kisielk wrote:
I think that speculation is pretty baseless and doesn't make a lot of sense considering that Canon is continuing investing in producing EF-S lenses. More 1.6x crop bodies means more potential EF-S lens buyers. There's no way Canon would pass up the chance for that in the gap between their pro and low end body.
Remember that in the not too distant past people were predicting the demise of the EF mount (), well, seeing as the new 16-35 was just released I think that's a far cry too.
Judging by the features of the MkIII and the reaction, it seems Canon is pretty well in tune with the needs of their customers. I have no doubt that they'll release a viable 30D replacement this year....Show more →
The 30D successor dropping EF-S compatibility isn't baseless. Canon still hasn't renounced its commitment to full frame, by words of Brian Worley, dSLR product manager for Canon Europe. Of course, it may very well take untill the 50D before EF-S is dropped, but so far it looks like Canon still intends to move to full frame except for entry level.
Tentacle wrote:
Hey, this is just me in Wild Speculation Mode™, but what would happen if Canon takes the 1D Mk III sensor design, simplifies it to a 4-channel sensor (rather than an 8-sensor one), and drops one of the DIGIC III chips... And then think 40D.
Wouldn't that be nice? Canon, being as market savvy as it is, will likely tone it down some, just like the xxxD series is less featured than the xxD series. So maybe no live preview. Maybe no ISO50. Definately not 10 fps, but 5. Would make for a nice camera, right?
Again, this is my mind wandering around. Nothing solid to go on, just some "would be really nice" musing......Show more →
I think a single DIGIC III for Canon's top-of-the-line 1.6 format is a given. The question is what else will trickle down from the 1DM3? Live Preview (or does that require dual DIGIC III?) I think burst rate will remain at 5. Possibly we'll get the new sensor.
I've got a feeling that I'm going to be spending a whole lot of cash this year.
Tentacle wrote:
The 30D successor dropping EF-S compatibility isn't baseless. Canon still hasn't renounced its commitment to full frame, by words of Brian Worley, dSLR product manager for Canon Europe. Of course, it may very well take untill the 50D before EF-S is dropped, but so far it looks like Canon still intends to move to full frame except for entry level.
I fail to see any logic in dropping the EF-S line. Smaller means greater portability, and as sensor technology improves, the 1.6 crop will become even more compelling. I just hope that Canon ups the build quality to "L" standards on the EF-S line.
I fail to see any logic in dropping the EF-S line. Smaller means greater portability, and as sensor technology improves, the 1.6 crop will become even more compelling. I just hope that Canon ups the build quality to "L" standards on the EF-S line.
EF-S will not be dropped. It will, eventually, be relegated to entry level. IF Canon sticks to its commitment to full frame. Since the introduction of EF-S, along with the 300D in august 2003, we've seen 6 EF-S lenses, 3 of them kit-lenses. Even the most expensive EF-S, the very nice 17-55/2.8IS, is cheaper than a 135L, so it's not that massive amounts of glass-investments will go down the drain.
And if you want to know why Canon thinks full frame is so much better, then google for Canon Full Frame White Paper and read it, while keeping in mind that it's part fact, and part PR.
Tentacle wrote:
EF-S will not be dropped. It will, eventually, be relegated to entry level. IF Canon sticks to its commitment to full frame. Since the introduction of EF-S, along with the 300D in august 2003, we've seen 6 EF-S lenses, 3 of them kit-lenses. Even the most expensive EF-S, the very nice 17-55/2.8IS, is cheaper than a 135L, so it's not that massive amounts of glass-investments will go down the drain.
And if you want to know why Canon thinks full frame is so much better, then google for Canon Full Frame White Paper and read it, while keeping in mind that it's part fact, and part PR. ...Show more →
In my neck of the woods, the 17-55 is $1400 and the 135L is $1100—that Canon has made available the 17-55 tells me that their plan is to bolster the line-up with high end type glass.
Regarding the FF, I own the 5D and have 1st hand experience with the merits of this format. As a professional photographer, I use, and continue to use both the 1.6 and FF formats—as the shooting conditions require.
Just as in my film days, I used MF and 35mm as required, today, digital enables FF (5D) has replaced my MF equipment (at least for the work I do).
I hope Canon continues development of the 'S" line with other high end glass.
Prior to having FF, I thought that 1.6 would eventually fade into history, I don't see this now.
I fail to see any logic in dropping the EF-S line. Smaller means greater portability, and as sensor technology improves, the 1.6 crop will become even more compelling. I just hope that Canon ups the build quality to "L" standards on the EF-S line.
I doubt that the EF-S line is going to be dropped any time soon. However, I also doubt at least as much that Canon is going to produce EF-S lenses sporting the "L" designation or, for that matter, new high quality EF-S lenses.
Regarding the existence of the quite high quality (and quite high price) 17-55mm f/2.8 IS EF-S lens... it makes sense for Canon to produce a high quality EF-S lens in that range (and, arguably this also applies to the 10-22mm wide EF-S) since that is the range that is otherwise not well covered by existing EF lenses. Since there are people using the crop sensor bodies for serious photography, without these lenses there would not be high quality lenses for these photographers covering these important focal length and feature ranges.
However, it seems inconceivable that Canon would produce high quality EF-S lenses in ranges that are already quite well covered by longer L zooms and primes (and even excellent non-L primes). For example, given the choice between some imaginary really high quality EF-S 35mm prime and the existing EF 35mm primes, I would guess that so few would choose the EF-S version that it would be a loss for Canon.
Bottom line, I doubt we'll see much more in the way of excellent EF-S lenses beyond the 17-55 and the 10-22.
Dan
Edited by danmitchell on Feb 24, 2007 at 09:25 AM GMT
BabiesNBellies wrote:
I haven't had much luck on finding much info on this either but think it would be nice to have for the 5D
Anyone know more about this
The new WFT-E2 connects to the 1D3 body with a special 15 pin round connector, which also feeds the battery power from 1D3. How could you connect the new WFT to any existing body which is missing that connector?
Koivulehto wrote:
The new WFT-E2 connects to the 1D3 body with a special 15 pin round connector, which also feeds the battery power from 1D3. How could you connect the new WFT to any existing body which is missing that connector?
I starting to wonder about the often mentioned Canon dropping the 1.3x sensor leaving only FF and 1.6x sensors remaining in thier DSLRs. If the release of the 1D3 is any kind of a sign wouldn't it be that 1.3x probably isn't going anywhere for a while?
RJJR wrote:
I starting to wonder about the often mentioned Canon dropping the 1.3x sensor leaving only FF and 1.6x sensors remaining in thier DSLRs. If the release of the 1D3 is any kind of a sign wouldn't it be that 1.3x probably isn't going anywhere for a while?
At least not until the 1DIIII is released
danmitchell wrote:
I doubt that the EF-S line is going to be dropped any time soon. However, I also doubt at least as much that Canon is going to produce EF-S lenses sporting the "L" designation or, for that matter, new high quality EF-S lenses.
Regarding the existence of the quite high quality (and quite high price) 17-55mm f/2.8 IS EF-S lens... it makes sense for Canon to produce a high quality EF-S lens in that range (and, arguably this also applies to the 10-22mm wide EF-S) since that is the range that is otherwise not well covered by existing EF lenses. Since there are people using the crop sensor bodies for serious photography, without these lenses there would not be high quality lenses for these photographers covering these important focal length and feature ranges.
However, it seems inconceivable that Canon would produce high quality EF-S lenses in ranges that are already quite well covered by longer L zooms and primes (and even excellent non-L primes). For example, given the choice between some imaginary really high quality EF-S 35mm prime and the existing EF 35mm primes, I would guess that so few would choose the EF-S version that it would be a loss for Canon.
Bottom line, I doubt we'll see much more in the way of excellent EF-S lenses beyond the 17-55 and the 10-22.
Dan
Edited by danmitchell on Feb 24, 2007 at 09:25 AM GMT...Show more →
You may be right Dan, in the short term, but I still believe, over time, portability and compactness will bring high end 'S' line lenses.
The "S" in EF-S stands for Short Backfocus. The primary reason of being is the fact that EF-S allows a deeper penetration of the rear element into the camera. That's only useful for short focal lengths, hence the total lack of EF-S telezooms.
If I look at the EF-S line-up, it's not that the portability and compactness leap out. If the designation itself is anything to go by, then Canon isn't in it primarily for these purposes, but to enable certain focal lengths on crop, just like Dan mentioned.
Oh well ... The EF-S argument against a non-APS-C sensor for the 40D has been coined before. If I look at the existing EF-S line-up, I can only say that I'm not convinced that the mere existence of EF-S is somehow a guarantee that the xxD range will remain APS-C. There is too much to be gained in image quality by going to a bigger sensor area to let it be railroaded by EF-S.
But that's just my idea/estimation/instinct/guess.
danmitchell wrote:
I fail to see any logic in dropping the EF-S line. Smaller means greater portability, and as sensor technology improves, the 1.6 crop will become even more compelling. I just hope that Canon ups the build quality to "L" standards on the EF-S line.
I did not write that. Need to be careful with the quotes, no?
), well, seeing as the new 16-35 was just released I think that's a far cry too. 
