Here we go again - if you were starting over...

[dwdallam]

a) I would say that Canon will go full frame only for the future, unles any of you mroe experienced people know a reason why they would not. I mean after economies ofe scale kick in, which they are already, the price diffrence between a full and medium sensor will be negligible I would think.

 Why not just use the Canon lenses at a 1.6 crop? What's wrong with that? If the problem is that you want a sider lens, you could buy the wise that only fits teh 1.6 crop. I don't know what you mean when you say "lack of fast top quality lenses for the 1.6" when I'm using a 70-200 L f 2.8 IIS

On point (a), I have already stated often my reasons for being very skeptical about those huge 24x36mm sensors every being price competitive with the ones of less than half the area used with formats like DX and Four Thirds. The 5D might already be achieving most of the available economies of scale, and still costs $2,000 more than the 20D, $2,700 more than entry level DSLR's.

The price gap to "most affordable 24x36mm" has only shrunk from $3,000 three years ago when Kodak and Canon released ther 24x36mm DSLRs: then it was $5,000 for the cheapest 24x36mm, the 14/n, compared to $2,000 for smaller format DSLR's like the Nikon D100 and Canon D60.


On point (, it is with the shorter focal length lenses specifically for the 1.6x format where Canon lacks "fast top quality lenses".

In particular, for many photographers, the wide to moderate telephoto zoom is the most heavily used lens. Canon's best offering is the 17-85 f/4-5.6 with slow, entry-level apertures, leading for one thing to a distinctly dim viewfinder image in low light. For comparison, a lower price gets the Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 (or the Olympus 14-54 f/2.8-3.5), and at the top of the line, there is the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 (and the forthcoming Olympus 14-35 f/2).

Another more specialized Canon 1.6x lack is 180º fisheye, which Nikon DX has (and Olympus Four will have soon). Canon advertising explicitly uses the lack of such fish-eye coverage with 1.6x as one reason for going to 24x36mm format instead. If I wanted 180º fish-eye, it would instead be a reason to prefer Nikon DX!

Fish eye lens is correct, from fuirther reading and talking with my ffeind here where I live. However, are you saying that the 20D does --or Cannon -- not have a fast medium lens no matter what? That is really a bummer if so.

[Ben Rubinstein]

Nikon for the flash system and a AI Servo switch. I started with Canon (AE-1) and progressed through with it and now, although I did give some serious thought to the D2X, decided that FF was the better and cheaper option than changing over systems.

[BJL]

However, are you saying that the 20D does --or Cannon -- not have a fast medium lens no matter what? That is really a bummer if so.

If you want a "standard" zoom lens to use with 1.6x format, giving wide coverage in that format comparable to the now standard 28mm in 35mm format, the Canon choices are clear:
- 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 EF-S
enty level kit lens
- 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS EF-S
stabilized and according to some optically good, but still small maximum apertures, equivalent to f/6.4-8.8 in 35mm format as far as minimum DOF and amount of light delivered to the sensor and viewfinder.
- 17-40 f/4 L EF (so works with 35mm format too)
high quality (the only "L" option), but small zoom range and smallish maximum aperture: equivalent to f/6.4 in 35mm format.

As I have mentioned before, Canon seems to be deliberately limiting themselves to only "mid-level amateur" in its EF-S lens offerings. My guess is that this is to strengthen their case that if you are committed to Canon and want a good array of high quality lenses, you must pay the premium for a 24x36mm format DSLR. Along with Nikon DX and Olympus 4/3's, even Pentax DA DSLR lenses offers more than Canon in some ways: Pentax has a 16-45 f/4 DA standard zoom and one of the very few wide primes specially for DSLR formats, the 14mm f/2.8 DA.

[Ray]

Fish eye lens is correct, from fuirther reading and talking with my ffeind here where I live. However, are you saying that the 20D does --or Cannon -- not have a fast medium lens no matter what? That is really a bummer if so.

What's a medium range? The excellent 16-35/2.8 is reasonably fast. That becomes a 26-56/2.8 on a 20D. Quite a useful range I would have thought. Wider than that and the choices are slower lenses with the widest being the EF-S 10-22mm. An alternative would be the Sigma 12-24mm. Both are a little disappointing but fair value at the price.

I think what BJL is getting at, there are no high quality, fast, wide angle lenses designed specifically for the Canon APS-C cameras, as there are for the Olympus 4/3rds cameras, for example.

This state of affairs seems to imply that Canon has not made up its mind about the long term viability of the APS-C format.

[BJL]

... the 20D viewfinder does seem a bit, er, cramped, to use your words.

One solution I hope for with smaller format DSLR viewfinders is clip-on magnifiers: about 1.4x or less would bring image size up to what we are used to with 35mm format. VF brightness would suffer, so you could have problems at times with lenses dimmer than about f/4, which is why it is probably not a good idea to add so much magnification permanently in the VF itself.

Small/dim VF images is one reason I would very much avoid lenses dimmer than about f/4 with the smaller DSLR formats.

[BJL]

What's a medium range? The excellent 16-35/2.8 is reasonably fast. That becomes a 26-56/2.8 on a 20D. Quite a useful range I would have thought.

Ray,
  when was teh last time you say a U$1,400, 1.3 pound, 26-56mm standard zoom?

You are straining credibility in suggesting that teh 16-35/2.8 is a reasonable choice in this day and age. Current practice is about 3x for the high end (14-35, 17-55, 28-70 or 24-70), and more often 4x (14-54, 18-70, 28-105 or 24-105).

Moreso when your adjective "excellent" is only true by the somewhat lower standards expected of an ultra-wide zoom rateh rthen for a standard zoom. The MTF graphs for the 16-35/2.8 look far worse than the far cheaper Olympus 14-54/2.8-3.5, even when one only looks over the 15mm radius of the EF-S image circle. This is of course the hazard of cropping heavily from an ultra-wide design.

[Mark D Segal]

This state of affairs seems to imply that Canon has not made up its mind about the long term viability of the APS-C format.

I think this state of affairs and other evidence indicates that Canon indeed has made up its mind about its future market niche. It must cost a fortune to design, test and gear-up to manufacture and market a new lens, let alone a variety of them on the same theme. So if you are a manufacturer committed to APS-C sensors and intend that to be your long-term strategy you would put your eggs in that basket and probably not bother developing a 5D.

Technical change and scale economies are bound to keep driving the costs of high quality 24*36 sensors downward. Whether these costs ever converge with those of high quality APS-C sensors isn't the critical point - the critical point is whether Canon believes they will become cost-effective enough to return a profit to Canon at the market volume they would need to justify producing them.

Regarding market volume, a helpful factor for Canon is that they now virtually own the 24*36 digital territory which is attractive to alot of people, and they may also perceive that other forthcoming developments of digital image processing technology will stand their larger, mega-megapixel sensors in good stead. Recalling that they make their own sensors and are heavily involved with various of the big players in the field, they are best positioned to make the strategic judgment call and it looks as if they have.

[dwdallam]

- - - Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L 1200.00 ouch
- - - Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L 1400.00 double ouch

I'm thinking about the 16-35 for my 20D to compliment my 70-200 for now. The gap is then only 56mm. But 1400.00 for that lens is sooooo much money to me. I want it though, I want it, I want it, I want. . . Really, I NEED it more than anything else. I only have one lens right now, and I want the fast lens for shallow DoF. And given the x1.6 crop, I need that range I think to compliment the 70-200 I ahve, which is effectively 112 to 320.

[Ray]

Ray,
  when was teh last time you say a U$1,400, 1.3 pound, 26-56mm standard zoom?

True! The 16-35 was too expensive for me which is why I opted for the Sigma 15-30 at less than half the price. It's heavier and bulkier, 1 to 1.5 stop slower, but I found my copy to be at least as sharp as the 16-35 I tested in the shop before buying. When I need something just a bit longer, I switch to my excellent and even more excellent value 50/1.8 prime.

What I'd really like to see are some comparison shots of the same scene and equal FoVs between the Olympus E-300 and Canon 20D so we can see just how much better the 4/3rds images are. One can argue endlessly theoretical considerations based on theoretical MTF charts adjusted to compensate for different sized sensors, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I've got no axe to grind; no chip on my shoulder. Show me the evidence   .

[Ray]

I think this state of affairs and other evidence indicates that Canon indeed has made up its mind about its future market niche. It must cost a fortune to design, test and gear-up to manufacture and market a new lens, let alone a variety of them on the same theme. So if you are a manufacturer committed to APS-C sensors and intend that to be your long-term strategy you would put your eggs in that basket and probably not bother developing a 5D.

Mark,
So I take it you believe there are no significant developments of the 20D on the drawing board, such as a 12mp APS-C camera possibly available in a few months or a year's time?

Could be Canon are quite happy with the strategy of providing a cheaper DSLR for beginners and non-professionals, and a upgrade path to the full frame sensor at a reasonable premium, and that's how it should be, in my view, until we reach a point when the additional cost of providing a full frame 35mm sensor is relatively marginal, say 50% more instead of 150% more.

[tshort]

Ray,
  when was teh last time you say a U$1,400, 1.3 pound, 26-56mm standard zoom?

True! The 16-35 was too expensive for me which is why I opted for the Sigma 15-30 at less than half the price. It's heavier and bulkier, 1 to 1.5 stop slower, but I found my copy to be at least as sharp as the 16-35 I tested in the shop before buying. When I need something just a bit longer, I switch to my excellent and even more excellent value 50/1.8 prime.

What I'd really like to see are some comparison shots of the same scene and equal FoVs between the Olympus E-300 and Canon 20D so we can see just how much better the 4/3rds images are. One can argue endlessly theoretical considerations based on theoretical MTF charts adjusted to compensate for different sized sensors, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I've got no axe to grind; no chip on my shoulder. Show me the evidence   .

This is a great discussion, all.  Between this one and the various threads dwdallam started on the 20D, I'm getting much clearer about my decision.

Note to DWD:  instead of a new 16-35 2.8L, I'm looking at a previous version of it - the 17-35 2.8L.  That silly millimeter longer translates into half-price on ebay, if you're up for a second-hand lens.  Something to think about.

I'm still trying to decide whether to go that direction, and buy a 50 mm (1.4=$320, 1.8=$80 - now there's an expensive bit of f/stop) to fill in between that and the 70-200 2.8; or go with the 24-70 2.8L, and wind up a bit too long on the wide end (at least until I move up to a full-frame rig ;-)

[Mark D Segal]

Ray, unless they can come up with a 12 MP APS-C model that would be significantly cheaper than a 5D, it wouldn't make sense for them to go that route. But who really knows except Canon? You have to always look at this in terms of the target market. Let us say for sake of simplicity they have four target market niches: snapshooters, amateurs, prosumers and professionals. The 20D and more so the 5D are targeted for the prosumer and professional gadget bags. These are the people prepared to lay out the big bucks for gear. Snapshooters don't count in the range of cameras we are discussing, and prosumers/professionals would be a big commercial risk for an APS-C that somewhat duplicates the 5D. SO they would need to be able to produce a 12MP APS-C cheap enough to excite a large enough segment of the amateur market to make it worthwhile. I wonder.

[giles]

Ray, unless they can come up with a 12 MP APS-C model that would be significantly cheaper than a 5D, it wouldn't make sense for them to go that route.

I am dubious that Canon will produce such a camera, but they might -- it would serve a few different purposes:

a) a high pixel density camera (already, some photographers prefer the 20D to the 1DII for higher pixel density)
 a direct competitor for Nikon's D2x and much rumoured D200
c) an interesting upgrade path from the 1.6x crop factor cameras without having to change lenses (the intertia option, maybe)

There's, what, a USD$2000 price difference between the 20D and the 5D?  Kinda makes me wonder ... and I expect Canon want interesting announcements for PMA and Photokina next year.

Does Santa give rainchecks?

Giles

[Mark D Segal]

Giles,

Re (a): not clear the amateur market would pay for 12MP versus 8MP. 8MP is already huge for that segment. Again, depends on the price difference and numbers of up-graders/new consumers they can count on. Risky basis for a commercial decision.

Re (: The 5D is already a direct competitor to the D2X and full-frame to boot.

Re ©: Crop factor may not be a huge issue for that market segment. Risky basis for a commercial decision.

In sum, not sure if I were Canon these factors would convince me - but then again - I'm not Canon  

[BJL]

What I'd really like to see are some comparison shots of the same scene and equal FoVs between the Olympus E-300 and Canon 20D so we can see just how much better the 4/3rds images are[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=50914\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Since the 20D costs substantially more than the E-300 (or E-500), surely the more relevant question for most people would be whether the 20D images are better, and by enough to justify the extra cost?

In case you continue to misunderstand my position, my general judgement is that the image quality differences between smaller and larger DSLR formats are far less than often claimed, but with only rare occasions of actual advantage to the smaller formats, such as possibly with macro photography. Smaller DSLR formats appeal to me for their balance of ergonomic and cost advantages with good image quality, not some delusion of superior image quality.

[tshort]

Well, fwiw, I made my decision right before this board went down - bought the Canon 20D, EF 24-105 f/4L USM IS (ok, so I'm waiting for that one), EF 50mm f/1.4 USM (great to have anyways, and definitely necessary while I wait for the previous one), EF70-200 f/2.8L USM IS, 1.4x TC.  

I'm very happy with the gear so far - a bit awkward getting used to autofocus (can you believe it?) combined with autoexposure.  "When you press half way, what sticks...?"  

I figure as long as I am starting over, and Canon seem to have such a strong commitment to full frame, it makes sense to take advantage of that fact and get the good glass from the start, and when I find myself actually making money in this business, move up to a 1Dxxx body (or 5D).  

I also picked up an Elan 7 film body as a backup/film body which I am really liking - the controls, form factor, logic are all very similar to the 20D, so it's not too jarring to switch back and forth.

Already have over 1000 clicks behind me - starting to learn how to work all this stuff.