Dark Slider wrote:
My wallet is hiding from me somewhere, quaking in fear.

Mine knows that feeling all too well. I wonder if B&H takes direct deposit?

op - Yeh, I guess it's passable with reasonable sharpness

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!

*sigh* I am clearly going to have to sell some gear...

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.

My 2¢

Ron

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_W 100%

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.

Ron

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.

Ron

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.

Ron

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.

Holy shiz!

That's stinkin' incredible!

Wow! x1,000,000

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.

"And it's simply not breathtakingly sharp; I've seen sharper pixels from my Nikon D60"

Specularist - Please - post a comparable Architectural subject image so we can see what you're saying.

Provocative first post from a Nikon user... in a Canon board!!

nMontag, isn't the TSE17 the widest T/S lens? One of its kind? if so, what are we going to compare it with?

Specularist, welcome to the forum. Since you chose to compare pixels with a 1.5 crop camera, we will need to see some corner crops from your D60 with an 11mm TS lens, fully shifted, to get the same perspective. And please include a resized version of the complete 40 MP stitched image.

People who think this isn't sharp have never used a wide angle tilt shift before. At full shift, that kind of resolution is absolutely exceptional. The center crop on this image would be a corner crop if the image were unshifted.

Jman13 wrote:
People who think this isn't sharp have never used a wide angle tilt shift before. At full shift, that kind of resolution is absolutely exceptional.

Bears repeating. I have a 24 TSE (Mk I) - it's a very nice lens, but this new 17 is exceptional.

Doug,

Just revisited this awesome shot as I just ordered this lens today(last one in stock).
Did you happen to take a closer shot of the altar in this beautiful church?
My next credit card bill is going to be a "WOW.

Never mind, just saw the closeup of the altar. Thanks.

Got punked by amazon. The one last copy they had listed as in stock from Norman Camera was a mistake they said and they don't have any in stock.
I thought it was too good to be true that one was available.
Should sue their a$$ for distress due to teasing me with this false available copy.
Anyone know where to find a copy?

WOW!

It is a very good result, especially when you consider that this is a 17mm! shift!! I'd like to see what it can do at f8. Should be slightly sharper.

Specularist - care to show us a similar crop from full shift corners on a _21/24_Mpixel_camera_ with any previous shift lens of your choice? Sure, a 50 f1.8 on a D30 will give you sharper pixels. That means nothing. Go and learn something about _magnification_. Don't tell me you switched and now have envy... ;-)

I think you need f11 to pull in the corners when shifted. The lens is amazingly sharp wide open when unshifted but the corners are, as expected, slightly softer. When shifted to the maximum, as this shot was , f 11 seems to be the sweet spot. However with less aggressive shift f8 would give a slightly sharper image. Also, as I mentioned with the stitched image, no sharpening had been applied. With proper sharpening it would be difficult to see the difference between f8 & f11 IMO. You yourself Brainiac once posted that sometimes we are too concerned about slight defraction since sharpening can compensate for it fairly well. You see I read your posts.