File :-(, x, )
Lenses DB
Are lenses from the same company interchangeable? Like if I were to take a lens from a 35mm SLR from Canon to a DSLR made by Canon would it fit?
>> mrdevon
canon changed their lenses when they went to their EOS system. if you have an old FD lens it won't fit.

you'd figure it out pretty quick if you tried to put a FD lens on an EOS mount.
>> Anonymous
But I have switched lenses between my film EOS and my digital EOS.

So for Canon, if they're both EOS' then yes it will work.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112088
All EOS lenses work on all EOS bodies
all Dynax lenses work on all Dynax bodies
most nikon lenses DONT WORK AT ALL jk there is a massive compatibility chart.
Pentax lenses are compatible iirc, olympus arnt.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112094
Unless you're talking an EF-S lens and a film EOS. EF-S only works on their recent 1.6x crop cameras (i.e., everything but the 1-series, 5D, and D30/D60/10D)
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112098
crap i forgot about that too, i hate crop lenses, such a waste.
>> Anonymous
>>112099i hate crop lenses, such a waste.

Cheaper, lighter, smaller, sharper.

Yeah, it's a real waste.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112119
cheaper, yes
lighter, stop being a pussy.
smaller, stop being a pussy.
sharper, cheap + sharp, i dont think so.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>112121

Lighter and smaller are advantages if it lets you carry more, over a longer period of time. Hiking is the best example.

"cheap + sharp, i dont think so."

18-55 IS and 55-250 IS would like to have a word for you.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAX CorporationCamera ModelPENTAX K10DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsSensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern650Focal Length (35mm Equiv)82 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:11:24 00:57:56Exposure Time0.3 secF-Numberf/16.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/16.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length55.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width600Image Height523RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeMacro
>> Anonymous
>>112099
My 60mm macro EF-S begs to disagree.

That lens is fucking tits.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112136
Yeah i mean i would hate not to be able to use two of the best film bodies ever made.

oh you must be thinking of a different system.
>> Anonymous
>>112099


You know what would be even worse? If there were a system that had tons of overpriced FF lenses and no FF camera to put them on.

Oh, wait. Yeah, that Sony system sure is something else. Crop lenses, what a sill yidea.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112138
oh the fag delted his post after he realised he was wrong.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112139
this is what >>112136 was but i guess retards have a hard time using yotsuba.
>> Anonymous
>>112138

What, the Dynaxes? The ones with the piss-poor AF system compared to the F6 and EOS1V? Great.
>> Anonymous
sony, it's for the pros, lol
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
I suppose you could argue one advantage of using the 35mm format lenses on the crop bodies is the "sweet spot" effect that's often mentioned.

I am not surprised Sony are leaving their options open for a larger format later on. There's no reason to do it, especially as they are currently using many pre-designed lenses from the legacy of the old Minolta and others. It'd be more expensive to go through and change them all to crop only versions.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112150
You've got to post the image as well :P
>> Anonymous
>>112152I suppose you could argue one advantage of using the 35mm format lenses on the crop bodies is the "sweet spot" effect that's often mentioned.

If Butterfly said "crop sensors, such a waste" you could bring it up. But he said "crop lenses, such a waste." God forbid they make lenses optimized for the reduced circle.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112156
I did indeed say "such a waste", which you have decided to take as me meaning they are pointless.

No, i think they are a waste because I dont want to buy a lense i can only use on a few bodies. I dont think you shouldnt make them for the people who use crop sensors, but I personally would prefer to have my collection of lenses work on all the bodies in my system.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>112156

>You know what would be even worse? If there were a system that had tons of overpriced FF lenses and no
>FF camera to put them on.

I was thinking about that statement at the time. Just saying that they still have some merit and use and may end up being especially useful for the FF camera if and when it does come out. I'd imagine they'll have some plans for the future that we are not privy to.

As long as everyone has the field of view and creative options they need it's all good. I suppose Canon isn't everyone's cup of tea even if I like the system.
>> Anonymous
>>112160

Sony doesn't have a full frame camera, lol.

With that out of the way, why do you automatically assume you have to "upgrade" to full frame? 1.6 crop or any crop is great as it is. There is a great selection of lenses and as BA said, if I use FF lenses, I get the best of it since it's cropped.

The crop factor converts some lenses to telephoto for "free."
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112166
No, sony dont have a 35mm equiv yet, they are probably going to release the A900 as one, but until its officially announced we wont mention it.

However all the Dynax/maxxum film bodies that work 100% with the new lenses sony are releasing? I'd count them as part of the system even if they arnt new, are canon still releasing film bodies? There is a reason for 35mm frame lenses to exist on that mount and thinking otherwise is insane.

I also dont appreciate losing 6mm on my 11mm thanks to that crop.
>> Anonymous
>>112169

I'm a different Anon. I didn't bring up the film thing.

"I also dont appreciate losing 6mm on my 11mm thanks to that crop."

We're getting into a whole new argument here.

You went from saying crop lenses are a waste to crop sensors lose out on the wide end.

I was only trying to say you're an idiot for saying "i hate crop lenses, such a waste."
>> Anonymous
>>112169

The main reason that 35mm-format lenses remain as part of the Sony system is that when they bought KM, they could just slap a new badge on them and sell them. No re-engineering necessary, instant profit. They will again become important with the (assumed) release of a FF Sony DSLR, but until then they serve no practical benefit in the current system.

You cannot consider the Maxxum/Dynax film cameras as part of the current system in the same way you can consider the Nikon and Canon film bodies to be part of their respective systems. Sony killed off production of the KM film cameras, while Nikon continues to produce 2 film bodies (F6 and FM10) and Canon still produces 4 film bodies (EOS 1V HS, Elan 7NE, Rebel K2, Rebel T2).

Crop sensors are there for a reason - so you can buy an excellent DSLR for $500 instead of $3,000. The lenses are designed to perform better on those sensors. You can use FF lenses, on them, but you lose either zoom range or max aperture. Horses for courses, as they say.
>> Anonymous
Ah, guys I was just trolling, lol

Why do you have to take me seriously?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112174
okok lets ignore that.

I think crop lenses are a waste because I cant use them on my film/1.0x bodies. Why am i an idiot? Do you like buying limited gear, would you buy an mp3 player that can only play new files, or for slightly more would you get one that can play all the files you already have? Not the best example, but you should get it.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112166
The smaller sensor size comes with a corresponding drop in quality. Just as there's a noticeable improvement between 1/1.8" sensors in high-end P&S cameras and the APS-C sensors in most digital SLRs, there's another big jump in image quality when going from APS-C to 24x36mm.

You don't get that extra telephoto for free. You get that extra telephoto at the expense of image quality.

That being said, I'm firmly in the "1.6x crop is perfectly good, and even a 1/2.5" sensor can make great images in the right hands" camp. I'm just sayin', there is definitely a reason for full-frame, and it's definitely an upgrade from APS-C.
>> Anonymous
>>112181

Flawed analogy.

Why would you want to use crop lenses on a film or full frame body? Such lenses have already been invented and have been in existence for decades.

Crop lenses are made for crop sensors.

It's not our fault Sony doesn't have a full frame camera to use those full frame lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>112186

I don't think I've said full frame wasn't an upgrade to crop. But I did say no one is forcing you or automatically make the jump from crop to full frame. I've never invalidated its merits.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112181
They're not really a waste when you take into account how much cheaper they are. The EF-S line is the only way to get a real wide angle in the Canon system without spending an order of magnitude more money. And if want anything wider than a 28mm equivalent, EF-S is pretty much your only option.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>112186

Come on man - you know it is Hasselblad or nothing! ;)
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112189
AAAARRGHHH!!!!!

STOP BEING FUCKING RETARDS.

I HAVE NOT SAID CROP LENSES ARE SHIT, I SAID I DONT WANT TO GET THEM.

CROP LENSES ARE FINE FOR PEOPLE WHO DONT WANT TO USE ANYTHING BUT APS-C SENSORS.

I WANT TO USE FILM, FILM NEEDS NONCROPPED LENSES, SO I DONT WANT TO GET ANY CROPPED LENSES BECAUSE I WONT BE ABLE TO USE THEM FULLY.


DO YOU SEE WHAT IM GETTING AT, YOU ARE THE TROLLS.

(cruise control yo~)
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>112195

Cruising at high altitude.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112192
Putting '"upgrade"' in quotes like that implied that you didn't think it was an upgrade. Also, the comment about getting telephoto for free implied that you weren't taking into account the downside of crop sensors.
>> Anonymous
>>112186You don't get that extra telephoto for free. You get that extra telephoto at the expense of image quality.

Forgot this point.

Yeah sure, you lose out on some quality but is it really quantifiable? There's no arguing that 5D and 1D have great noise control and range and all that crap. But all else being equal, you're getting the best part of the frame with a crop.

And there's just something about getting a 360mm equivalent from a 200mm.
>> Anonymous
>>112198

Okay, I was on a roll there with Butterfly.

For the record, crop benefits more on the long end than wide.

Also for the record, Canon needs to learn how to make ultra wide lenses. Nikon 14-24 vs. Canon 14 mm, anyone?
>> Anonymous
Butterfly-baiting - the official sport of /p/
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112203
Its good to be needed.

so does everyone understand my position now? Any questions? DIE IN FIRE.
>> Anonymous
>>112204

That's not funny, my brother died that way.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112206
Your brother was hilarious when he died in fire, i was loving it.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112199
>Yeah sure, you lose out on some quality but is it really quantifiable? There's no arguing that 5D and 1D have great noise control and range and all that crap. But all else being equal, you're getting the best part of the frame with a crop.

True, but you could get the exact same effect by shooting full-frame and then cropping out the 1.6x sweet spot. Or, in the more likely case that the frame is fine all the way through, you can keep it as shot.

The middle of the lens might be the best, but that doesn't say that the rest of the frame is *bad*.
>> Anonymous
>>112211

H...how could you?

I am cutting myself between posts now. ;______;
>> Anonymous
>>112213

Using a crop sensor is better for the telephoto than simply using the larger sensor and cropping when it comes to getting that detail in the frame and final image. The boring faggots at dpreview went into it in more detail than anyone cares about, but they had a point.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
14mm vs. 14-24mm

Oh lawd, Canon what have you done?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>112218

Oops, forgot this picture.
>> Anonymous
>>112213

The same "effect", yes. The same resolution and printability? Not a chance. Crop sensors are wonderful for long-distance sports and I don't see them being replaced outright any time soon.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112220
Resolution?

You can get 20+mp from a full sized sensor, even at 1.5x crop thats still 20/1.5 = 13mp

most 1.5x sensors are 10mp some 8.

FAIL.
>> Anonymous
>>112226

Yeah, but anyone debating this issue would be considering a 5D or similar budget FF and not a 1DsMKIII. When you've got the money to spend on a body that costs the same as a car then who cares about squeezing what you can get out of your pennies?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112228
right, every time someone says something is going to be replaced, then when you point out its wrong, you cant come back with BUT BUT BUDGET.
>> Anonymous
>>112226

The 1Ds is for studio first and foremost.

And then you're talking about cropping the picture being still usable.

Fine but you forget that while a full frame being at 200mm, a crop is at 360mm.
>> Anonymous
>>112226most 1.5x sensors are 10mp some 8.

Yeah, maybe 2 years ago.

12 MP is the new 10 MP.
>> Anonymous
>>112226

A that resolution it has lower FPS and shorter time for the buffer to run out. Not so good for action. You're also having to focus, meter and so on for that small crop in the viewfinder and keep that in mind. Better to meter, frame and focus for the scene you need than have to do it for a small rectangle in the viewfinder (which may be hell for the automatic modes).
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>trolls

stop changing arguments.

20 is a conservative estimate for a full frame sensor, they are 22-24 now? 13 is still larger than 20.

studio? not what we're trolling about. the whole point is that a crop sensor is just a crop on a full frame, you can get exactly the same reach by cropping a full frame sensor to the same size and STILL have more resolution.

fps yes but thats not to do with the sensor its the rest of the camera. aiming at a smaller object? you have a bigger area to crop from so framing isnt as important, there are a million af points now so you cant complain about that.
>> Anonymous
>>11224620 is a conservative estimate for a full frame sensor, they are 22-24 now? 13 is still larger than 20.

what the fuck
>> Anonymous
>>112246you can get exactly the same reach by cropping a full frame sensor to the same size and STILL have more resolution.

>> 112236 while a full frame being at 200mm, a crop is at 360mm.

Sure, it's going to have the same reach.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112251
i should stop making up numbers, how come hassleblad get 30~mp and canon cant get more than 13?
>> Anonymous
>>112256

Well, congratulations. After saying stupid shit the entire thread all I can hope for you is to say you were just kidding the entire time.
>> Anonymous
>>112226

Who the fuck shoots long-distance sports with a 1DsIII?
>> Anonymous
>>112262

I don't think Butterfly knows the s in 1Ds is for studio.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112261
this thread was over from the 2nd post, then we had a shitstorm over everyone misenterpreting me then we got into a argument about sensor sizes.

So all ive gotten wrong is that crop sensors give better resolution than full frame ones which was due to me remembering something wrong. What else is there to say, this thread was just a giant argument against me.
>> Anonymous
>>112268this thread was just a giant argument against me

/p/ is a giant argument against you.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
Also 1D is a 1.3x crop in the cat. ive got.
>> Anonymous
>>112256how come hassleblad get 30~mp and canon cant get more than 13?

Let's not forget this little gem.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112269
But ofcourse, /p/ is the only board that knows me well enough and I know the subject well enough to argue well enough about.

>>112271
Id still quite like an explanation, is the hassleblad sensor 3x the size of a 35mm sensor?
>> Anonymous
>>112270

So? What does that have to do with anything? The 1D was never full frame.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112273
well you lot brought up the 1D when i was talking about full frame, i didnt mention it. Why did you when its not FF, its not aps-c but not 1.0 correct?
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>112272

I looked at the /p/ favourite Hasselblad specification sheet:

Sensor dimensions: 36.7x49.0 mm
Canon 1DsMLIII:36 x 24 mm

It's a digital medium format camera rather than a digital 35mm camera, if you see what I mean.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112279
I know its a medium format, but its 30mp from only 2x the sensor area. How come that sort of density cant be done by canon for the 5D? Or is the 5D too old and we need to wait for a new one?
>> Anonymous
>>112281

Off the top of my head, the H3D is 39 MP and the 1Ds III is 21.

It's not that far off but quite a bit of difference.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112282
Ah ok thats where i got the 20mp number from.

Well i've learnt something, have you anon?
>> Anonymous
>>112278

No one brought up the 1D. Everyone else said 1Ds. One is full frame, one isn't.

Well, after reading the thread, someone did say 1D when mentioning the 5D about noise. Easy to confuse.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112285
so 1D = ff and 1Ds = 1.3x + extra fps?

Anyway comparing models is pointless which is why i didnt do it.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>112288
> so 1D = ff and 1Ds = 1.3x + extra fps?

Other way around.

1D = 1.3X, fewer MP, higher FPS
1Ds = 1.0X, more MP, fewer FPS
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112291
This is why i never mentioned a single body, I dont know canons lineup (or Nikons) well enough to talk about the different models.

So long as you can get 20mp full frame sensors (which it looks like you can) then my argument is not only valid, but correct.
>> Anonymous
>>112294

No, your argument is neither valid nor correct because the main situation that the crop becomes useful is in long-range sports where huge telephotos are used. The 1Ds's 20MP sensor is not useful in that situation, as the FPS is too low and the buffer is too small. It's just not practical or effective.

For Canon, at least, the 1D is for sports and the 1Ds is for studio, and that's how the pros use them.
>> Anonymous
>>112298

As an addendum, the 1Ds also lacks the high ISO performance that's so important for a sports/PJ camera.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112298
>>112300
Why do you think i was trying not to mention bodies, ofc the smaller images from the crop are smaller so they are easier to move giving the (much) higher fps. High ISO yep too, but arnt the FF sensors more noise resistant?

I wasnt talking about camera performance, i was talking about image quality.

If you want SPEED then you drop IQ for that dont you, im not saying otherwise.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>112281

The 5D is an older camera and is supposed to be due for an update at some point(maybe Nov although fans are hoping closer to Feb). When it was new that was a respectable number of mp and they were much cleaner pixels thanks to the lower density at the time. Good high ISO performance compared to the APS-C ones too. It's still a damn good performer. If you don't need the ruggedness or speed of the pro bodies you could stick with it for your FF needs.

Well the 1DsMKIII gets 21mp from that smaller area and the Hasselblad's larger format is getting 22 or 39 (numbers of mp depending on the model). Not such a big difference for a much larger and more expensive sensor? But it is at 16bit with a better dynamic range and without compromising with cramming the pixels in like they do with P&S with high mp. It only takes a shot once about every one and a half seconds though and that's still going to fill a buffer eventually for some! It also needs its own cooling system to stop it overheating.

They're using a different design of top end CCD sensor (why these babies cost $40000) and the IQ and design of the camera is quite different as a result. It's almost apples and oranges.

With the density of the pixels in the 1DsMKII they are already getting folks worried about pushing past the limits of the good glass that is available. A lot of folk have noticed how bad anything other than good copies of good glass can look when pixel peeping with it. Noise issues aside, squashing more into it might not see any real benefits if the glass cannot resolve any more detail.
>> Anonymous
>>112302
>High ISO yep too, but arnt the FF sensors more >noise resistant?

Depends. The 1Ds has a pixel density so high that it kills the FF noise advantage, in fact it can't even reach the ISo speeds the 1D is capable of.

With the D3, Nikon took a different tactic and put a few more pixels (12) on a FX sensor and came out with world-beating noise performance. It's all about pixel density.