Will u still be buying non-digital lenses?

[jesser]

Finally, I believe all the designers of major lens companies are already on this digital lens bandwagon. My guess is that the next iteration of lens design all lenses will be "digital" lenses, e.g. it is rumoured that Nikkor AFD50/1.8 will become AFS50/1.8 and it would probably be "digital". This is likely as I guess the major companies will develop FF DSLR in the future.

My rather long 2c.

yes, this is what i'm looking forward to.....all FF DSLR in future.

my vision:- FF DSLR will be rather common AFTER the next 5 years. Higher MP will be expected and hence bigger sensor needed. ( i dunnu if this is true ).......but for sure those major camera makers will be heading towards this direction.

i shooting full digital right now, using canon system and all my lenses are those from my former film cameras. it still works well on my 350D, 10D and the 1D. Most likely on my side, there will be not much of an issue on lenses if next couple of years i decide to upgrade to FF DSLR.

 

[wind30]

I don't think FF is the way to go for the future.

Everything gets smaller... I think FF will be obsolete in 5 years time when sensor technology improves. Imagine in 5 years time, they can give you 16 meg on a cropped sensor. Do you REALLY WANT a 32 meg picture on a full frame? Or do you want a smaller lens like the new 50-150 f2.8 zooms?

Give me lighter and faster lens ANYTIME over more Megapixels

 

[diediealsomustdive]

This FF vs cropped sensor is similar to the old medium format vs 35mm back in the 35mm infancy days. Going smaller and lighter certainly have their advantages, and there is a practical limit to how much smaller. Back in film days the limit was the 35mm, as the APS size did not flourish, and 110 film results were miserable.

Today the old timers are lamenting no FF (all except Canon and the discontinued Kodak series). Some are embracing DX format. I like DX for the smaller size and the crop factor on longer lenses, and live with DX lenses on wide angles.

But one thing you might want to do is to look through a viewfinder of a film camera, if you haven't done it lately, you'll be shock at how big the finder is and how much easier it is to compose a photo.

If FF comes along, affordably, I might buy back into FF. Might, not definitely will, since I enjoy my 10-20 DC Sigma. Can't do that on film, cost too much, lens too big.

Anyway - the question "will u still be buying non-digital lenses?", my answer is definitely. Have not seen optical advantages of digital lenses over non-digital lenses. If the price is right and the optics are good, either will do.

 

[surge]

This FF vs cropped sensor is similar to the old medium format vs 35mm back in the 35mm infancy days. Going smaller and lighter certainly have their advantages, and there is a practical limit to how much smaller. Back in film days the limit was the 35mm, as the APS size did not flourish, and 110 film results were miserable.

Today the old timers are lamenting no FF (all except Canon and the discontinued Kodak series). Some are embracing DX format. I like DX for the smaller size and the crop factor on longer lenses, and live with DX lenses on wide angles.

But one thing you might want to do is to look through a viewfinder of a film camera, if you haven't done it lately, you'll be shock at how big the finder is and how much easier it is to compose a photo.
If FF comes along, affordably, I might buy back into FF. Might, not definitely will, since I enjoy my 10-20 DC Sigma. Can't do that on film, cost too much, lens too big.

Anyway - the question "will u still be buying non-digital lenses?", my answer is definitely. Have not seen optical advantages of digital lenses over non-digital lenses. If the price is right and the optics are good, either will do.

was using s2pro...then got D200 after looking thru the finder,,,what a difference! then look thru the finder in a D2h...even better!!! as good as my F100! finder does makes quite a difference.

 

[Maltese]

Thks for adding on in the explanation...as pointed out, there is indeed a lot of concerns in the following fields of consideration of digital vs analogue lenses:

1. Marketing
Like I mention earlier and highlighted by many, it seems that digital lenses are only used for current lower end DSLR bodies and besides that, there is really not much of a use especially both Canon and Nikon don't seems to be hot in the heels to match digital cameras competitors like the 4/3 adopters.

U can surely see that these makers are taking their time producing not even near pro-usage quality lenses and from what I know, many working pros that uses DSLR didn't even find much uses for this range of lenses.

2. Future compatibility
Well if u are rich enough to stock up lenses, u can of course use and throw on a regular basis. But frankly how many photogs can and will do something like that? I used to know a photog who practically collect every single Nikon manual focus lenses known to be sold and even 10-20 years down the road, it can still be use with no problem at all.

Maybe to some digital age photogs, it seems to me that lenses are no longer part of a collection in the photography system which are more or less being treated as "tools" or "toys" which loses favours over other tools and toys overtime.

But pardon me from saying, photogs from the last few decades like myself, we have very sentimental values tied to our images (both in brain and in print), the many tools we use as well as the journey we take to accomplished that. And that is why many of us old fellows at home have more of a dozen of lenses that we can recall saying "oh that is the lens that I bought to Everest and that is the one that I use to take Mother theresa....". Buying one and selling or throwing one away in a such a short period of time seems to be unlikely for older photogs who share the same thinking as myself. That is why when I was asked about investing in a digital lens, I just think how long can I use it after I bought it.

3. Practicality and use
A very well explained technical intro by jesser, yes, there is a whole lot of difference between a lens used for digital bodies and one that is used for FF DSLR or film. And I would still agree that a lens catered for FF or film bodies should be more expensive, more bulky and in certain ways, optically and more professionally made than a digital equivalent.

My experience with an olympus digital lens is rather well made like a Canon analogue L lens. And working olympus digital pro are indeed using them in the fields unlike many canon and nikon digital working pros who still stick to the analogue lenses.

4. Price & quality
Well, companies need to make $ and the fact that many digital lenses costs a fraction of the analogue counterpart should already signal to buyers that these makers will not purposely lower the price for no reason. There must be definitely some cost savings over material, quality, research etc to justify the lower cost of the digital lenses. Maybe if the trend is really towards FF, then throwing or using as paper weight (do they contain enough material inside to serve as 1?) at least its not so painful.

One thing as mentioned, is whether which way will Nikon and Canon go? No one actual agrees on anything yet. If going FF, then I can set my mind into getting analogue lenses and upgrade to a affordable FF DSLR in future. If not at least I hope slides and negs can still be processed commercially using my film bodies.

However if digital is the way to go, then getting a analogue lens now is definitely a double lost - u pay more which u can be better off with a cheaper digital lens and losing the entire value once all bodies start to take digital lenses. i.e future incompatibility.

I maybe too old to take that kind of blow by then.:bheart:

 

[Artosoft]

yes, this is what i'm looking forward to.....all FF DSLR in future.

my vision:- FF DSLR will be rather common AFTER the next 5 years. Higher MP will be expected and hence bigger sensor needed. ( i dunnu if this is true ).......but for sure those major camera makers will be heading towards this direction.

i shooting full digital right now, using canon system and all my lenses are those from my former film cameras. it still works well on my 350D, 10D and the 1D. Most likely on my side, there will be not much of an issue on lenses if next couple of years i decide to upgrade to FF DSLR.

One thing we are sure that Olympus with 4/3 system will have no film Full Frame sensor :bsmilie: . Unless there is 4/3 system revision 1...

Regards,
Arto.

 

[theRBK]

Let me clear things up...there is:

i) designed for smaller sensor "digital lens",
ii) designed for digital sensor requirement "digital lens",
iii) and of course a combination of i) and ii)

what I mean in ii) is that, as some have mentioned earlier, the digital sensor has less tolerance to light hitting it from an angle than film...this can result in more vignetting than in film for an equivalent size of image creating area and also more CA and less sharpness...so a lens designed for digital in the ii) case should take that into account and project the light to the sensor at more or less perpendicular to the face...what is called a telecentric design...

for most cases, what we see in efs and dx and whatever they call it at the moment 1.5 and 1.6 crop lenses tend to be i) rather than ii) or iii). their marketing departments might claim that they are iii) but really, from the results we have seen so far i) would probably be the case...

the exception in "35mm format" sized digital cameras seem to be the Olympus fourthirds E series lenses...and these can be said to be designed as iii) and show an admirable standard of sharpness and limited vignetting...

there may come a day when we might get fullframed digital lenses...sceptical?...well, Schneider-Kreuznach, a large format lens manufacturer, has a line of telecentric digital lenses, the APO-Digitar, for large format camera systems that can mount digital backs...which would come in really handy if you do tilt-shift movements with a large format body...but by designing a FF digital lens, the current issue of vignetting and edge image quality on FF sensors would be addressed...so for those who have bags of money and or those who want the ultimate in quality on a 35mm format, why not...people who have used a 1DS or 5D with a wide angle lens would know about the vignetting (which might not be a bad thing at times) I'm talking about...

1.5 format vs FF...that is like arguing about 35mm vs 645 vs 6x6 vs 6x7 vs 5x4 vs etc...to each format its particular use...

 

[Deadpoet]

Let me clear things up...there is:

...but by designing a FF digital lens, the current issue of vignetting and edge image quality on FF sensors would be addressed...so for those who have bags of money and or those who want the ultimate in quality on a 35mm format, why not...people who have used a 1DS or 5D with a wide angle lens would know about the vignetting (which might not be a bad thing at times) I'm talking about...

...

Actually, all photographers who had shot film and used 35mm systems knows vignetting very well.

Wide open, wide angle, you get vignetting. This is not something so special about digital sensor. What is happenning is, with small sensor and full frame lenses, too many, who never experienced the joy of film, are spoiled. They use only the center portion of a lens, never have to worry that nomatter what lens, there will be a degree of light dropping of towards the edges.

 

[theRBK]

Actually, all photographers who had shot film and used 35mm systems knows vignetting very well.

Wide open, wide angle, you get vignetting. This is not something so special about digital sensor. What is happenning is, with small sensor and full frame lenses, too many, who never experienced the joy of film, are spoiled. They use only the center portion of a lens, never have to worry that nomatter what lens, there will be a degree of light dropping of towards the edges.

yes but it does affect digital more than film, all else being the same...the most extreme case I know of being in the Epson digital rangefinder...even though it uses a 1.5 crop sensor, its vignetting using the same wide lens seems to be worse than a film rangefinder...

and the thing is, with the telecentric digital lens, film might have even less vignetting...of course, vignetting can be creatively used and not always unattractive...but for say commercial photography where it is good to start with a clean image, then less vignetting would be useful...

 

[Deadpoet]

yes but it does affect digital more than film, all else being the same...the most extreme case I know of being in the Epson digital rangefinder...even though it uses a 1.5 crop sensor, its vignetting using the same wide lens seems to be worse than a film rangefinder...

and the thing is, with the telecentric digital lens, film might have even less vignetting...of course, vignetting can be creatively used and not always unattractive...but for say commercial photography where it is good to start with a clean image, then less vignetting would be useful...

using smaller lens to fit the smaller digital sensor, you will run into same vignetting problems, as the sensor will be using the entire lens. Same light falling off towards the edges will happen, be in larger full frame lenses or smaller 4/3 or digital lenses.

It's physics. We as photogrpahers must know the limitations and accomodate, adjust and exploit accordingly.

 

[ExplorerZ]

Digital lens are those EF-S lens from Canon, DX lens from Nikon, DC lens from Sigma, and DI lens from Tamron. They are build mainly for AP-S sensor.
Theoretically these sensors need straight lights from the lens to hit directly onto the sensor in order to get the best image quality. With the normal film lens, which is cater for 35mm film size, light falls onto the sensor is at an angle along the sides and corners, hence images are not so kind of ‘great’.
In the other way, these digital lens are not meant for full frame size sensor. Back of lens are much nearer to the sensor and it will hit by the mirror in a film or full frame digital body. Another problem is they produces smaller images so vignetting will occurs in bigger sensor.

Read this from internet.

just a very minor correction, for tamron it should be Dii... Di can be used on a fullframe as well. (eg 28-75)

 

[theRBK]

using smaller lens to fit the smaller digital sensor, you will run into same vignetting problems, as the sensor will be using the entire lens. Same light falling off towards the edges will happen, be in larger full frame lenses or smaller 4/3 or digital lenses.

It's physics. We as photogrpahers must know the limitations and accomodate, adjust and exploit accordingly.

that was addressed in my initial post to this thread (#27)...where I mentioned that there are 3 ways of looking at a digital lens...that those that just reduce the lens size are not really addressing the concerns of a digital imaging chip...

a telecentric design lens would reduce the amount of vignetting caused by light falloff due to light hitting a sensor at an oblique angle...not light falloff due to it coming from the near the edge of a lens...this kind of light falloff and image deterioration is over and above the usual light falloff and deterioration that would occur with film as film is better able to handle light hitting it at an oblique angle...my point was that a digital lens that takes this into account would be worth buying, especially if they create a full frame digital lens of this type

 

[jonathan_wong]

I have been shooting film for many many years, from Nikon FM, Rolleiflex to a Nikon D70s and 5400 etc etc today.

As a engineer, I still find Digital cameras are techno gimmicks and they fall short in man yareas. Market gimmicks and consumer wisdom is making Nikon and Canon make hell tonnes load of $$$$.

1. resolution, feel, colour are no where near film. For the best pictures, I still shoot slides.
D200 ro D80 have higher resolution now, but at over S$2k and possibly will cost less than S$1k withing a year or two, how many rolls of film I can shoot using S$1k?? Even for some renowed Golf photographers, they still shoot film and totally avoid digital.

For wedding, I have seen the use of digital Zeiss and Contax medium format. The cost is ridiculous. There is still a long and expensive process of using computer graphics manipulation. If possible, film with a Mamiya or Bronica still give a better 'feel' of the picture.

2. control lacks confidences. If I press my shuttle I should be confident to have a picture that i will shout 'WOW' eventually. It is total lack of confidence to 'shoot and check' every shot taken. In real life situation where is an event full of unexpected moments, a SLR may be a lot better to shoot with.

3. I can fire at 8 frames/sec exhaust a roll of film and then simply pop on another roll. i never miss a shot because of the camera (F90X, F801 or even a modest FM2 with motor). I had once poped 8 rolls shooting a ceremony in Korea and was very happy I still got all the pigture I wanted. But for Digital, the number of times missing a shot because of the camera is much higher.

4. Working in a HD company R&D and as a read write channel design engineer I have lots of 5G, 8G 10G or even 20G hard disks. If you trust the reliability of those little hard disks, I am sure you are a gambler!

I still shoot film and am very happy about it. if I need a digital file simply have it scanned. Not as lucid as a pure digital, the quality is still there.

Paying S$2k for a plastic toy is not justifiable. For S$2k, you can get state of the art film equipment, especially now many throw away their film gear to spend more $$$ to buy plastic lens.

The only advantage I see in Digital is no need to process film and can simply upload. For taking some reports and quickly post , digital camera is very convenient. But that is not taking quality picture. It depends on what sort of pictures you are happy with at the end of the day. For digital, I still ask friends to buy something like a Nikon 5400. That is more than good enough.

 

[theRBK]

I have been shooting film for many many years, from Nikon FM, Rolleiflex to a Nikon D70s and 5400 etc etc today.

As a engineer, I still find Digital cameras are techno gimmicks and they fall short in man yareas. Market gimmicks and consumer wisdom is making Nikon and Canon make hell tonnes load of $$$$.

1. resolution, feel, colour are no where near film. For the best pictures, I still shoot slides.
D200 ro D80 have higher resolution now, but at over S$2k and possibly will cost less than S$1k withing a year or two, how many rolls of film I can shoot using S$1k?? Even for some renowed Golf photographers, they still shoot film and totally avoid digital.

For wedding, I have seen the use of digital Zeiss and Contax medium format. The cost is ridiculous. There is still a long and expensive process of using computer graphics manipulation. If possible, film with a Mamiya or Bronica still give a better 'feel' of the picture.

2. control lacks confidences. If I press my shuttle I should be confident to have a picture that i will shout 'WOW' eventually. It is total lack of confidence to 'shoot and check' every shot taken. In real life situation where is an event full of unexpected moments, a SLR may be a lot better to shoot with.

3. I can fire at 8 frames/sec exhaust a roll of film and then simply pop on another roll. i never miss a shot because of the camera (F90X, F801 or even a modest FM2 with motor). I had once poped 8 rolls shooting a ceremony in Korea and was very happy I still got all the pigture I wanted. But for Digital, the number of times missing a shot because of the camera is much higher.

4. Working in a HD company R&D and as a read write channel design engineer I have lots of 5G, 8G 10G or even 20G hard disks. If you trust the reliability of those little hard disks, I am sure you are a gambler!

I still shoot film and am very happy about it. if I need a digital file simply have it scanned. Not as lucid as a pure digital, the quality is still there.

Paying S$2k for a plastic toy is not justifiable. For S$2k, you can get state of the art film equipment, especially now many throw away their film gear to spend more $$$ to buy plastic lens.

The only advantage I see in Digital is no need to process film and can simply upload. For taking some reports and quickly post , digital camera is very convenient. But that is not taking quality picture. It depends on what sort of pictures you are happy with at the end of the day. For digital, I still ask friends to buy something like a Nikon 5400. That is more than good enough.

well expressed point of view but out of topic for the thread (digital lenses rather than digital camera)

 

[singscott]

well expressed point of view but out of topic for the thread (digital lenses rather than digital camera)

Err I will second the out of topic motion. The "well expressed point of view" I will reserve my comment Hehehehe

 

[theRBK]

Err I will second the out of topic motion. The "well expressed point of view" I will reserve my comment Hehehehe

be polite sorry I also OT

 

[lsisaxon]

Ok, I'm a Canon user and was asked by a Olympus owner what lenses should I get in future. I think Nikon user may have the same situation as Canon users hence I prefer not to pose in Canon section only.

4 third brand users have no lack of digital lenses for selection especially under the olympus camp where there is already a decent range of true digital lenses either for serious or casual applications.

Canon and Nikon users have a full range of film camera lenses which I think until now there are still lots of buyers. The weird thing is, isn't digital in the lime light now? So in future if a digital user would need a lens in a specific focal length and Canon or Nikon does not have it in digital version? Is it still worth-while to buy a film lenses that are made maybe 7-10 years ago?

We are changing digital bodies like no tomorrow and with Canon or Nikon still slow in releasing true digital lenses, will it come to a day when new versions of film lenses will stop being revised while replacing them are the true digital lenses instead?

If canon is pushing for full frame, then at least it makes sense for their film lenses to remains...then why sell digital lenses? Just to accomodate the lower range DSLR and tide through the period where utimately all will become full frame? So will Canon film lenses or digital lenses be obselete in future? What about Nikon? :dunno: :think: :dunno: :think:

People are familiar with 135 format lenses. So for Nikon and Canon (and Sony Alpha previously Minolta) where the mount is still the same as for film, there is obviously a choice. But whether the film lenses (especially those designed more than 10 years ago) are up to par for digital or not that's another question.

Nikon took the approach of using a reduced size sensor firstly because of cost, secondly because the sharpest region of the old lenses are in the centre crop anyway. And since the older lens design throw the light at an angle instead of perpendicularly down at the corners, they will not work well on full 135 frame digital because of the low pass filter. However, the centre portion of these lenses will still work reasonably well.

Since lenses have to be redesigned anyway, might as well redesign for a smaller sensor rather than stick with full 135 frame which will only make things more expensive. I don't understand the part on what you mean by true digital lenses. Nikon DX lenses are meant only for the DX format DSLR and some of the newer AF-S lenses are optimised for use on digital bodies. So I don't see any shortage of 'true' digital lenses for Nikon users.

As for 4/3 system, they have their own set of lenses and all of them are only for 4/3, so there is no choice for them, so the question doesn't exist.

 

[Deadpoet]

I have been shooting film for many many years, from Nikon FM, Rolleiflex to a Nikon D70s and 5400 etc etc today.
....

The only advantage I see in Digital is no need to process film and can simply upload. For taking some reports and quickly post , digital camera is very convenient. But that is not taking quality picture. It depends on what sort of pictures you are happy with at the end of the day. For digital, I still ask friends to buy something like a Nikon 5400. That is more than good enough.

Nice to see dinosaur still roams amoung us.

 

[Vulpix0r]

I think this crop factor is here to stay. The appeal for cameras with such sensors will still be popular for budget photographers, and I don't envision crop factor sensors dying out.

 

[photobum]

I have been shooting film for many many years, from Nikon FM, Rolleiflex to a Nikon D70s and 5400 etc etc today.

As a engineer, I still find Digital cameras are techno gimmicks and they fall short in man yareas. Market gimmicks and consumer wisdom is making Nikon and Canon make hell tonnes load of $$$$.

1. resolution, feel, colour are no where near film. For the best pictures, I still shoot slides.
D200 ro D80 have higher resolution now, but at over S$2k and possibly will cost less than S$1k withing a year or two, how many rolls of film I can shoot using S$1k?? Even for some renowed Golf photographers, they still shoot film and totally avoid digital.

For wedding, I have seen the use of digital Zeiss and Contax medium format. The cost is ridiculous. There is still a long and expensive process of using computer graphics manipulation. If possible, film with a Mamiya or Bronica still give a better 'feel' of the picture.

2. control lacks confidences. If I press my shuttle I should be confident to have a picture that i will shout 'WOW' eventually. It is total lack of confidence to 'shoot and check' every shot taken. In real life situation where is an event full of unexpected moments, a SLR may be a lot better to shoot with.

3. I can fire at 8 frames/sec exhaust a roll of film and then simply pop on another roll. i never miss a shot because of the camera (F90X, F801 or even a modest FM2 with motor). I had once poped 8 rolls shooting a ceremony in Korea and was very happy I still got all the pigture I wanted. But for Digital, the number of times missing a shot because of the camera is much higher.

4. Working in a HD company R&D and as a read write channel design engineer I have lots of 5G, 8G 10G or even 20G hard disks. If you trust the reliability of those little hard disks, I am sure you are a gambler!

I still shoot film and am very happy about it. if I need a digital file simply have it scanned. Not as lucid as a pure digital, the quality is still there.

Paying S$2k for a plastic toy is not justifiable. For S$2k, you can get state of the art film equipment, especially now many throw away their film gear to spend more $$$ to buy plastic lens.

The only advantage I see in Digital is no need to process film and can simply upload. For taking some reports and quickly post , digital camera is very convenient. But that is not taking quality picture. It depends on what sort of pictures you are happy with at the end of the day. For digital, I still ask friends to buy something like a Nikon 5400. That is more than good enough.

How I wish there are more people like you so that I don't have headaches looking for a particular film I wanted. Because of this 'digital revolution', we, 'the analog dinosaurs', have to make changes to the way we take photographs.