Canon make millions of lenses obsolete

[David Kilpatrick]

http://www.dphotoexpert.com/2009/07/22/ ... is-system/

New IS design announced - making all existing IS Canon lenses inferior to whatever will follow. Mind you, I have that 1995 original IS 75-300mm and it still works...

David

[bossel]

Well they already claim up to 5 stops, what else do they want? And when will they build smile-detection into the lens

Anyway, Sony could counter with an CCD that can not only be moved up/sidewards but also be tiltet e.g. to keep the sensor vertical when the camera is rotatet up/down. It would also give us inbuild T/S for all lenses Not sure if this is possible, though, might require a huge mirrorbox and lots of space and mechanics to allow for the movements.

[KevinBarrett]

Sony already employs a similar IS technology in their Handycam line, do they not? Ive only read the little blurbs on the Sony Style pages, but they use the same term, "rotational."

Might have to save the built-in T/S technology for an EVIL camera, Bossel, but I like the sound of it!

[01af]

"Obsolete"!? Now isn't that grossly exaggerated journo's hype?

Nikon currently is at their second VR generation---has ever someone taken that for a reason to call the 1st-generation VR lenses "obsolete"? Are non-stabilised lenses obsolete just because image stabilisation exists? Sony's Super-Steady Shot system in the A700 is superior to Konica-Minolta's Anti-Shake ... does this make the 7D or 5D "obsolete"? If anything then they became obsolete for their megapixel count having fallen behind the current standards, but definitely not for the fact that current cameras have more effective image stabilisation.

And older Canon IS lenses don't become "obsolete" just because newer Canon lenses will have improved IS.

Sure---with in-lens stabilisation, you'll have to replace all your lenses if you want to always have the latest image stabilisation technology. With an in-body system you'd have to replace your bodies only when an improvement in image stabilisation comes along, which is cheaper to do because most (not all) people own more lenses than bodies. Still, the old lenses are not obsolete; they'd be if Canon abandoned the EF bayonet mount.

-- Olaf

[KevinBarrett]

Dangit! A new camera of a different mount than I use has more auto-focus points! My camera now smells like strong cheese!

[David Kilpatrick]

Olaf, the heading is a joke.

David

[Greg Beetham]

Well I was about to say this guy was not going to be a happy camper...
Greg

http://www.newfunnypictures.com/tag/cameraman/

[InTheSky]

For me. It is always better to have less electricals component in my lenses.

since David posted the upgrade of the 400mm sigme F/5.6, I have just realised how sample the lens system (and ingenious too) of Minolta working. Making almost every old Minolta autofocus prime lens impossible to not be repaired.

I have stored for a long time an good 100mm F/2.8 D lenses with not electrical part on it (it was used on a Special industrial setup) and I have just had to two weeks to order the simple adapter showed in the David article and in almost 10 minutes screwing and adjusting the small electrical plastic plate, the lens become a fully working autofocus and aperture item.

That was impressive, for a long time, I was thinking that the aperture information needed to be transfered from the lens to the camera, and it is not.

Regards,

Frank

[InTheSky]

I'm not a Canon lenses buyer and reseller as I'm doing with my Minolta gear ... , does it means that every time Canon is changing the IS system in the lens, past designed version lost value on the market ? (a little bit frustrating for people investing in lenses ... )

regards,

Frank

[PhotoTraveler]

Is anyone really shocked by this?

Camera makers have to keep coming up with new things so you re-buy. With bodies it's easy. And most folks don't have much of an issue buying a new body every few years.

Lenses are much harder to get folks to re-buy. Canon has had this problem in the worst way.

Since they started with an all electronic AF mount. And have been putting ring motors in a lot of their lenses from the beginning, it has meant there is few reasons to change a lens. When they came out with IS, it gave them something to get people to re-buy. But then what???? I've pointed out in the past that Canon has basically completed the IS upgrades to their lens line. Which has caused them to dig for other things to do. Such as making silly teles like the 5.6/800. They have been re-doing some of their primes. They invented some silly ones like the 1.2/50, when they really should have been making a 1.4/85L. And they have found time to re-do a TS lens and make an extreme one. Basically, they have very little things to do to their lenses that will work. Most the lenses they don't have IS in are things that it may just not be possible. Thus the 2.8/24-70 IS continues be vaporware.

So their only option is to invent a new form of IS *, and then begin re-doing the entire IS lens line again. Look at the 2.8/70-200 IS. It's an old lens. People dream of updates to it. But until now, there has been nothing to add. A new lens would just be a re-do. And it's very hard to market lenses that are re-do's with no new features. Canon hits the street with a 2.8/70-200 IS MkII that cost 2000+ USD (way more than the current old one). People won't be motivated to buy. Plus will ask why they didn't built it right the last time. Now they can market a new 70-200 with IS II, much like nikon has VRII.

All canon users should have seen this coming. Now (to the * above) I was actually expecting Canon to do the smart thing and do in-body IS, then spend 10 years replacing all the IS lenses with new non-IS versions. But I think canon still isn't ready to eat crow on the reality of in-body solutions. So they will suck money out of Canon users again.

You can see the problem Canon faces in Sony's world. The only thing Sony has to add to many existing lenses is SSM. Which isn't a huge motivator. If it wasn't for them starting from "scratch", and they were still minolta. It would be just a long slow process of SSM with people only replacing very slowly. This is where Nikon is. Very slow movement to new lenses since people are ok with Screw drive and nikon still has manual focus lenses in the catalog. Nikon not replacing F mount at the dawn of AF made things harder for nikon.

For sony, there is the question of what will they do once they get everything SSM? But since Sony needs to bring out a ton of lenses, they have years to worry about that. Lenses like the 2.8/70-200G won't be replaced anytime soon simply because there isn't anything to really do to it.

What will really hurt Canon with this is how Sony will turn this against them. It's very easy to see a Sony advert in the future showing a big collection of Canon IS lenses, and the add have the message "So you had to buy new versions of all your lenses to improve your IS, If you had a Sony Alpha, you could upgrade all your lenses with your next body" ".... and all your lenses are stabilized, not just the ones you paid for stabilization". Many ways Sony could have a field day with this.

And Sony probably can do the same if they wanted. Sony can probably add tilt and swing to the sensor if it's just a matter of tiny movements. And they can add rotation too if they wanted to have the effect Pentax gets. In lens solutions can never add rotation (about the lenses axis).

I think Sony corp is probably very happy over this. As it sounds like this is Canon's next path. Not in-body. So they don't have to worry about Canon any more. They only need to concern themselves with Nikon going in-body. Which I think is going to happen sooner than later with Nikon.

Canon's effort to one up everyone else really just makes Sony, Pentax, Oly look even smarter.

[David Kilpatrick]

To explain one thing only, no sensor actually tilts from the parallel image plane to correct for shake - nor does a lens mechanism (doing so would put the image out of focus). What is called 'rotational shake' was identified by Geoffrey Crawley and others using star-image test methods in the 1970s. It consists of shake where the front of the lens dips and the camera body rises - or the reverse, or the same action laterally, or a combination. The assembly pivots round a point of support, so the shake is measured in degrees rather than the old concept of the entire assembly being displaced by so many mm.

All current systems are designed to cope with rotational shake, because it is the main cause of unsharpness. Pentax can also cope with a rare type of shake, which involves rotation though it's not called rotational. This is the type of shake which happens when you press the shutter on the right hand end of the camera, and the camera rotates about the lens axis (spins a tiny amount, but the axis does not tilt). To correct for this, the sensor must be able to have its horizon angle changed, not just its X-Y position. So far only one brand has found a solution (Pentax-Samsung). It can *only* be corrected via sensor shift systems, since rotating a lens unit has zero effect on the horizon levelling of an image! It is likely that Sony will add correction for this type of shake in future.

If you read Canon's information carefully, you will see that the new type of shake they are compensating for is pure lateral displacement, where the entire photographer/camera/hand/lens assembly is vibrated or moves. It has almost no effect on distant subjects or wide-angle views, since unsharpness is limited to physical amount of displacement. If the camera moves 0.25mm, then a leaf on a tree 100m away will only show 0.25mm of blur. With rotational shake, say 0.25 degrees of shake not 0.25mm, the blur is proportional increased with distance.

As Canon say, displacement shake affects macro and close-up work most. This is the second type of shake their new system will correct. It is actually a very minor component of typical camera shake and some would argue it's not worth bothering with - except maybe for marketing purposes...

David

[01af]

Olaf, the heading is a joke.

Oh.

-- Olaf

[bakubo]

David, great explanation! Thanks!