OT: which camera?

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

<snip>

| > And with this new generation of wide angles I'll happily
| > stop with this sized format.
|
| I think this new format is great. Basically it means smaller, lighter
| and cheaper lenses. Great for walkers.

I'm just worried that they'll ditch the 1.6x sensor and these smaller lenses
will be obsolete. Might be safter to use the 35mm auto-focus lenses
instead?

| Paul

Ste

W. D. Grey said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You know the
lens that came with the 300D is a one off.

Not any more it isn't.

As I understand it my lens that came with my 300D can't be used on
another Canon. Is that right?

It was true at the time. It can also be used on the newer 20D
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

W. D. Grey said:

Quoted message said:

Why do you say that?

Paul old son, you're too ready for an argument.

Mine was a GOL (remember Glib one Liner)

You left the word "think" out of "You don't digital camera
evolution....etc."

Oh I see, didn't notice that, sorry.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>, Phil Cook
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As I understand it my lens that came with my 300D can't be used on
another Canon. Is that right?

It was true at the time. It can also be used on the newer 20D

Fair comment Phil, but I can't see my ever owning one of those. Things
are moving toooo fast.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

Phil Cook said:

Quoted message said:

As I understand it my lens that came with my 300D can't be used on
another Canon. Is that right?

It was true at the time. It can also be used on the newer 20D

As can the other four EF-S lenses.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

ste© said:

I'm just worried that they'll ditch the 1.6x sensor and these smaller
lenses will be obsolete.

Why would they suddenly ditch something that is proving so successful?
The first EF-S lenses were cheapos, so you wouldn't have lost much if
they did become obsolete. But I think the fact that they are now
extending the range with some expensive lenses indicates that they are
now committed to producing more and more cameras in this format.

Some other companies are committed to making a standard of the 4:3
format lenses as they call them. The fact is that smaller sensors suit
digital camera design much better. I don't think these lenses are going
to become obsolete, I think we're seeing the development of a new
standards.

It's not just Canon, Sigma are also developing a range of lenses
specifically to suit DSLRs, which are suitable for use on the Canons.
http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/a_pages/digital-only-lenses.htm

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

Phil Cook said:

As it already is by all accounts with the 1Ds. Even the Mk I needs to
have very good glass mounted on it to give of its best.

Indeed, which means we may not be far off the practical megapixel limit
for 1.6x sensors. If 17MP is the practical limit for full frame
sensors, maybe 10-12MP may be the limit for 1.6x sensors?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| ste© wrote:
|
| > I'm just worried that they'll ditch the 1.6x sensor and these smaller
| > lenses will be obsolete.
|
| Why would they suddenly ditch something that is proving so successful?

Who said anything about 'suddenly?' I'm thinking over time, like over 2-3
years or whatever. By the time I've built up a stockpile of EF-S lenses, a
new camera will come out (after several new ones before that) and it won't
take the EF-S lens, but perhaps a new standard. That's the worry. ...if
they 'suddenly' ditched it soon, I wouldn't be so hard done by, as you say,
the lens that came with it didn't cost much anyway.

| The first EF-S lenses were cheapos, so you wouldn't have lost much if
| they did become obsolete. But I think the fact that they are now
| extending the range with some expensive lenses indicates that they are
| now committed to producing more and more cameras in this format.

Sure, until another manufacture does something ground-breaking, then the
market is open again and new formats might come. Don't forget, it was only
a few weeks ago when we were saying their would probably never be a medium
format digital camera, then one came along (perfect timing!!).

| Some other companies are committed to making a standard of the 4:3
| format lenses as they call them. The fact is that smaller sensors suit
| digital camera design much better.

I agree, so long as they are forward-compatible, in the same way as people
can use their 35mm lenses now.

| I don't think these lenses are going
| to become obsolete, I think we're seeing the development of a new
| standards.

That's the worry - the development of new standards, which might leave my
EF-S lenses obsolete (we come full-circle...)

| It's not just Canon, Sigma are also developing a range of lenses
| specifically to suit DSLRs, which are suitable for use on the Canons.
| http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/a_pages/digital-only-lenses.htm

Hey, how come you aint bought one yet? ;-) Are you waiting for the new
standard to take over? ;-)

| Paul

Ste

On 17/10/04 6:23 pm, in article [email hidden], "Paul

Saunders said:

10-22mm

The most needed I guess. A snip at £650! Inevitable I guess. Bet this is a
great lense; hope you're saving hard Paul!

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

Paul Saunders said:

W. D. Grey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It hasn't, but it will be. You don't digital camera evolution will
stop at the 20D do you? Might be worth waiting for the 12MP 40D!
;-)

You didn't stop to think when you wrote this methinks :-)

Quoted message said:

Why do you say that? It seems a logical conclusion to draw; 10D - 6MP,
20D - 8MP, 30D - 10MP, 40D - 12MP.

Quoted message said:

Of course it's pure speculation, they may not increase by 2MP each time
and they may decide to change the naming pattern (they moved straight
from the G3 to G5 - the G3 should really have been called the G4).

Since doubling the linear resolution means quadrupling the number of
pixels, I doubt if there's much point to adding 2MP to an 8MP
camera. In terms of performance of course -- you can always sell
something with a bigger number to penis-measurers.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:53:09 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden] (Chris

Malcolm) said:

Paul Saunders said:

W. D. Grey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> It hasn't, but it will be. You don't digital camera evolution will
> stop at the 20D do you? Might be worth waiting for the 12MP 40D!
> ;-)

You didn't stop to think when you wrote this methinks :-)

Quoted message said:

Why do you say that? It seems a logical conclusion to draw; 10D - 6MP,
20D - 8MP, 30D - 10MP, 40D - 12MP.

Quoted message said:

Of course it's pure speculation, they may not increase by 2MP each time
and they may decide to change the naming pattern (they moved straight
from the G3 to G5 - the G3 should really have been called the G4).

Since doubling the linear resolution means quadrupling the number of
pixels, I doubt if there's much point to adding 2MP to an 8MP
camera. In terms of performance of course -- you can always sell
something with a bigger number to penis-measurers.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

That holds true for most things. That's why it is mostly men that buy
big cars, big cameras with long lenses etc and then discuss the ins an
outs of their purchases or proposed purchases add infinitum with their
mates down at the pub or on newsgroups. Check out the newsgroups about
gadgets, GPSs, short wave radio and cars. They always have a huge
number of writers who are nearly all male with a noticeable lack of
female contribution.
How do females make decisions on what to buy as they cant use the male
"yard stick"

Norman

ste© said:

Who said anything about 'suddenly?' I'm thinking over time, like
over 2-3 years or whatever.

That would be sudden.

Quoted message said:

By the time I've built up a stockpile of
EF-S lenses, a new camera will come out

New DSLRs have been coming out for many years now, we just haven't taken
much notice of them because of the price.

Quoted message said:

(after several new ones
before that) and it won't take the EF-S lens, but perhaps a new
standard.

Companies don't make new standards every day. When's the last time
Canon introduced a new lens fitting? They've been using EF lenses since
forever. It's taken this long to settle on a digital format that they
are happy with.

Quoted message said:

That's the worry. ...if they 'suddenly' ditched it soon,
I wouldn't be so hard done by, as you say, the lens that came with it
didn't cost much anyway.

I don't think they've introduced this new EF-S mount lightly.
Originally perhaps, as a test, to see how sales went, but since they've
gone through the roof I think they've decided to stick with it. I very
much doubt they'd start designing a range of expensive EF-S lenses if
they were likely to drop it in a few years time. People would be really
[censored] at that.

Besides, what new standard would they choose, and why? A smaller
sensor? Why? No reason. A larger sensor? Well there's the 1.3x but
they haven't introduced a special mount for that, it's too similar to
35mm.

It's possible of course, but I don't think they'd have started designing
decent lenses specifically for that mount if they weren't committed to
continuing it.

Quoted message said:

Sure, until another manufacture does something ground-breaking, then
the market is open again and new formats might come.

What have other manufacturers got to do with it? Other manufacturers
are already establishing their own standards, Nikon is making lenses
specifically for their 1.5x sensors, others are using the new 4/3
standard. But since Canon only make lenses for Canon cameras, other
manufacturers standards are irrelevant to Canon, and Nikon.

Quoted message said:

Don't forget,
it was only a few weeks ago when we were saying their would probably
never be a medium format digital camera, then one came along (perfect
timing!!).

I was just saying that there didn't need to be, since it's the digital
back that does all the work. I don't know what's so "digital" about the
front bit, but there's no change of standard there, exisiting MF lenses
will work on it.

Quoted message said:

I agree, so long as they are forward-compatible, in the same way as
people can use their 35mm lenses now.

The reason DSLR manufacturers have been using 35mm for so long is
because it's such a well established standard, and many photographers
already have quite an investment in 35mm lenses, so it was natural to
take advantage of that. However, the holy grail of designing full frame
sensors for 35mm lenses has proved so problematical that all the main
camera manufacturers are now starting to design lenses specifically for
smaller sensors, i.e. smaller sensors are becoming standard for DSLRs.
It's the full frame designs like the 1Ds that may turn out to be the
digital dinosaurs IMO.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't think these lenses are going
to become obsolete, I think we're seeing the development of a new
standards.

That's the worry - the development of new standards, which might
leave my EF-S lenses obsolete (we come full-circle...)

But these *are* the new standards! It doesn't make economical sense to
design different shape lens mounts every few years.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

Andy Howell said:

Quoted message said:

10-22mm

The most needed I guess. A snip at £650! Inevitable I guess. Bet
this is a great lense; hope you're saving hard Paul!

£571 from The Digital Camera Company.
http://www.digital-cameras.com/Camera_Accessories-6_sc/Lenses__Lens_Adap
tors-37/Canon_EOS_Lens_1022_EFS_USM_f35__f45-2346.html

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

Paul Saunders said:

The whole idea of RAW files is that the image *isn't* processed
in-camera first!

Of course its processed in-camera - just that a significant chunk is
left out. Why do you think it takes time to empty buffer? Not just
writing to CF, as confirmed by write times for base CF vs 40x CF

Mark

..
Mark Cavendish
Cardiff, Wales

In article <[email hidden]>, Mark Cavendish
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Paul Saunders said:

The whole idea of RAW files is that the image *isn't* processed
in-camera first!

Of course its processed in-camera

Well that depends upon what you mean by processed. If you mean
processing of the image, as mentioned by Paul, it isn't. If you mean
formatting and lossless compression of the data then it is.

Quoted message said:

- just that a significant chunk is
left out. Why do you think it takes time to empty buffer? Not just
writing to CF, as confirmed by write times for base CF vs 40x CF

The bottleneck with 40x CF may not be the write speed of the CF but may
be the speed of the camera's CF interface.

--

Dominic Sexton
http://www.dscs.demon.co.uk/

Dominic Sexton said:

The bottleneck with 40x CF may not be the write speed of the CF but may
be the speed of the camera's CF interface.

More often than not it is. I reckon my KM A2 is maxed out at about 20x
so the 80x card I have in it is wasted, until it comes to reading the
files off the card onto a 'puter with a card reader.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

Dominic Sexton said:

Well that depends upon what you mean by processed. If you mean
processing of the image, as mentioned by Paul, it isn't. If you mean
formatting and lossless compression of the data then it is.

Yeah, the preparation of the image - not the subsequent processing

Quoted message said:

The bottleneck with 40x CF may not be the write speed of the CF but may
be the speed of the camera's CF interface.

It could be, true, but you'd think this would be a relatively
straightforward thing to get right. I still go with preparation of
image (until someone tells me I'm plain wrong!)
:-)

Mark

..
Mark Cavendish
Cardiff, Wales

In article <[email hidden]>, Mark Cavendish
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Dominic Sexton said:

Well that depends upon what you mean by processed. If you mean
processing of the image, as mentioned by Paul, it isn't. If you mean
formatting and lossless compression of the data then it is.

Yeah, the preparation of the image - not the subsequent processing

Quoted message said:

The bottleneck with 40x CF may not be the write speed of the CF but may
be the speed of the camera's CF interface.

It could be, true, but you'd think this would be a relatively
straightforward thing to get right.

The CF interface is a data bus that will have been designed to run at a
certain speed (most probably that specified in the CF interface
documentation). It is unlikely that they will have designed it to run
considerably faster than the speed of the CF cards available at the time
unless they knew that the faster cards were soon to be released.

Quoted message said:

I still go with preparation of
image (until someone tells me I'm plain wrong!)
:-)

When the camera manufacturers start saying that their products have been
designed to take advantage of 40x cards we will know that they have
designed the bus to run at the appropriate speed.

--

Dominic Sexton
http://www.dscs.demon.co.uk/

The message <[email hidden]>
from Dominic Sexton <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Mark Cavendish
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Dominic Sexton said:

Well that depends upon what you mean by processed. If you mean
processing of the image, as mentioned by Paul, it isn't. If you mean
formatting and lossless compression of the data then it is.

Yeah, the preparation of the image - not the subsequent processing

Quoted message said:

The bottleneck with 40x CF may not be the write speed of the CF but may
be the speed of the camera's CF interface.

It could be, true, but you'd think this would be a relatively
straightforward thing to get right.

Quoted message said:

The CF interface is a data bus that will have been designed to run at a
certain speed (most probably that specified in the CF interface
documentation). It is unlikely that they will have designed it to run
considerably faster than the speed of the CF cards available at the time
unless they knew that the faster cards were soon to be released.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I still go with preparation of
image (until someone tells me I'm plain wrong!)
:-)

Quoted message said:

When the camera manufacturers start saying that their products have been
designed to take advantage of 40x cards we will know that they have
designed the bus to run at the appropriate speed.

Write speed test results for 19 cameras:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007

For those interested a hands on look at the Canon 20D:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6458-7153

And a technical preview of a prototype 20D with shutter lag tests etc.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E20D/E20DA.HTM

And Steve posted his full review a week ago. It is the standardized
test photographs that are useful on this site - this feature is sadly
lacking on http://www.dpreview.com/ which is otherwise excellent.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/20d.html

Deryck

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E20D/E20DA.HTM

In article <BD9803BF.38E70%andy.howellNOSPAM@ecotrendDOTorgDOTuk>,
andy.howellNOSPAM@ecotrendDOTorgDOTuk says...

Quoted message said:

On 16/10/04 5:13 pm, in article
[email hidden], "Darren G"

Quoted message said:

in my view yes. As rather a regular at the my local shop, they let me
take both the Canon and Sigma to trial (actually the guy recommended I
do so as he had already returned his EF-S). Based on my trial across
apertures and focal lengths I preferred the Sigma. Neither were awful
(or exceptional) but I just found that the Sigma gave a crisper image.
It seemed to have the edge in sharpness/resolution and IMO gave a better
colour saturation. This was by no means a scientific analysis but just
a matter of taking a number of shot, mainly landscape but some others to
check other lengths and apertures, and looking at the results. The
judgement was purely based on my subjective appraisal of the resultant
images. Maybe other people who look at things differently would come to
a different choice.

Rather dangerous this, claiming to prefer something over Canon!

that's why I left the country for 2 weeks after posting it :-)

--
Darren