Which System? Why?

[Solarflare]

Phrone to switch lens mount - EF is already from 1987, so a switch might occur any day now SCNR.

Oops ! I accidentally put an insider joke into my posting that might be impossible to understand for a newbie.


That line was poking fun at the fact that Canon had so far 3 different mounts for their SLRs (initially FL in 1964, FD since 1971, currently EF since 1987), while Nikon stayed true with their original mount (F) although so-called "pre-AI" lenses from 1959 to 1977 will need to be either fixed or be used on only the lowend bodies (D3x00 and D5x00 line) or on the Nikon Df.

The advantage for Canon users - all their EF lenses work on all EF bodies with no compability issue whatsoever. The advantage for Nikon users - they can get dirt cheap, but really high quality manual glas on the used market, however they have to consider various compability issues among the many iterations of the Nikon F lens mount. For example some of the newest lenses like the new AF-S 200-500mm f5.6 VR now have fully electronic apertures which makes them incompatible with any Nikon film camera including the most recent F6.


Another fun fact: Another difference between Canon and Nikon with lenses is by the way that half format lenses for Canon (EF-S) really only work with half format DSLRs, while Nikon half format (DX) lenses work on both large and small bodies.

Thats because Canon puts EF-S lenses closer to the sensor and uses a smaller mirror, which leads to an somewhat easier construction especially for wide angle lenses; however mounting an EF-S lens on a full format camera would kill the mirror at the very first picture taken and is thus physically not possible. On the other hand Nikons scheme allows them to use the same AF systems with both full and half frame cameras, which allows really large AF fields for the half format cameras.

External production half format lenses (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina are AFAICS the only companies producing those) by the way all work the Nikon way, since they use the same optical formula for both their Nikon and Canon (and possibly also Sony/Minolta and Pentax) lenses and only change the mount.

 

[JonA_CT]

External production half format lenses (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina are AFAICS the only companies producing those) by the way all work the Nikon way, since they use the same optical formula for both their Nikon and Canon (and possibly also Sony/Minolta and Pentax) lenses and only change the mount.

Just to make sure I'm following -- the EF-S Sigma lens I own would mount to a full-frame body without causing problems?

 

[Solarflare]

That I've been told. I dont use Canon myself, though, so I cant check that myself.

 

[john.margetts]

Just to make sure I'm following -- the EF-S Sigma lens I own would mount to a full-frame body without causing problems?

Absolutely not. The EF-S bayonet is different to the EF bayonet. You can fit a 'full frame' EF lens to a EF-S body but not the other way around.


www.johns-old-cameras.blogspot.co.uk

 

[Solarflare]

But thats the point ? Sigma has no reason to use the EF-S variant. They use the same optical formula for all their mount variants. Thus they will use the same optical formula for their Canon EF-S lens as for the Nikon DX lens. Thus they have no use for the possibilities of a shorter flange distance. Thus they can use the EF instead of the EF-S mount.

In fact everyone of these secondary producers of lenses, including Zeiss, Voigtländer etc (they dont make any half frame lenses though) will compute their lenses for the longest flange distance, the one of the Nikon F mount.

 

[beagle100]

That I've been told. I dont use Canon myself, though, so I cant check that myself.

yes, it's true, Canon will give you better image quality than the other brands but you have to determine the correct "mount" for the lens

 

[JonA_CT]

Just to make sure I'm following -- the EF-S Sigma lens I own would mount to a full-frame body without causing problems?

Absolutely not. The EF-S bayonet is different to the EF bayonet. You can fit a 'full frame' EF lens to a EF-S body but not the other way around.

Sigma's EF-S is identical to the EF mount -- I just compared them. It looks exactly like the mount on my nifty fifty. The EF-S 24mm lens I have does extend out past the "EF" part of the mount. It doesn't really matter though -- the Sigma is calibrated for the crop sensor either way, and my understanding is, would end up vignetting or having other issues.

 

[unpopular]

Fuji X, because I'm not rich enough to own a Leica.

 

[Solarflare]

Ah yes, Leica.

If only Leica had not introduced the "sensor rust" issue by poor choice of materials in the M9/M-E CCD sensor glas, one could have Leica cameras really cheap now and thanks to the CCD sensor they'd have their very own "look", too.

Unfortunately they dont seem eager to fix that.

 

[Overread]

Just to make sure I'm following -- the EF-S Sigma lens I own would mount to a full-frame body without causing problems?

Absolutely not. The EF-S bayonet is different to the EF bayonet. You can fit a 'full frame' EF lens to a EF-S body but not the other way around.

Sigma's EF-S is identical to the EF mount -- I just compared them. It looks exactly like the mount on my nifty fifty. The EF-S 24mm lens I have does extend out past the "EF" part of the mount. It doesn't really matter though -- the Sigma is calibrated for the crop sensor either way, and my understanding is, would end up vignetting or having other issues.

3rd party manufacturers just use the EF mount design rather than the EFS since EF mounts to crop sensor bodies.

HOWEVER not only are crop sensor lenses made with a typically smaller cast usable image circle on the sensor; but they can also feature a deeper recess of their rear elements into the camera body. This is because the crop sensor camera, whilst having the same design specs and distance from mount to sensor as fullframe; do have a smaller mirror for reflecting light up into the v iewfinder. As such there is a little more room to play with internally for a lens.

As a result putting some EFS lenses (own brand and 3rd party) onto a full-frame body can have the rear element hitting the mirror as it flips up; which is not good for either lens nor the camera. This varies lens to lens, some can and some can't so you have to research it to find out what will and won't fit.

Some EFS lenses from 3rd parties can be pretty decent on fullframe; although you'll get weaker edge performance and yes you might get vignetting as well. Again this varies lens to lens and there is no universal rule.






As for camera brand loyalty this tends to come from three aspects:
1) Lack of understanding of the competing brands. People tend to get a fair idea of all the current brands when getting a new camera for the first time; thereafter they tend to focus on their brand and quickly lose touch with the others. It's just no longer important information so they can fast end up loyal just because they've no real idea what teh competition can do; does; or even its make and models.

2) Finances. Changing brands always costs money unless you are downgrading your system at the same time. Like for like you will lose money and for many people the subtle differences between brands are often not enough to make them sell up and move when they can use the money they'd spend in the difference between the two on new gear for their current brand.

3) General good natured inter-brand banter. Yeah some of it is just mucking around playing that "My team/company/brand/thing" is better than "Your team/company/brand/thing". Only a very tine minority ever take it further and of them only a small number are sincere about it (the rest are just people trolling for a reaction).



I will also say that often as not jumping brand to brand for camera body advances tends to be a bit of a losing battle. When I got into digital Canon was THE best in sensor building in general. Now its Nikon and in a few years it could be Canon again or Sony (ok technically at present it is sony and Nikon is cheating ) or Pentax etc....

 

[Village Idiot]

2) Finances. Changing brands always costs money unless you are downgrading your system at the same time. Like for like you will lose money and for many people the subtle differences between brands are often not enough to make them sell up and move when they can use the money they'd spend in the difference between the two on new gear for their current brand.


I will also say that often as not jumping brand to brand for camera body advances tends to be a bit of a losing battle. When I got into digital Canon was THE best in sensor building in general. Now its Nikon and in a few years it could be Canon again or Sony (ok technically at present it is sony and Nikon is cheating ) or Pentax etc....

This really depends. It cost me about $700 to switch from the 5D MKII to the D750 with all the same type of glass minus a lens. As I said, glass usually keeps it's value. I also got lucky with $500 off the 70-200 f/2.8 with purchase of the D750. I also bought the kit and sold the lens for a profit over what the kit cost by 100$ or so. So, sometimes it makes financial sense. The second part of this is what is your current camera doing that is holding you back? The 5D MKII was costing me shots that I don't miss or can recover with the D750. The 5D MKIII was significantly more and still didn't have the performance I needed in comparison, so it did make financial sense when one wedding covered the cost of upgrading.

Of course, a lot of people that ask these questions on the forums aren't making money from their photography and are just hobbyist where a switch would end up not making financial sense and would be done for the reason most things are done: personal satisfaction.

 

[JonA_CT]

Of course, a lot of people that ask these questions on the forums aren't making money from their photography and are just hobbyist where a switch would end up not making financial sense and would be done for the reason most things are done: personal satisfaction.

Right. I have very little interest in making photography a business pursuit. One of the reasons I burned out on the music was that I started looking at the financials of it, and it took away some of the joy of the work I was doing. In a lot of ways, it's probably a similar hobby. When it comes down to it, a Mexican-made Fender Telecaster and a Mexican-made Fender tube amp (about $600 for both used) sounds the same to almost everyone in the audience as the custom Telecaster and American-made Dr. Z amp that I played for awhile (more like $2500 in investment).

The shots I get will look the same to most people whether I shoot them with my SL1 or whether I end up with a D7200 or a 70d or a 6d or a D610. (Side note -- what's this fascination with D? Don't we all know these cameras are digital?) I guess its a question of how many shots I miss and how much the ergonomics of the camera really bother me compared to the $$$ I'm willing to spend. Almost called it an investment...that's clearly silly of me.

 

[Solarflare]

Well ... the "fascination" with the D is that you need to be different than the competition.

Thats why Canon cameras are called <n>D, Nikon cameras are called D<n>, Sony cameras are A<n> (and you have to know yourself if that model belongs to their Sony [F]E mirrorless or to their Minolta/Sony A originally SLR now SLT line), Fuji cameras are X<n>, and Leica now just uses a letter or two appended by a "Typ <n>", etc.

 

[jaomul]

Well ... the "fascination" with the D is that you need to be different than the competition.

Thats why Canon cameras are called <n>D, Nikon cameras are called D<n>, Sony cameras are A<n> (and you have to know yourself if that model belongs to their Sony [F]E mirrorless or to their Minolta/Sony A originally SLR now SLT line), Fuji cameras are X<n>, and Leica now just uses a letter or two appended by a "Typ <n>", etc.

 

[john.margetts]

Just to make sure I'm following -- the EF-S Sigma lens I own would mount to a full-frame body without causing problems?

Absolutely not. The EF-S bayonet is different to the EF bayonet. You can fit a 'full frame' EF lens to a EF-S body but not the other way around.

Sigma's EF-S is identical to the EF mount -- I just compared them. It looks exactly like the mount on my nifty fifty. The EF-S 24mm lens I have does extend out past the "EF" part of the mount. It doesn't really matter though -- the Sigma is calibrated for the crop sensor either way, and my understanding is, would end up vignetting or having other issues.

they look the same - Canon's own EF and EF-S mounts LOOK the same but they are not interchangeable. Have you tried actually physically fitting the Sigma to a full-frame camera?


John Margetts' old camera blog." ][/URL]