveness of larger vs. smaller chips is always (absent some strange, rare geometric configurations between similarly-sized chips where more of a smaller chip can't be produced than of the larger) going to be in favor of the smaller chips. Cheaper wafers might bring down FF sensor costs but it'll bring down APS-C costs, too.


----------



## Canihaspicture (Jul 25, 2011)

I think 4/3 will die an early death when manufacturers start going mirrorless APS-C.... I also believe DSLRs will always favor the full-frame for professionals and anybody who prefers high IQ. Full frame might also pull back some of the medium format market after the next round of products come out.


----------



## recon photography (Jul 25, 2011)

Canon's 17-55mm f2.8 is really fine for me but for the price you would have to be crazy not to get the sigma os or the tamron non vc version unless you either have heaps of money or are committed to crop sensor, maybe its just over priced in Australia, its $1,500 here vs $300 for tamron or $600 for sigma OS


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 25, 2011)

Will M4/3 die an early death? I'm not sure.

As a recent m4/3 buyer, I thing I can understand Canon's reluctance to enter the mirror-less market. My initial thoughts on an EPL1 are overall positive. The picture quality is very good. At ISO 200 in good light I doubt that you coud tell the difference between M4/3 and Canon's APS-C. It also allows you to experiment with odd lens combinations - I've started to re-use all my old Minolta MC and MD lenses which has given them a new lease on life. (They work surprisingly well).

But there a number of downsides. Battery life , focus speed, and a minor time lag between real life and the image you see in the viewfinder. Also, FF lenses just don't sit well. They're too big. If Canon was to try to enter the market with a camera that rectified these problems, they'd be using a bigger sensor, bigger battery, more processing power. I think they'd still end up with a camera that was T3i sized. In which case, what's the point?

Therefore, I think Canon probably have the right strategy. From a useability perspective, mirrorless has no real benefits over the G12 / S95. Picture quality would be better, but given that it would also have a lot of disadvantages to the lower end DSLRs, why enter the market with a new line that needs marketing, R & D expenditure and support when your current products are better performers? 

The sales figures of M4/3 show that they aren't big sellers anyway. Its a very niche market. The only buyers seem to be odd people like myself that just want to play around with new toys, want something small that provides quality photos and use unusual lenses (plus, my camera looks cool!).

Therefore, my prediction is that Canon won't release a mirrorless camera in the near future. As such, M4/3 will survive for a long time to come.


----------



## Canihaspicture (Jul 25, 2011)

If they release a G12 successor with an APS-C to compete head on with the Fuji X100 I think they've got game.


----------



## noisejammer (Jul 25, 2011)

Flake said:


> Problems with Vignetting and edge & corner softness exist even in the most expensive lenses, they are much much less of an issue with crop bodies.


Umm... no. Vignetting and corner behavior are properties of the lens, not of the sensor.

Vignetting - If you take a crop sensor and install a lens intended for a ff camera, you will have less vignetting. If you select a medium format lens and use it on a ff camera, you have the same result. If you use an EF-S lens on an EF-S sensor, you get vignetting too.

Your comment on corner softness is not factually correct (but it demonstrates why autofocus is limiting.) I'm predominantly a Zeiss user and it's easy to show that "corner softness" is almost always a result of field curvature. If focused at the corner - say using live view - they are as crisp as the centre is normally. This means that the determining factor is usually how well your subject suits your lens' properties.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 25, 2011)

noisejammer said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > Problems with Vignetting and edge & corner softness exist even in the most expensive lenses, they are much much less of an issue with crop bodies.
> ...



Flake clearly understands that. "Problems with Vignetting and edge & corner softness exist even *in* the most expensive lenses," i.e. the problems are with the lens, but a crop sensor mitigates those issues.



noisejammer said:


> Your comment on corner softness is not factually correct (but it demonstrates why autofocus is limiting.) I'm predominantly a Zeiss user and it's easy to show that "corner softness" is almost always a result of field curvature. If focused at the corner - say using live view - they are as crisp as the centre is normally. This means that the determining factor is usually how well your subject suits your lens' properties.



Sorry, but you're incorrect. Corner softness is _sometimes_ the result of field curvature, but from an optical design standpoint, it's simply more difficult to produce a lens that's as sharp in the corners as in the center, because light at the periphery of the image circle must be refracted more strongly. If you look at the MTF data on a site like Photozone.de, you can see 'corner softness' represented quantitatively. They take field curvature into account, as they state in their FAQ, "_If a lens suffers from field curvature and/or residual aberrations (see below) this is taken into account - in this case the corners are measured independently from the center using different reference images._" So, they are doing exactly what you recommend, i.e. focusing on the corners when measuring corner resolution, and still coming up with less resolution than in the center for most lenses (including Zeiss lenses).


----------



## pdirestajr (Jul 25, 2011)

motorhead said:


> recon,
> 
> I tend to think that crop will fade as full-frame begins to regain it's natural place in the scheme of things. For that reason I would not be tempted to spend large sums on lenses that will only fit crop framers. I currently use a 30D, but all my lenses are "L" EF for that reason. Even a "35mm" full frame is tiny compared to "proper" medium or large format cameras.



I disagree with the thought of the crop sensor cameras going away any time soon. The average consumer who buys an entry level "Rebel" (or other brand) DSLR has no idea of the sensor size, nor cares. They just want a camera with a zoom lens that takes nice photos, a camera that will last for a while & they can grow with. Why would all the camera manufactures move away from this market. This is where ALL (majority) of their profits come from- it also helps pay for the R&D on the pro level tech, that eventually trickles down to the consumer level. It's a beautiful cycle, why end it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 25, 2011)

pdirestajr said:


> I disagree with the thought of the crop sensor cameras going away any time soon.



10 year flashback - remember all those folks who said film cameras would never go away? Granted, they're not _completely_ gone, yet. But then, there are still some people using rotary phones, and I'm sure you can find a working teletype or two somewhere in the world.

When (becuase it's not 'if' it's 'when') full frame sensor cameras drop down into the sub-$1000 range and thus into the mainstream consumer price range, APS-C will die off. EF-S lenses? They'll just join FD's on the auction block.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 25, 2011)

> I disagree with the thought of the crop sensor cameras going away any time soon.



Absolutely correct.



> When (becuase it's not 'if' it's 'when') full frame sensor cameras drop down into the sub-$1000 range and thus into the mainstream consumer price range, APS-C will die off.



What evidence can you possibly point to that would indicate that full frame sensor cameras are going to drop below $1,000 in price? 

It takes much less imagination and there is much more evidence to support the opposite conclusion: when the rapidly narrowing gap between APS-C and full-frame sensor quality becomes virtually indistinguishable full frame sensor cameras will go the way of 8x10 view cameras, 4x5 Speed Graphics and Rolleiflexes. 

Now, don't get your panties in a bunch. I'm not suggesting that full-frame will become obsolete in the next two-three years. I'm just saying that there is more evidence to support that conclusion than the idea you're suggesting.

There is absolutely no objective reason to think that APS-C is going anywhere, or at least that it is going to be done in by an older and more expensive format. All the trends point toward shrinking, not growing, sensor size technology. (And, for those protesting that full frame will _always_ be better quality than APS-C...well...junkyards are full of technologies that were better quality, while "good enough" technology laughs all the way to the bank.)

I would certainly hesitate to predict what cameras and lenses will be like in a decade. Perhaps the SLR with its interchangeable lenses will still be around, but it's entirely possible that we'll all be carrying around tablets that zoom digitally with resolution far beyond anything that can be found in either full-frame or APS-C cameras today.

Instead of this goofy "I've got a bigger sensor than you" discussion let's get back to the OP's original point.

To the OP: I'm not sure about the specific lens you suggest, but I certainly agree that the Canon lens division has not done justice to the APS-C market. They've left the innovation to third parties who are poaching customers.

The three higher quality APS-C lenses that Canon makes all have their problems. The 10-22mm and the 15-85mm are too slow. The 17-55mm is better at 2.8, but it's neither wide enough at the short end nor long enough at the long end. (I'm hoping they come through with a 15-65 mm 2.8, which would be a killer lens)

I'm generally a defender of Canon, but I am really having some doubts about their lens division. I'm just not sure it shares the same vision as the rest of the SLR unit. Seriously, look at the lenses they've chosen to introduce over the past few years: updates of massive supertelephotos that fill a tiny niche market, a nice quality 70-300 mm L zoom that the jury is still out on whether there is any market for it; a specialty fisheye zoom that also fits a narrow niche audience and which they can't even seem to bring to market anyway.

In the meantime the SLR division brought out the 7D and 60D, two higher-end APS-C bodies, and aside from the 15-85 mm zoom, there have been no corresponding lenses released. 

Imagine the sales jump they'd have if they introduced an EF-S 100-400mm f4? Lighter, faster and about the same price as the current full frame 100-400. Sports and wildlife photographers would be lining up to buy that lens and 7D combination. (Now before all the nitpickers start picking away, this is only an example of the creative options that the lens division could be following if they were to get with the EF-S program like their SLR brethren have gotten with the crop sensor program.)

I have to wonder if the lens division needs more forward-thinking management.


----------



## awinphoto (Jul 25, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree with the thought of the crop sensor cameras going away any time soon.
> ...



While I would wish and hope that full frame sensors become the norm and drop sub $1000, i just have the feeling that wont be for another 5-10 years... The cheapest full frame camera now is what? $2500? Well, correction, NEW full frame camera disregarding the used market. With the increased MP and technology going into these sensors, I would think that they would have to either dumb down a full frame sensor to go into a rebel or really cripple the featureset more than it already is to afford to justify putting a full frame sensor in... perhaps full auto with just a shutter button? All kidding aside I cant see that happening. I could see the 7D and xxD series getting the change before entry level... at least they could then justify price increases in market prices, but until then...


----------



## WarStreet (Jul 25, 2011)

Since I am coming from the future, I can tell what's going to happen. Cameras will continue to improve in features, and decrease in price. The lowest priced cameras might see small price decrease, but the higher end, will get a bigger price decrease. Most features needed will be present even on the cheap cameras and in-between models like the xxD won't exist anymore. Today it is a big deal to get GPS in camera, in the near future, it will be built-in as standard for all cameras. FPS will reach limits were very few will care. AF once delivering what is needed for most users, there is little point to spend lots of money for a small improvement and the same goes for image quality. So, FF cameras will improve and decrease in price. 

What else going to happen ? Cameras will advance such a way that they will get AI, start taking photos by themselves, and eventually they will take control of the world, and enslave human beings


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 25, 2011)

unfocused said:


> What evidence can you possibly point to that would indicate that full frame sensor cameras are going to drop below $1,000 in price?



History? What does a Canon APS-H camera cost these days? $5K. What did one cost in 1998? $28K, which is actually close to $40K when adjusted for inflation.



unfocused said:


> All the trends point toward shrinking, not growing, sensor size technology.



Well, except for that pesky bit about optics where DoF scales inversely with sensor size. Sometimes bigger is better.



unfocused said:


> Imagine the sales jump they'd have if they introduced an EF-S 100-400mm f4? Lighter, faster and about the same price as the current full frame 100-400. Sports and wildlife photographers would be lining up to buy that lens and 7D combination. (Now before all the nitpickers start picking away, this is only an example of the creative options that the lens division could be following if they were to get with the EF-S program like their SLR brethren have gotten with the crop sensor program.)



I imagine that sales would not come anywhere near even breaking even on the R&D costs, and that such a lens would be a huge loss for Canon, which is why the lens division is not even considering it. The advantages of a smaller image circle are substantially reduced at longer focal lengths. Canon doesn't make a 'fast' telephoto prime or zoom for comparison, but thinking outside the box a little, let's compare the Canon 300mm f/4L IS to the Pentax Pentax DA* 300mm f/4 (the latter being an APS-C telephoto lens with weather sealing, high-end coatings including fluorine on the front like the newest Canon lenses, low-dispersion glass, etc.). The APS-C-format lens is just 10% lighter, and still uses 77mm filters. 

But you're not even proposing 300mm f/4, you're proposing 400mm f/4. A smaller image circle doesn't change the basic optical necessity that f-number equals focal length divided by iris diaphragm diameter. A hypothetical EF-S 100-400mm f/4 would need to achieve a 100mm diameter iris diaphragm, compared to only 71.4mm for the current current 100-400mm. A 100mm aperture means a need for optical elements that are sized to match. That's going to make your proposed lens a LOT heavier than the current 100-400mm, and almost certainly more expensive, too. It would end up being a lot closer in size (and cost) to the forthcoming 200-400mm f/4 (sans integrated TC, which isn't adding much weight or cost, relatively speaking), than to the current 100-400mm. How long do you think those lines would be for a >$5000 EF-S lens? Short. Very short.


----------



## awinphoto (Jul 25, 2011)

WarStreet said:


> What else going to happen ? Cameras will advance such a way that they will get AI, start taking photos by themselves, and eventually they will take control of the world, and enslave human beings



Well in that case it better program my DVR and have my coffee ready for me in the morning when I wake up. Also if it can read my mind to auto focus for me and shoot the camera when i think it. =) I'm sure prices will drop but not as fast as anyone would want... case in point the Canon 1ds and Canon 1D, when they first came out in the early 2000's, they were pretty much at the same price point as they are now. They have not dropped in price compared to current offerings at all. We are getting at almost a decade since those cameras graced the scene and we haven't seen price drops in the top tier cameras. 5D series and the xxd series arguably have dropped a few hundred here or there but sure enough when a new camera is ready to be released everyone speculates how high the new prices will go up, hence people on this forum speculating the 5d m3 will go up due to new technology with some saying it could be a few hundred to 1000 more. I hope it stays at the current price or drops in price, but that's me wishing for too much. =)


----------



## WarStreet (Jul 25, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> 5D series and the xxd series arguably have dropped a few hundred here or there but sure enough when a new camera is ready to be released everyone speculates how high the new prices will go up, hence people on this forum speculating the 5d m3 will go up due to new technology with some saying it could be a few hundred to 1000 more. I hope it stays at the current price or drops in price, but that's me wishing for too much. =)



The 5DIII, will get similar launch price to the 5DII launch price, with small price difference. I think there is a bigger possibility of a small price decrease rather an increase. Exchange rate can effect the price too. 

It is true that prices are not decreasing in such a fast rate, but the price decrease are not necessary going to happen gradually. They can occur by model re-positioning such as 60D, or new models such as 5D. Then these lower spec cameras will just continue to improve, such as the 5DII and the future 5DIII. We are expecting the 5DIII to have a better image quality than the old 1DsIII, with good enough AF and FPS. By time maybe the 5D series will get 100% viewfinder, 1Ds weather sealing, and eventually we will end up with a 5D being better than the old 1Ds but with the price of the 5D. I consider this as a price decrease.


----------



## awinphoto (Jul 25, 2011)

WarStreet said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > 5D series and the xxd series arguably have dropped a few hundred here or there but sure enough when a new camera is ready to be released everyone speculates how high the new prices will go up, hence people on this forum speculating the 5d m3 will go up due to new technology with some saying it could be a few hundred to 1000 more. I hope it stays at the current price or drops in price, but that's me wishing for too much. =)
> ...



Believe me when I say i am holding my breath on such a camera. I have the funding set aside and while I would prefer to hold off until a 5d 3, if i dont see any camera POSSIBILITY within the next quarter, I may have to get a mark II and unload it when the mark III comes out...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 25, 2011)

WarStreet said:


> It is true that prices are not decreasing in such a fast rate, but the price decrease are not necessary going to happen gradually. They can occur by model re-positioning such as 60D, or new models such as 5D...



That's what I'm getting at. I'm not proposing we'll see a sub-$1K 1-series or 5D MkVI or the like. But the original 5D was a paradigm shift - an 'affordable' FF camera. It's all relative, of course. At the time of it's release, the typical consumer would not have considered $3200 for a camera as something 'affordable,' but compared to the cost of a 1Ds body, it was downright cheap. The 5DII is around 1/3 of the cost of the 1DsIII, yet they use the same sensor, albeit an expensive one. A T2i/550D is around 1/3 the cost of a 7D, again, same sensor. As technology improves and wafer material and stamping costs are driven downwards, it seems logical for Canon to push out another paradigm shift - an affordable-er FF camera, with a FF sensor in an xxxD-type body.


----------



## WarStreet (Jul 25, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> Believe me when I say i am holding my breath on such a camera. I have the funding set aside and while I would prefer to hold off until a 5d 3, if i dont see any camera POSSIBILITY within the next quarter, I may have to get a mark II and unload it when the mark III comes out...



Since I am not a pro I have the luxury to wait. In your case, you will have to do some gain/loss evaluations by getting the 5DII and sell it later. I doubt we will see a 5DIII in the next quarter, but we might get an announcement. Monitoring Nikon should help us find out more about the 5DIII expectations and release dates. I expect an announcement and maybe even a release of the D700 replacement within this year. But this is just an educated guess, nothing more.


----------



## awinphoto (Jul 25, 2011)

WarStreet said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Believe me when I say i am holding my breath on such a camera. I have the funding set aside and while I would prefer to hold off until a 5d 3, if i dont see any camera POSSIBILITY within the next quarter, I may have to get a mark II and unload it when the mark III comes out...
> ...



I do shoot professionally and as of right now, my 7D is quite serviceable for 99% of all my clients needs right now. Switching to the 5D would be more of a personal preference because of the full frame sensor and the little bit more ISO/IQ i'd get from such a camera. In the time being i also have CPS in my back pocket to get loaners of 5d's and 1d's if and when a shoot pops up in which i need that camera... I can wait longer if needed, I just wish canon will "show their cards" soon.


----------



## AJ (Jul 25, 2011)

I agree with you, Unfocused, that APSC isn't going away. It's the new 35 mm. Quality is good enough for most folks including myself.



unfocused said:


> I'm generally a defender of Canon, but I am really having some doubts about their lens division. I'm just not sure it shares the same vision as the rest of the SLR unit. Seriously, look at the lenses they've chosen to introduce over the past few years: updates of massive supertelephotos that fill a tiny niche market, a nice quality 70-300 mm L zoom that the jury is still out on whether there is any market for it; a specialty fisheye zoom that also fits a narrow niche audience and which they can't even seem to bring to market anyway.
> 
> In the meantime the SLR division brought out the 7D and 60D, two higher-end APS-C bodies, and aside from the 15-85 mm zoom, there have been no corresponding lenses released.
> 
> ...



Well they did put out a few consumer zooms like 18-135 and 18-200. Yawn. The 60/2.8 macro is pretty nice though. Goes to show that Canon aren't opposed in principle to EF-S primes.

Still sorely missing is a cheapo 30/1.8 Hello, paging Canon? Must counter Nikon on this??

17-55/2.8 IS is a nice lens but it's hideously overpriced. It should be around 700 bucks. I'm thinking about selling mine.

Now that Tokina and Sigma have discontinued their 55-135/2.8 and 55-150/2.8 respectively (OS version on the way supposedly) there's a gaping hole out there for a quality 55-something portrait zoom lens. IMO an EF-S 55-135/2.8 IS is sorely needed. And this lens shouldn't cost more than 1200 bucks.

FWIW, 100-400/4 would have a 100 mm front element regardless of its imaging circle. Huge size+price jump. Sigma's new 120-300/2.8 OS has more than a few folks salivating though. Now there's a sports+nature lens.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 25, 2011)

The key advantage of crop vs full frame is the size of the camera product, the full frame currenly requires a larger body to accommodate in the larger sensor. I'm sure there are technical fixes to this issue as used in the M9, but will the Leica solution work in a Canon product with EF lenses ? 

I'm half expecting a mix of full frame and crop products, I've said before that I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a high end 1.6x crop sensor 1D model, nor would I be surprised to see some form of tech cascade, drop a new sensor in the 1D/5D ranges, then perhaps a 9D with the current full frame sensor - why drop a successful sensor when it's possibly costing a fraction of the original amount to product after moving from say a 200mm wafer to a 300mm ?

I wouldn't be surprised either, if Canon introduced a smaller sensor format for the entry level rebels, 2x even 3x crop would yield many more sensors from a wafer. today's tech could well squeeze IQ to the levels of APS-C of just a few years ago - as said above, it doesn't have to be great at the entry level Rebel price, just good enough to match the competitors on IQ and price.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 25, 2011)

Haydn1971 said:


> The key advantage of crop vs full frame is the size of the camera product, the full frame currenly requires a larger body to accommodate in the larger sensor.



The key advantage of crop vs. FF is that the sensors are cheaper to produce, and thus the bodies are less expensive. My 5DII is pretty much the same size as my 7D. 



Haydn1971 said:


> I wouldn't be surprised either, if Canon introduced a smaller sensor format for the entry level rebels, 2x even 3x crop would yield many more sensors from a wafer.



With a new lens lineup, too - I propose EF-ES, for electro-focus even-shorter back focus.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 25, 2011)

Now your just getting carried away ;-)


----------



## Rocky (Jul 25, 2011)

Actually the $1000 FF DSLR can be built even Now. However, ALL DSLR company wants to keep the higher profit in the existing FF model and will not build a "Cheap"FF. just look at the following numbers: The cheapest Rebel is about $500 now. My previous tread calculated the difference of FF and APS-C sensor can be $500 (based on the white paper from Canon dated 2006, now the gap may be even smaller). So $500 (Cheap body)+$500(upgrade to FF from APS-C) that is $1000. Let us be generous, add $200 to additional feature and bigger body. That is a CHEAP $1200 FF right there.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 25, 2011)

> Now your just getting carried away ;-)



+1

I don't even know what this is such a sensitive subject. Are people that invested in their full frame cameras that they can't bear the idea that maybe Canon's lens division ought to do a better job of developing EF-S lenses?

That's all the OP suggested and it's a reasonable request. 



> eventually they will take control of the world, and enslave human beings



I don't know about taking over the world, but reading some of these posts it's pretty clear they've already enslaved a lot of human beings.  



> let's compare the Canon 300mm f/4L IS to the Pentax Pentax DA* 300mm f/4 (the latter being an APS-C telephoto lens with weather sealing, high-end coatings including fluorine on the front like the newest Canon lenses, low-dispersion glass, etc.).



As I expected, some can't resist arguing over a simple illustrative and hypothetical example. 

So, I might counter with a question: Would that be the Pentax lens that is $400 less than the 100-400 Canon, about $200 less than the Canon 300mm f4 prime and $300+ less than the new Canon 70-300 zoom? 

Or, instead let's compare Apples to Apples. 400mm on a crop sensor is 640 mm on a full frame. Canon's newest 600 mm f/4 full frame lens is $13,000. Sure seems like there is a lot of room for Canon to position a 400 mm APS-C lens that will produce images of comparable magnification. 



> FWIW, 100-400/4 would have a 100 mm front element regardless of its imaging circle. Huge size+price jump. Sigma's new 120-300/2.8 OS has more than a few folks salivating though. Now there's a sports+nature lens.



Okay, now that's a reasonable criticism. If my particular example is impractical I'll take your word for it. But, it was _just_ an example. Although I can't help but think there must be some advantages to EF-S at the longer focal lengths. 



> IMO an EF-S 55-135/2.8 IS is sorely needed.



Well, Sigma's announced a 50-150 f2.8 IS for APS-C cameras. Of course right now it's just vaporware. But maybe they'll actually get it to market one of these days.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 26, 2011)

unfocused said:


> Would that be the Pentax lens that is ... about $200 less than the Canon 300mm f4 prime



Yes, but the Pentax lens lacks image stabilization, for which Canon charges a hefty premium in it's white lenses...



unfocused said:


> > FWIW, 100-400/4 would have a 100 mm front element regardless of its imaging circle. Huge size+price jump. Sigma's new 120-300/2.8 OS has more than a few folks salivating though. Now there's a sports+nature lens.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, now that's a reasonable criticism. If my particular example is impractical I'll take your word for it. But, it was _just_ an example. Although I can't help but think there must be some advantages to EF-S at the longer focal lengths.



Yes - there would be a slight savings on overall length and probably a minor weight savings, too. But it's a diminishing return - unless you're right and FF sensors go away, those minor differences don't justify the expense of R&D and production line setup for a lens that won't work on FF, when the lens for FF will work on APS-C (and can be marketed to consumers as longer than it really is, as Canon has done with the new 70-300mm L).



unfocused said:


> Are people that invested in their full frame cameras that they can't bear the idea that maybe Canon's lens division ought to do a better job of developing EF-S lenses?
> 
> That's all the OP suggested and it's a reasonable request.



I've got no issue with Canon developing EF-S lenses - it is pretty clear they they've prioritized those over non-L EF lenses. But they're certainly emphasizing the L series lenses, and going out of their way to promote some of those for APS-C (e.g. the 70-300mm L and the new 8-15mm fisheye zoom). 

Could they do a better job? I do think that often people who state, 'Canon is not doing a good job of developing lenses' really mean 'Canon is not developing the lenses that *I* want.' Personally, I see about as much utility for a fisheye zoom as I do for the Flowbee, but Canon feels differently...and there's always a chance that the next niche lens will be useful for _my_ niche (e.g. a TS-E 90mm f/2.8L).

In some ways, they are probably hitting a bit of a wall in terms of where they can go. That old Canon product manager quote about Canon eventually wanting to take all their cameras FF is something that's taken root in the prosumer consciousness, which is where those 'better' EF-S lenses are targeted (e.g. an f/2 zoom, or an EF-S telezoom with a fast/constant aperture and great IQ). Whether they actually ever will or not, most prosumers 'plan to go FF someday' and that colors their buying choices away from EF-S lenses and toward the EF lineup. Canon's R&D department doesn't function in a vacuum - their research is driven in large part by input from their marketing department. I'm willing to bet that that department has a very good idea of what consumers want, and know full well that in the main, consumers who drive their bottom line in the dSLR arena fall into two main camps - true 'consumers' who want inexpensive products, and 'prosumers' who wish to go FF someday. Pros are important for cache and prestige, but not really for the bottom line.

I will say that one obvious lack that Canon really should address is the Nikon DX-format 35mm f/1.8 - that's in the focal range that can really benefit from the smaller image circle, and Canon really should come out with a 'normal' prime for what is their biggest-selling sensor format.

But, to most directly answer the OP's question:



recon photography said:


> why does no one make say a 16-50mm f2.0 or something similar for crop cameras



I don't think anyone in this thread has yet brought it up, but Canon had a patent published for an EF-S 17-55 f/2 IS - may or may not become a reality, but it's clear that someone at Canon is thinking along the lines the OP is hoping.


----------



## UncleFester (Jul 26, 2011)

Not to get too far off thread here, but wouldn't the loss of full frame sensors nudge the super tele users backward?

Sports shooters will have to take a giant step backwards? Some lenses are perfect for some sports, 400 for football, polo, baseball come to mind, with full frame (esp 21 megapix) and the 1.3 crops. But 1.6x it would seem a bit claustrophobic (in some areas,not just the sports I listed)and have to rework where photographers normally shoot.


----------

