Lighter, cheaper, good enough EF S and DX crop sensor lensesThere are downsides to crop sensor cameras, especially if you also have a full frame camera. The widest full frame zoom lenses, typically a 16mm 35mm zoom that covers 98 degrees horizontal at 16mm to 54 degrees horizontal at 35mm, aren all that wide angle on a crop sensor DSRLR. Lenses for full frame cameras fit on crop sensor cameras but not the other way around. The recessed lens rear elements of crop sensor only lens may get in the path of the larger mirror and if it doesn the image won fill the whole frame. APS C lenses are typically built to less costly standards and aren as bright (maximum lens aperture).

The Canon EF S 10 22mm lens for crop sensor cameras sells for about $725, and its maximum aperture floats from f/3.5 at 10 mm to f/4.5 at 22 mm. The Canon EF 16 35mm for full frame cameras costs twice as much ($1,500 street), weighs almost twice as much, is built like a tank, and Nike Torrey Smith Jersey has a constant f/2.8 aperture across the entire zoom range. So if you want to shoot low light wide angle photos, Canon has a lesser solution in its crop sensor cameras. Put the 16 35mm on the Canon EOS 7D and it covers a little over 60 degrees horizontally: about six turns of the camera to cover a full circle vs. four for the 10 22mm that covers 97 degrees horizontally (photo below).

Shooting a large group in a small room, or separating foreground and background outdoors while still maintaining the semblance of a normal photo without fisheye lens distortion, calls for a lens that covers at least 90 degrees horizontal. Nobody complains about the crop factor making telephoto lenses reach farther, except that the lenses are bulkier than need be if they were crop sensor only.

Of its nine EF S (crop sensor) lenses, Canon makes only one constant aperture f/2.8 zoom lens, the 17 55mm EF S IS f/2.8, priced at $1,050. No Canon crop Jimmy Smith Jersey sensor lens bears the L marking and red ring on the barrel that denotes Canon highest quality lenses.

For Nikon with DX (cropped format) lenses, it the same deal: the Nikon 10 24mm DX lens is $800 but the maximum aperture floats from f/3.5 to f/4.5. The Nikkor 17 35mm lens for full frame cameras costs $1,750 and it f/2.8. At maximum aperture, it admits about twice as much light.

Some pros and advanced amateurs find that no matter how many lenses they have, they can do most of their work with an ultra wide angle zoom and 70 200mm f/2.8 zoom (about $2,000). The lack of first class wide and wide to short telephoto zoom lenses for crop sensor cameras drives some photographers back to full frame. PR people for both companies say there nothing wrong with optical quality of their EF S (Canon) and DX (Nikon) lenses. Still, for twice the money, you might suspect there more to the f/2.8 wide angle zoom lenses than the improved light gathering. Many of the most serious full frame Canon lenses have gotten upgrades in the past couple years to make them sharper and lighter; they indicated by a II, as inCanon EF 70 200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. The one EF S lens that can be duplicated by using a full frame EF lens, the 10 22mm, dates to 2004.

Canon product deluge in 2012: All new except the 7DHere what Canon did in the last year to make 7D owners feel like orphans on shore watching the the party boat leave the dock. At the high end, Canon EOS 1D X, $6,800, delivers an 18 megapixel image, 12 frames per second for action shooters, and a shutter life of 400,000 frames (a lot). Canon refreshed the portrait shooter/wedding photographer favorite, the full frame Canon 5D Mark III, $3,000, with a 22 megapixel sensor and a 6 fps motor drive. Then it brought in an entirely new full frame camera, the Canon EOS 6D, a 20 megapixel model with a bargain (relatively speaking) price of $2,100. It has built in WiFi and GPS, SD not CF cards, good video, and ISO up to 25,600. This is the camera that had Canonistas wondering if the 7D was a goner. Not exactly: The 6D shutter is rated at 100,000 frames not the 7D 150,000, the auto focus isn on par with the 5D Mark III, and action shooting is 5.3 frames per second.

At the prosumer level, the Canon Rebel T4i (also called the EOS 650D and Kiss X6i outside the US) arrived at $800 with an 18 megapixel sensor, higher ISO rating (25,600 vs. 12,800), smarter processor (Digic 5), and better movie focusing (which is still so so). Canon also brought out its first mirrorless interchangeable lens camera, the Canon EOS M, $800. Effectively, Canon boxed out the 7D with new models offering more features. So what features does a high end crop sensor DSLR need to have to justify its existence?

Next page: The 7D Mk II in 2013: What can we expect?

Previous 2 of 3Tagged InOne reason I never bought EF S lenses is they couldn be mounted on APS H sensored cameras like the older EOS 1D II and EOS 1D III. I also had a full frame EOS 5D mark II since 2008, and couldn mount them there. I used to use a 15mm fisheye for ultra wide stuff on 10D, 20D and EOS 1D, and 16mm was enough on the 1D cameras. I now using a 7D for wildlife and sports with 70 200mm, 400mm and 500mm www.nflshopauthenticonline.com/nike-joe-flacco-jersey-c-1_53_57.html lenses.

However, I bought most of my lenses over 7 years ago, when everything was lots cheaper. Sure, a 400mm f/4 DO IS only costs a little more now, but the 16 35mm f/2.8L II and 70 200mm f/2.8L IS II are about twice as expensive. If I had to do it over again, I buy used gear. That what I did for years with Leica lenses.

People at Canon said the version II lenses, eg the 70 200, 300, 400, 24 70, 1.4x extender, etcetera lenses are significantly better image quality. They said that to me not to promote the Canon brand, I thought, but as a point of information. A couple of photographers speaking at Photo Plus, who were sponsored by Canon (for what it worth), said the quality of the VII zoom lenses have them seldom using fixed length lenses. There is that. There also is this: a used 300mm f/2.8, the must have lens when the 70 200 is not long enough for sports, wildlife, the family dog, is $4000 used and the 300 f/2.8 USM II is $7000. Actually, unless you a pro or cashed in on your Apple options, the $500 1.4x VII extender on the 70 200 is more sensible.

I wonder if clients could really tell the difference. Pro shooter Kirk Tuck once told me you could shoot salable stuff with a $99 (at that time) Yashica MAT 124 TLR.

He was right. I sold a book cover captured with an old F1n and the FD 35 105mm f/3.5, an inferior lens by most standards that lens spent almost as much time in the shop as on my camera. I also sold wildlife pictures shot with EF 500mm f/4 L IS and old EOS 1D mk II and EOS 20D cameras.

I use a cosmetically beat up EF 1.4X II for extra reach on some shots. My usual sports rig is EOS 7D with 70 200mm nflshopauthenticonline.com/nike-terrell-suggs-jersey-c-1_53_61.html f/2.8L IS and EOS 5D mark II with 24 70mm f/2.8L, 550EX or 430EX flashes on both for fill. That worked great at pro mountain bike races. For slightly more reach, I carry a 400mm f/4 DO IS. That also useful for handheld flight shots of wild birds.

I realize I probably not your mainstream amateur photographer, but I think the need for constant equipment upgrades is oversold by manufacturers. I saw that need to upgrade all the time first hand in the semiconductor industry for many years.

The pros who say you don need more than a simple camera for most photos of course they have way more than a Canon PowerShot in the equipment case. Many photos can be taken that way. Not football, auto racing, theater, dogs at play, shy children, or people with bulbous noses.

Lots of good soccer etcetera photos can be taken with older equipment with a long lens. Indoors, I once shot HS basketball long ago with a Rollei twin lens camera and a single on camera strobe and I always came back with a couple good photos (but I did not come back with a good photo of the key play of the game). But a newer camera with the most recent (not just cosmetically dinged) lens extender and most current lens will focus faster. I never be satisfied until all my sports photos are in focus, and going from 90% to 95% would also be a worthwhile improvement.

Denis Reggie, the Florida wedding photographer who commands $30,000 for the weekend, says the Canon version II lenses are so good he stopped carrying fixed focal length lenses. He gets by, so to speak, with a zoom fisheye (used for just a few shots), a 24 70 f/2.8 and a 70 200 Nike Jimmy Smith Jersey f/2.8 and one flash, with external battery pack, bounced off a side wall. In other words, a minimalist kit that costs $10,000, plus backup bodies and maybe a 16 35. He said this at PhotoPlus in NY at a seminar sponsored (paid) by Canon.

The Canon 400 DO (a long telephoto lens made very short by its special optics) you mention is is great except if you really must have f/2.8 for low light conditions.

I also have vacation photos from the late nineties shot with a miserable 3 megapixel camera and even those images are good enough to capture the magic of the vacation and I even made a 22 x 30 poster that looks pretty good if you stand back far enough.

Well it makes sense the final product is all that matters. Glass is very important to image quality but all other aspects are sort of on a level playing field as far as potential quality goes; expensive photo gear doesn take better photos, it makes good photos easier to take. A studio is a prime example where the flagship cameras totally fall flat, because most of the features that make them expensive are oriented towards field use any camera with a decent sensor that can pick up fine detail will produce professional results in a studio where you control the lighting and don necessarily need fast auto focus.

Bill, I actually see it moving in the reverse direction. I think we will see more full frame cameras getting cheaper and cheaper. I think we will see full frame mirrorless and even medium format mirrorless. For the latter, you could see a medium format camera in the same size as a todays full frame DSLRs.

My thinking is for this is even though there have been great advancements with smaller sensors, bigger sensors capture more light and can allow Game Torrey Smith Jersey for larger pixel sizes. Also going mirrorless and adding a larger sensor will be easier than increasing the advances with the same or smaller sensors. Additionally, Sony is pushing the old boys kicking and screaming to the mirrorless prosumer market.

You hit on the right reasons for the uptick in full frame DSLR announcements. All things equal, 18 megapixel full frame sensors will be higher quality than 18 megapixel crop sensor sensors. Against that, there history: Tech devices get smaller. Sometimes the next smaller device takes a while to match the quality of the older, bigger device. And it could very well be that the even smaller MILCs will win out. But in the meantime I think, hope there a couple more generations of APS C sensor DSLRs.