Dawei Ye wrote:
Am I missing something? Looks a bit smeary towards the edges? No better than the 14 f/2.8L II I purchased and that is lambasted compared to the Nikon 14-24
The stitched image (first one posted) has a FOV equivalent to a 10mm lens on FF, and it is a full 40MP+ resolution. Other than the fact it takes two exposures, this is medium format IQ territory... Canon clearly did their homework. Now all we need is a 50MP+ FF sensor to see the real limits of these modern designs.
Certainly these new designs, with the new 24mll have enough fuel in the tank to deal with larger sensor sizes.
However it may be difficult to achieve 50MP + sensors within the 35mm format.
Something else may be in the wind.
I have felt that these new TS-E lens, the 17 and 24 might be the core of yet another new camera from Canon, much like the Leica S2. The S2 required a whole new generation of lenses to deal with the larger sensor, (medium format in size).
The new TS-E designs might morph into simple non shifting lens for a much larger sensor based body.
Canon must certainly be looking over their shoulder at the new Leica model which promises to be a real hum-dinger of a camera. With the larger image circle of the 17 and 24 designs you have a medium format lens in waiting. Couple this with probably a new 45 TS-E and an already excellent 90 TS-E you have a reasonably good start collection of lenses almost as complete as what the S2 will offer.
Does any of this make sense to anyone?
This could get exciting.
Doug Ball wrote:
Certainly these new designs, with the new 24mll have enough fuel in the tank to deal with larger sensor sizes.
However it may be difficult to achieve 50MP + sensors within the 35mm format.
Something else may be in the wind.
I have felt that these new TS-E lens, the 17 and 24 might be the core of yet another new camera from Canon, much like the Leica S2. The S2 required a whole new generation of lenses to deal with the larger sensor, (medium format in size).
The new TS-E designs might morph into simple non shifting lens for a much larger sensor based body.
Canon must certainly be looking over their shoulder at the new Leica model which promises to be a real hum-dinger of a camera. With the larger image circle of the 17 and 24 designs you have a medium format lens in waiting. Couple this with probably a new 45 TS-E and an already excellent 90 TS-E you have a reasonably good start collection of lenses almost as complete as what the S2 will offer.
Does any of this make sense to anyone?
This could get exciting....Show more →
But these existing lenses would still be useless as the mount would have to be a new larger mount if they move to a larger sensor.
I don't think Canon is worried about the new Leica. That's not Canon's market. They've never been in the medium format business, and there's no need to start now. The Leica stuff is so ungodly expensive, people who buy it weren't going to be buying Canon anyway, they would be using medium format digital backs right now.
They haven't announced a price yet, but I bet the camera body alone will cost $15,000 at least. The lenses will likely be at $2,500 for the cheapies, to $10K for some of the more expensive lenses. Heck, the M mount 50 /0.95 is 10K...and they don't even have a really exceptional body to put it on, digitally.
What I suggest would be a new camera body with a larger mount.
You are right about the Leica system price being very expensive and catering to a different market.
Howerver Canon and Nikon might begin to feel there is as limit to the resolution game within the 35mm format. Leica has demonstrated that they can cram a medium format sensor with the optics for the necessary viewfinder into a body that is roughly the size of a 1Ds body. Sure it requires a new mount and new lenses.
My point is that with the TS-E lenses they already have they might be part way there in as much as having a lens design that can be adapted easily and therefore reduce the R & D expense somewhat.
Because of their astronomical price Leica is not a direct competitor to Canon. Nikon and now Sony are. Canon has to try and anticipate what they are thinking and respond accordingly.
My main business is product development and I have learned to think like marketing, engineering and development people in a large company.
Thinking inside the box (35mm format) can be dangerous when a company (Leica) have moved outside that box and demonstrated to everyone that it is possible.
Product development is a lot like the game of chess. You seize the initiative forcing your opponent to play defensively and never let up.
I totally agree that the evolution & development is pointing towards larger sensors. The 35mm sensor will reach it's premium efficiency. Somewhere in the internet wind I had read that Nikon may be moving that way. Leica's astronomical prices are also a detriment to their company. Their market share is so small that the cost per item is very high. With a higher sales volume the cost per item comes down. I think the chess game for Canon is more like checkers. Their competitors make a few moves - then Canon jumps to the front of the line and says - "KING ME".
The details and low distortion of the 17 ts-e are stunning. Beautiful shot as well. I wish I could try the new 24 and 17 TS-e's side by side. I had the TS-e 24 mk1 for a while and was happy with it. I ended up trading it for a TS-e 45 because it fit my needs better at the time. I am very curious about the new TS-e's though. Any shots at f/4? How does it compare to stoppped down?
mMontag wrote:
......I think the chess game for Canon is more like checkers. Their competitors make a few moves - then Canon jumps to the front of the line and says - "KING ME".
I love my Canon gear Nikon may have a few goodies on their bodies but, Canon glass is second to none!
mMontag wrote:
I totally agree that the evolution & development is pointing towards larger sensors. The 35mm sensor will reach it's premium efficiency. Somewhere in the internet wind I had read that Nikon may be moving that way. Leica's astronomical prices are also a detriment to their company. Their market share is so small that the cost per item is very high. With a higher sales volume the cost per item comes down. I think the chess game for Canon is more like checkers. Their competitors make a few moves - then Canon jumps to the front of the line and says - "KING ME".
If you look at the history of photography, the general trend has been the reduction of formats as technology evolved. 8x10 and larger > 4x5 > 6x6/7/8/4.5 > 35mm > APS > digital APS-C/H > 4/3 & micro 4/3...
Of course a lot of formats existed in harmony together for a long time, as each had an application, which I believe will continue to a reduced extent with digital.
What I see with these two Canon TS-E lenses, the new 24 1.4 II, etc. is a lens refresh for the coming 10 years of sensor improvements within the 35mm FF and APS-C/H formats. I feel Canon has more to gain by maintaining and improving an existing system (EOS) and tempting photographers to it from other formats (as they've already done) than to invent a new system/format that will to some extent split their high end users (though such a system could be downwards compatible with EOS..).
Leica has the S2 and there are the MF backs, which have increasingly specialized applications (a market that seems to be shrinking and merging). I don't see that as Canon's realm (or Nikon's). In the pro-photography end of the spectrum they've pursued those looking for a "good enough" solution in terms of image quality vs. the MF backs, in a system that offers a lot more flexibility over a broader range of applications.
Don't forget that a short while ago Canon announced research into a 50MP APS-H sensor. Given past advances in sensor and microchip technologies, there's bound to be breakthroughs in the near future that will wring even more out of existing sensor formats, and likely continue the historical trend in photography to even smaller formats.
Since Canon's focus traditionally has been more towards the consumer end, my expectation is their near term focus will be more along the lines of improved video/stills integration in a single device.
rscheffler wrote:
If you look at the history of photography, the general trend has been the reduction of formats as technology evolved. 8x10 and larger > 4x5 > 6x6/7/8/4.5 > 35mm > APS > digital APS-C/H > 4/3 & micro 4/3...
Of course a lot of formats existed in harmony together for a long time, as each had an application, which I believe will continue to a reduced extent with digital.
...
Ron
Interesting point regarding the trend towards smaller. However, I think that for the serious film photographer, the trend stopped at the standard 35 mm size. I never owned or wanted an APS film camera, and I was quite happy to replace my APS-C body with the original 5D. Not that there is/was anything inherently wrong with the smaller format, but I still prefer the output of my 5D to what I got with my 10D, 30D, 40D, and various Rebels that I've owned.
Comparing the 40D to the 5D was interesting - while the 40D blew the 5D away in terms of features, it was still the 5D that I reached for when I wanted to actually shoot images. It was that little extra latitude, that little more DOF control, and that proverbial (some say "fictitious") extra "pop" that the 5D provided that made it a more attractive tool to me. Was it due to the format? I think it was, since none of my other APS-C bodies could quite do it.
Tom, I don't disagree with your points. Larger formats definitely have certain beneficial characteristics.
Would you buy a Canon MF system?
It's possible the trend with serious film photographers stopped at 35mm because of the limitations of the film itself and a reason a lot of commercial/editorial shooters worked with medium format. But a lot of those photographers have transitioned down to FF 35mm digital. Meanwhile the trend among most casual photographers is to APS-C digital SLRs or P&S cameras with much smaller sensors. That doesn't discount the benefits/advantages of larger formats, it just reflects the current reality.
The question for me is whether Canon has a need to participate in the specialized MF digital market. I don't see a logical reason for them, other than prestige, to do so when they're already so successful in pushing the boundaries with 35mm digital and, as mentioned, have attracted a lot of photographers who previously shot MF or even large format film. There is likely more money for Canon in aiming product at serious motion picture producers looking for 35mm FF video capture device at reasonable prices, kind of like what Canon did with MF shooters 5-7 years ago.
One could say that a 1DsIII or 5DII, combined with TS-E lenses and multiple shifted captures stitched in post production already equals the resolution of MF backs, as Doug with his opening post illustrated so dramatically. So in a way the mythical Canon MF system already exists.
rscheffler wrote:
Tom, I don't disagree with your points. Larger formats definitely have certain beneficial characteristics.
Would you buy a Canon MF system?
It's possible the trend with serious film photographers stopped at 35mm because of the limitations of the film itself and a reason a lot of commercial/editorial shooters worked with medium format. But a lot of those photographers have transitioned down to FF 35mm digital. Meanwhile the trend among most casual photographers is to APS-C digital SLRs or P&S cameras with much smaller sensors. That doesn't discount the benefits/advantages of larger formats, it just reflects the current reality.
The question for me is whether Canon has a need to participate in the specialized MF digital market. I don't see a logical reason for them, other than prestige, to do so when they're already so successful in pushing the boundaries with 35mm digital and, as mentioned, have attracted a lot of photographers who previously shot MF or even large format film. There is likely more money for Canon in aiming product at serious motion picture producers looking for 35mm FF video capture device at reasonable prices, kind of like what Canon did with MF shooters 5-7 years ago.
One could say that a 1DsIII or 5DII, combined with TS-E lenses and multiple shifted captures stitched in post production already equals the resolution of MF backs, as Doug with his opening post illustrated so dramatically. So in a way the mythical Canon MF system already exists.
Depending on price of the MF and glass, I would consider it for landscape work especially. It has been clearly demonstrated even a 16MP MF camera delivers better IQ than a D3x and 1Ds III and that includes resolution. Pushing the 35mm format too much further is a waste of time IMO. If you want 30MP+ I assume you want to make very large prints, yet all things being equal the quality of print will also improve the larger the format, as there's less enlargement needed.
I'd be leaving the pixel account alone on FF 35mm now we've reached 24.6MP, and concentrate on much more important things, like DR, true 14 bit, let alone 16 bit capture, moving away from Bayer, maybe removeable AA filters, better glass, better AF, better noise control.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'd be leaving the pixel account alone on FF 35mm now we've reached 24.6MP, and concentrate on much more important things, like DR, true 14 bit, let alone 16 bit capture, moving away from Bayer, maybe removeable AA filters, better glass, better AF, better noise control.
+1 the resolution on the 5D2 is excellent IMO. Imagine it's resolving power with increased dynamic range or something like selectable DR. Also imagine it with increased ISO/noise performance.
rscheffler wrote:
Tom, I don't disagree with your points. Larger formats definitely have certain beneficial characteristics.
Would you buy a Canon MF system?
It's possible the trend with serious film photographers stopped at 35mm because of the limitations of the film itself and a reason a lot of commercial/editorial shooters worked with medium format. But a lot of those photographers have transitioned down to FF 35mm digital. Meanwhile the trend among most casual photographers is to APS-C digital SLRs or P&S cameras with much smaller sensors. That doesn't discount the benefits/advantages of larger formats, it just reflects the current reality.
The question for me is whether Canon has a need to participate in the specialized MF digital market. I don't see a logical reason for them, other than prestige, to do so when they're already so successful in pushing the boundaries with 35mm digital and, as mentioned, have attracted a lot of photographers who previously shot MF or even large format film. There is likely more money for Canon in aiming product at serious motion picture producers looking for 35mm FF video capture device at reasonable prices, kind of like what Canon did with MF shooters 5-7 years ago.
One could say that a 1DsIII or 5DII, combined with TS-E lenses and multiple shifted captures stitched in post production already equals the resolution of MF backs, as Doug with his opening post illustrated so dramatically. So in a way the mythical Canon MF system already exists.
That's a good question - I would consider a Canon, or any medium format system but price is ultimately my barrier. And I think that price guides a lot of peoples' decisions.
To me, and this is just my opinion, duplicating my 35 mm kit in medium format would be cost-prohibitive. Probably impossible as well, since I don't believe that there's many lenses that could qualify as supertelephotos in formats large than 35 mm. So a medium format kit would have to augment my 35 mm setup, not replace it.
The move from APS-C to full frame wasn't difficult. While the body costs more, the lenses are roughly the same price as those offered solely for the smaller format. I didn't consider the difference in price between a 5D2 and 50D to be all that significant when compared to the capabilities of each.
Ultimately, I think that right now, the 35 mm format gives the most bang for the buck. Yes, it's a compromise in some way, as all formats are. There are no 400/2.8 equivalents in medium format, and APS-C can't quite match the shallow DOF of larger formats (please don't start an argument about THAT). There's no lens to date offering the angle-of-view and flexibility of a 17mm TSE for an APS-C either, though Canon's 17 TSE will give the smaller format an excellent tilt-shift capable lens with the angle of view that a 27 mm lens would provide on full frame.
I think that a lot of it boils down to price - if not for the lower price of APS-C bodies compared to full frame bodies, I don't think there'd be many buyers. Likewise, if a medium format kit could be had for the price of a 35 mm kit, there'd be a much larger number of MF cameras sold (though I don't think MF would replace 35, since there is a size/weight factor to consider especially with longer lenses).
PS - getting back to the tread starter - awesome detail in that image. I really, REALLY like this new lens, and will probably buy one next year.
Hmm. The original crop (Doug Ball's) is good considering its position in the frame and the high pixel count of the 1Ds Mark III. But it's hardly worthy of amazement. It's shot at f/11: a newly designed, very expensive, prime lens should be bitingly sharp by this aperture. There are no tangential, high-contrast structures to reveal the CA control. And it's simply not breathtakingly sharp; I've seen sharper pixels from my Nikon D60, with a similar pixel density.
I'm not saying the lens isn't fantastic; it may well be! But you can't draw that conclusion from this image alone. This kind of sharpness at f/11 is achievable with any good wide-angle lens, and certainly with a Zeiss Distagon.
I do see hot pixels and mushy stars in the dark part of the ceiling, but it's hard to blame the lens for that.
]
Mine knows that feeling all too well. I wonder if B&H takes direct deposit?