Why Canon didn't come out with a 12-24 f/4 like Nikon

[umd]

...then if sheer resolution meant perfection for everybody, everybody would be lugging a 8*10 instead of 'acceptable' AND 'convenient' 35mm.

[jim_larson1]

I second that.

 

This is why I take both a P&S and a SLR on trips. There are definately places I will take a P&S and not take a SLR.

________

 

As to the sensor size: Bigger is better. FF is better than 1.6 crop. I think "marketing" and the pace of technical development will dictate what the next cameras look like ;) For my part, it will be quite some time till I outgrow the 10D (I like telephotos)

 

I do think Canon is taking a great approach by making the DSLR's EOS compatible. With a full lineup of lenses, and an established EF lens customer base, it helps the markitability of their DSLRs. By making a cutting edge "low" cost DSLR, they help the markitabilty of thier mature, fully developed, cash cow EF lenses.

 

As a consumer, I see it as a win-win.

[ilkka_nissila]

There are many subjects which cannot be photographed well with a 8x10 inch view camera. Try candids, or wildlife photography, or any other moving subject. It's not about convenience (alone). Lenses for 35 mm cameras have fast maximum apertures, and long lenses which are less expensive and transportable (and not f/16 or something). Not to mention frame rate.

 

Like it has been pointed out so many times before, there is little size/weight to be gained by using a 50% smaller sensor than 35 mm. Especially for Canon's mount. There is much quality to be gained, however, by using a 24x36 sensor. And once the pixel density of the FF sensor matches that of the smaller ones, there isn't anything lost by cropping 50% off the full frame vs. using a 1/2-frame camera in the first place, so there goes your tele advantage. Look at the specs of Nikon's 12-24 f/4 lens ... not all that small or light.

[adam_kuan1]

> And once the pixel density of the FF sensor matches that of the

smaller ones, there isn't anything lost by cropping 50% off the full frame vs. using a 1/2-frame camera in the first place, so there goes your tele

advantage. Look at the specs of Nikon's 12-24 f/4 lens ... not all that small or light.<

 

A silicon chip equal in density and twice the size will be at least

20 times more expensive to manufacture. The main tele advantage with smaller sensors will be in lens size and weight. That is, a 300mm F2.8

lens design for half frame sensor will be lighter and smaller.

There will be no advantage in size and weight for wide angle lenses

adapted to FF camera bodies because of the mount size and the longer-than-needed mount-to-sensor distance. Look at the new digital PS cameras coming out like the Olympus's ones, their sensors are actually smaller than their predecessors and still able to outperform them. Look at current pro camcorders, they are much smaller that those from 20 year ago. I believe current DSLR cameras are probably only transitional ones, they all came from existing 35mm line. My guess is than in 5 years or less we will see a new line of sub FF pro digital camera system. Smaller sensor system will be more compact and lighter

(you can't really compare them with current retrofited sub FF system) with much faster shutter and x-sync flash. Current DSLR systems are not dead but they will not be the future either.

This has been a very informative discussion topic. Plese do not

take it too serious and go out a shoot some pictures.:-)

[eos 10 fan]

I 'borrowed' this from a post on the EOS list <br>

Thanks "Mr. Bill". (PPM = pixels per mm)<p>

 

Model   Sensor Size     Resolution      MP      PPM    Mag <br>

D30     22.7 x 15.1     2160 x 1440     3.25    95     1.6X <br>

D60     22.7 x 15.1     3072 x 2048     6.3     135    1.6X <br>

10D     22.7 x 15.1     3088 x 2056     6.3     136    1.6X <br>

1D      28.7 x 19.1     2496 x 1665     4.15    87     1.3X <br>

1Ds     35.6 x 23.8     4064 x 2704     11.1    114    1.0X <br>

DCS 520 22.5 x 15.1     1728 x 1152     2.0     77     1.6X <br>

DCS 560 27.4 x 18.1     3040 x 2008     6.3     111    1.3X <br>

DCS 1   27.6 x 18.4     3060 x 2036     6       111    1.3X <br>

DCS 3c  20.5 x 16.4     1268 x 1012     1.3     62     1.3X <br>

DCS 5c  13.8 x 9.2      1524 x 1012     1.5     110    2.6X??? <br>

"There's little data on the DCS 5c's lens magnification factor (Mag), so I (Mr.Bill) calculated it."

<p>

 

--

[ilkka_nissila]

Adam, a 300/2.8 won't be much different in weight for a sub-FF sensor size. The covering circle of teles is generally quite large and little is gained by making it smaller. The front element largely dictates the size of the lens.