« first day (3980 days earlier)      last day (85 days later) » 

2:29 PM
@scottbb Hi. Sorry for late reply. So even if we can fit EF lens on EF-S, would it degrade some quality/feature because it's not exact match for sensor?
@MichaelC Hi. Sorry for late reply to you too. When you say 'most EF lenses are higher quality than EF-s', do you actually mean the lens is higher quality or the sensor in EF mount camera is higher quality?
I'm just collecting all knowledge even when I can't afford a DSLR 😫😂
 
 
2 hours later…
4:19 PM
And sorry I just realized it's Sunday I pinged you.
 
 
3 hours later…
6:50 PM
@Vikas No, there's nothing to "degrade". EF-S was developed as a lower-cost digital camera system that was compatible with existing EF-mount lenses. Lenses aren't so much designed to be "exactly matched to sensors". Lenses are designed to be mounted a specific distance from the sensor (this is called the registration distance. Wikipedia calls it the flange focus distance). That's all. Canon, just like other camera makers, was responding to the market desire for digital cameras, but at a lower
 
@scottbb so it's just that same light will enter through it (just like it would enter for EF mount) but since the sensor is small, some of surrounding environment will crop?
 
cost than full frame sensors would require (the cost of semiconductors is roughly proportional to the area of the chip, all other factors ignored. So a Canon APS-C 1.6x sensor is 1.6^2 ~= 2.6 times smaller area than a full-frame sensor)
@Vikas The sensor itself is cropping the image coming from the lens (by virtue of not being big enough to capture all of the projected image)
 
@scottbb yeah that's what I meant
@scottbb 😮 really? It's significant half difference. I thought it would be a bit small difference. So by this way, full frame cameras would be too expensive? Much expensive than Canon 200D II and Nikon 5600?
 
7:09 PM
Thanks anyway :)
 
@Vikas Well, not entirely. It's not linear. The cost of a camera is not necessarily closely coupled to the cost of the sensor. When a particular semiconductor technology is new, the semiconductor cost is the biggest driver. But as with all things electronic, prices of parts fall, newer better tech comes along. But the interchangeable camera market is quite a bit slower than the pace of electronics tech, because the other expensive factor is lenses: photographers put a lot of money into a...
... camera system (i.e, Nikon F-mount, or Canon EF mount, etc.). So the camera manufacturers work around that. That's why there's always a new camera body for the EF mount, and for the EF-S mount, etc. Because people are already "invested" in the platform.
otherwise, the camera manufacturers would come up with a completely new lens mount system all the time, if they felt people could absorb buying a whole new suite of lenses every few years. They'd love to cater to the churn. But they can't, because decent lenses are expensive to produce, and people don't see a need to change glass all the time (thankfully).
 
@scottbb 😀
Yeah it's true we don't see new cameras too often
 

« first day (3980 days earlier)      last day (85 days later) »