Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Sorry for being so obtuse [img]/emoticons/emotion-40.gif[/img], but I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
1.6 Crop factor
Sorry for being so obtuse [img]/emoticons/emotion-40.gif[/img], but I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
1.6 Crop factor
I understood that you were saying *something* about crop factor.
It almost sounds as if you are asserting that because the 1200mm is about 1.6 times as long as the 800, it is redundant. (I don't really think you mean this, though... because by the same argument, almost all of Canon's lenses are redundant).
?
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]Hi Jon,<o></o
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]No not redundant, but would I own a 400mm, a 500mm and a 600mm lens?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] <o
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]No, I would crop the 400mm to get the field of view up to 600mm and maybe 800mm depending what I was going to do with the photo and how much resolution I needed for the details in the image.<o
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]If you have a 21mp body and crop its image by ¼, (for example, a 200mm lens’ image cropped to 400mm), the resulting image would be 5.25mp.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] Not bad for a small photo – less or equal to 8X10 inches.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] The point is the lens has to have enough difference in the field of view, or some other property, to provide value.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] A $120K vs. an $8K lens needs to give the photographer more of an advantage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] Most of these large lenses are used by photographers who are stationary for long periods of time, taking mages in a very fixed field of view – photographing third base action from the first base line, etc. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]These kind of photos usually get printed anywhere from 75dpi (news print) to 150dpi (magazine / books), so resolution is not the greatest.<o
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]Cropping an 800mm to 1200mm is not 2x as in my example above, but about 1.5x.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] So you could get a 7mp to 8mp image and save the cost, weight and the hassle of transporting the larger lens around.<o
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]So who would by this large lens beside the Canon marketing department? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]I’m sure there are a few who would.<span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;"]<o
No, you would crop - just like you said. But the working professional (most of the time) does not have the time to crop his or her images to the desired "focal length". When sports photographers are working on deadline, their editors are not going to crop their images to get added reach - It wastes precious time. For many pros, getting the (great) shot right out of the camera is paramount.
But, I know what you mean.
Good question. But I'll try to provide an answer. Sports Illustrated owns too copies. A $240,000 investment in optics? [H]
James Jannard, founder of Oakley and RED Digital Cinema owns a copy as well. Canon Professional Services owns one too.
- Alex
I hate to crop my images not so much because of the IQ loss, but for the optical compression andDOFis not the same. I have used 600mm with 2x with a 1.6 to give me 1920mm! This may sound like a ton of mm's but it is amazing how quickly it shrinks in small bird fotography! To give you an idea, 1920mm allows you to stay about 15' away from small bird and fill up the frame. I personallyprefer the 35mm DOF, but there are times Ineed to crop then I reach for the 1.6 crop body.There are other uses like the Olympics, many times you just can't get closer and even with a 1.6 crop body andyou stillmight not have enough focal length. Or just for the super flat compression. I also like touse 1200mm's in macro for the tremedous isolating power of 1200mm.The use of 1200mm's is legit, just not worth $120,000!
SOOOOOO, with that out of the way. How many would like to see Canon release a new and inproved 1200mm lens?
Good question. I guess it would be cool, but...
I don't think it's going to pull through. There's just too much of a risk for Canon if they offer such a costly lens in regular production. They have to grow a lot of fluorite to make such a lens, and if nobody (or few people) buys one, Canon would be in trouble.
If they were to develop a new 1200, I believe that it would still be produced on a per-order basis.
Good question. I guess it would be cool, but...
I don't think it's going to pull through. There's just too much of a risk for Canon if they offer such a costly lens in regular production. They have to grow a lot of fluorite to make such a lens, and if nobody (or few people) buys one, Canon would be in trouble.
If they were to develop a new 1200, I believe that it would still be produced on a per-order basis.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
The problem isn't the Fluorite. When Canon made the 1200mm for $99,000 they maxed out or nearly maxed out the production. If you calculate how long the1200mmwas in production, how manypeople own it and the18 month turnaround. You will find that they maxed out there production line +- a couple of people, who chances are also bought it. Anyone who is seriously considered buying a 800mm L for $11,000would also seriously consider a 1200mm Lfor $15,000. I'm sure Bryan would be tempted by it as well!
How many people would like to see Canon introduce a EF 1200mm f/5.6 IS USM L for $15,000?
Even I would buy it at that price (in a heartbeat) if it had decent color correction, and maybe even if it didn't.
But I've never heard of a fast fluorite 8" lens for anything near that cheap. Even slow 8" lenses- with cheaper glass and inferior color correction- can be over $20K.
You want what? They only sold <100 of them the first time around. The economy is tanked, and they've shelved (though more recently resumed) a factory. And now you want them to design something lighter, with more optics in the middle (IS), with refreshed optics, and yet you want it cheaper than the last one? Meanwhile, every lens that seems to have been updated/refreshed lately has a much bigger price tag.
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
It's something called mass-production. It's very easly done if they mass produce it. The only reason they charged $99,000 for the old1200mm is because they could, not because it cost them $80,000 to make. Flourite is grown, there not paying someone $65 an hour for ayear to make it. When they makeflourite for there other lens they make thousands of them at a time,because they don't grow overnighteither. All they have to do is let some moreFlourite grow for a longer period of time, just more than one at a time.They never did sell anything close to 100 1200mm lenses,theyhad an 18 month turnaround for life of it's production they wouldn't have madenearly 100 lenses. It's not an absurd idea at all to make a lens like that, my guess is that they probablly would sell more 1200mm's lenses than 800mm's lenses for that price.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote