How Nikon bettered Canon with full-frame SLRs
Update 4:00 p.m.: I clarified two sentences and added a third to make it clear that Nikon and Canon never forced customers to buy small-frame lenses. Still relevant in my opinion, though, is the practical reality that customers already have and will again.
Rob Gruhl shot this photo with a 12-24mm 'DX' lens geared for small-frame Nikon cameras mounted to a full-frame 'FX' camera, the new D3. The DX lens is designed to shed light only on a small-frame image circle, but the D3 can be set to record on its entire sensor frame. This shot, taken at a focal length of 12mm, shows the portion illuminated with the DX lens.
(Credit: Rob Gruhl)Canon beat Nikon to market by years with a high-end digital SLR whose image sensor is the size of a full frame of 35mm film. But while Nikon may have been late to the party with its new D3, I think it employed a much smarter approach to a lens compatibility issue.
One of the chief merits of single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras is their ability to accommodate multiple lenses, letting photographers adapt the same camera body to shoot everything from faraway birds to the confined quarters of a small house. It's annoying that one company's lenses generally don't work on another company's camera bodies, but it's even more annoying when a single company's products are incompatible, and the full-frame trend in higher-end cameras has put the spotlight on the issue.
Here's the background. The vast majority of digital SLRs sold today use smaller image sensors measuring roughly 24x16mm that are much less expensive to manufacture than full-frame 36x24mm sensors. Canon and Nikon both have made lenses specifically for these smaller sensors; Canon's small-frame lenses bear the EF-S label and Nikon's are called DX. Although neither company forced anyone to buy these lens lines, many have done so.
One big reason to make small-frame lenses is that wide-angle lenses need to be reworked for small sensors. For example, you need to use a 10mm lens on a small-frame Canon camera such as an EOS 40D to get the same field of view as a 16mm lens on a full-frame camera model such as an EOS 5D. Another big reason is that lenses for smaller sensors can be made smaller and lighter.
For many folks with digital SLRs, having a separate line of lenses for small-frame cameras isn't a big deal. They'll buy a lower-end, small-frame camera, and if they buy a later model, there's a good chance it'll be another small-frame model and their lenses will work fine. But for photographers upgrading to a full-frame camera, the lens compatibility issue rears its ugly head.
Canon shooters can't use small-frame EF-S lenses on full-frame cameras. Full-frame cameras physically can only accommodate EF lenses. Nikon, though, permits its small-frame DX lenses to be mounted on its full-frame FX cameras.
Nikon's approach isn't all smooth sailing. DX lenses are designed to shine light only a small sensor, so by default, a full-frame camera will use only the central portion of the larger sensor, meaning that many pixels are wasted. On the 12.1-megapixel D3, you only get a 5.1 megapixel image. And if you do enable the full sensor to work, in many situations light will only fall on the central pixels anyway, leaving a clear record of the lens' smaller image circle. (The DX-on-FX photo by D3 owner Rob Gruhl above illustrates the effect.)
Nikon's strategy meant that lens compatibility is a bigger issue for professional-level photographers. Its first full-frame camera, the $5,000 D3, has only just hit the market in recent weeks. That means pro-level photographers who wanted to go digital with earlier pro-level SLRs such as Nikon's D2Xs might well have felt no compunctions about investing in small-frame lenses and might have been enticed to do so to get a super-wide-angle zoom, for example.
In addition to the relatively inexpensive "kit" lenses that ship with lower-end SLRs, Nikon DX models include a $900 12-24mm f/4 wide-angle zoom, a $1,200 17-55mm f/2.8, a $600 10.5mm f/2.8mm fisheye, and a $700 image-stabilized 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 super-zoom that's the company's best-selling lens ever.
Canon, on the other hand, introduced full-frame cameras many years earlier--2002 with the EOS-1Ds--when pros weren't as far along in their transition from film to digital and therefore might have been less likely to have made investments in EF-S lenses. Indeed, one EF-S lens useful in getting full performance out of a small-frame SLR, the 10-22mm f/4-5.6 zoom, wasn't even on the market until 2004.
But the market is different now. Canon introduced the full-frame 5D more than two years ago, and it's now available for $2,100. No entry-level buyer will be interested, but that's within the range of a lot of enthusiasts, and I wouldn't be surprised if a more powerful successor (the 5D Mark II? The 7D?) is announced in conjunction with the PMA photo show in January. This is an obvious upgrade path for people who bought solid small-frame models such as the Rebel XT or 20D.
Unfortunately, it's not just a matter of reworking the lens mount on the 5D successor. The approach Canon chose with its EF-S lenses means they physically can't work on full-frame cameras because the camera's reflex mirror, which flips out of the way when a photograph is taken, would strike with the rearmost lens element or at least a rubber ring that protrudes to protect it.
"The reflex mirror on a full-frame camera would definitely collide with the rubber ring on EF-S lenses if someone managed to jam one on," said Canon spokesman and tech guru Chuck Westfall. Canon is not currently rethinking its approach to small-frame lenses on full-frame cameras, he also said.
Canon stands by its approach of permitting only full-frame lenses on full-frame cameras. "In our view, it's more valuable to preserve a full angle of view wherever possible," Westfall said. "The image circle projected by EF-S lenses is only sufficient for EOS digital SLRs with APS-C format (small-frame) image sensors, so allowing such lenses to be mounted on cameras with larger imaging formats wouldn't be practical."
The "S" in EF-S refers to the shorter back-focus distance separating the lenses' rearmost element and the sensor. "Probably the most important potential advantage of shorter backfocus is smaller, lighter and more affordable lenses," Westfall said. "Case in point: EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 is significantly smaller, lighter, and more affordable than a lens of the same zoom range and maximum aperture with full-frame coverage."
Canon has some good engineers and I'm sure it carefully evaluated its options when making small-sensor lenses. Its lens approach probably helped it be the first to market with a sub-$1,000 digital SLR, the original Digital Rebel.
But with full-frame SLRs now dropping in price--potentially even faster now that Nikon is exerting competitive pressure--I think it's too bad Canon didn't opt for a design with better lens compatibility. If you're the type of photographer who might consider upgrading to a full-frame camera, think carefully before laying out nearly $1,000 for a Canon 17-55mm EF-S f/2.8.
On Sale Now: $2,498.95
View the latest prices for Canon EOS 5D (body only)
On Sale Now: $1,199.95
View the latest prices for Canon EOS 40D (body only)
On Sale Now: $5,893.00
View the latest prices for Nikon D2Xs
On Sale Now: $906.60
View the latest prices for Canon EOS Rebel XTi (EF-S 18-55mm Lens, black)
Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank. 
I'll look to see what comes out in the Zeiss line that fits these new
larger format bodies.
they are owned by a division of Sony now.
When was the last time you saw a (pro-)consumer Zeiss lens on
anything other than a Sony (pro-)consumer camera?
I decided to purchase the EFS lens because
1. It had IS, the 16-35L does not offer this option.
2. It had a greater zoom reach which I personally find extremely useful
3. The chances of me purchasing a full frame camera in the near future (e.g. 2-3 years) is remote. While the potential is always there I can't justify the expense as I am only a hobbyist.
Pete
"I think it employed a much smarter approach to a lens
compatibility issue."
Back in the middle 50s... (yes, half a century ago) Nikon
introduced the F-mount for lenses and kept it for all
[professional] models.
Nikon realized that the photographer's investment in lenses
usually surpaced the investment in bodies.
And, yes, also that you'll be more glad to buy a new body if you
can use your lenses.
There was a famous barrel reflexion telephoto lens that I think it
would be worthwhile to have still today (if you know how to
focus and adjust speed/aperture manually!)
Canon's low end digitals. We buy the L series glass. Nikon lost
many, many pros due to poor design and decisions over the last
15-20 years. I was one. In the late '70s I started with Canon, but
over the years moved to Nikon because that is what my
employers had for staff gear. There was an awkward period
when Canon's glass was so much less expensive than Nikon's
that some were cutting the Canon mounts from the Canon
lenses and attaching Nikon mounts to them. If we really wanted
to get fancy, I had a buddy who could cut a new focusing helical
so the Canon lens would focus in the same direction as Nikon.
Those were the days of the the mighty Nikon F2, F3 and FM
series, all great cameras. Going into the '90s I found myself with
a full set of Nikons. Canon, thinking to the future, had moved to
a larger lens mount and I was ticked. Buying Nikon in the early
'90s was the worst camera investment I ever made. The glass
was fine but the Nikon bodies were so undependable, I traded
them at a great loss for Canon gear after only a few years. I tried
to hang on, Nikon kept promising a better product but never
delivered. My Canon gear worked flawlessly for years, I think the
only problem was one worn out shutter box. So, when digital
came on the scene it was an easy move to stay with Canon. Now,
most big news organizations have moved to Canon because the
repair costs of their undependable Nikons made a total switch
feasible to the bean counters. I'd like to think that Nikon has
turned the corner and will return to making bullet-proof gear,
choice is always good, but for me and many other pros, it's too
little too late.
http://www.kentsievers.com
questionable quality hardware for a period but so has Canon
had it's time.
Canon made great strides in wooing people with low-cost
DSLR's over the last 5 to 10 years which has lead them to buy
their pro equipment as they move up. Nikon has been doing the
same thing Canon did years ago now with its current batch of amateur cameras and now has a Pro (read D3) camera to offer.
The D300 is also no slouch.
I mostly have normal Nikon lenses and 1 DX lens. I rent short
lenses when I need them as I always looked as the DX format as
temporary and the DX lenses subpar. I look forward to buying a
D3 and welcome Nikon back to the fight.
Cheers.
Now that is brand loyalty.
As another reply mentioned, if you're putting real money into Canon lenses you'll be buying L series stuff. But even if you can't afford that, the EF series are still better buys than most of the EF-S lenses (for example, the EF 28-135 IS is a better walking-around lens than the EF-S 17-85, for several reasons). Unless you really want the minor compactness improvement of the EF-S lenses you'll almost certainly buy EF.
So I think the thesis of the article is wrong: There just isn't enough investment in EF-S to represent enough of a discontinuity to push people away from Canon. On the contrary, the heavy investment in EF lenses -- even by people who have EF-S capable cameras -- is likely to keep people in the fold.
I think it's a more likely proposition that Nikon's move to full-frame sensors and CMOS technology, regardless of DX lens compatibility, is going to help them staunch some of the losses they were incurring as people defected to Canon for their inexpensive digital bodies that produced high-quality images, especially at higher ISOs. Nikon is, for the first time, truly competitive in the digital realm.
Regarding Nikon's DX line, you have to be nuts to believe that many people would put up with the kind of image they will get out of a DX lens on a full-frame camera, particularly the kind of person who would invest in a D3. That's just unacceptable image quality.
While I agree that those who already serious are headed toward L-series (and EF only) lenses already (and as I mentioned, on the other side of the specrum, that low-end customers probably will be happy with EF-S lenses and likely won't ever buy a full-frame model), the people who might be concerned are those who are in between--those who might be upgrading. A pro who began buying Canon EF lenses in 1993 is probably set, but what of the college student getting started right now and who will be a pro four years from now on a very tight budget? What of the retiree who got bitten by the photography bug and now wants to shoot a lot more? An EF-S lens might not be perfect on a full-frame camera, but it could be a nice option, especially if you can't afford to drop hundreds or thousands of dollars on lenses all the time. And heck, I like the look of that DX-on-FX Nikon picture I included in the blog--I think it's kind of a cool effect to see just where the image circle actually falls. DX lenses are optimized for DX sensors, but their image circle spreads beyond the DX area. I can't remember the exact point at which the 12-24mm DX lens covers the full frame, but Nikon told me it does get there as you head away from the widest wide angle.
Regarding one specific point, if I were getting started with just one walk-around lens on a small-frame Canon, I personally would prefer the 17-85mm EF-S over the 28-135mm EF. Wide-angle shots are important to me, and 28mm barely qualifies as wide on a small-frame Canon (it's 45mm in full-frame field-of-view terms). That's just me, of course.
Regarding people who are "nuts" to put up with a a DX crop on a full-frame camera, I can point you to this Baltimore Sun photographer who loves the D3 but actively wants the DX mode:
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/broadband/photoedge/blog/2007/12/the_nikon_d3_what_a_camera_sho.html
"A minor drawback...is the need for longer lenses. To get the tight image I wanted of Sheila Dixon, I had to change the camera to the crop mode. This adds the 1.5x lens magnification factor, so while using the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 it became an effective 450mm."
It's a big market out there with a lot of customers.
Minolt'a lenses work on the new Sony Alpha cameras. They also
use the Zeiss lenses made for Sony.
A couple of things I've noticed:
- lots of people report success using Sigma DC lenses on the 5D. They get vignetting, of course, but no interference between the rear element and the mirror. (Also, interesting, the vignetting is not as severe as one might expect. The image you get is somewhere between that 1.6 circle and the full frame.
- People have reported success in actually filing down a *small* part of the mirror on a 5D in order to accomodate the 17-55 and maybe 10-22. Taking a rasp to your 5D may be not your cup of tea, but it proves that the "engineering" required to get an EF-S lens to function on a full-frame body is not that great. (Oh, and what do you lose with that chunk of mirror? image-wise, nothing. I assume you could get some vignetting in the viewfinder, but it would not appear on the images.)
-- d
but when I decided that my photography was worth a greater
investment, I kept my 1.6 sensor Canon and bought L-Series lens
first. Later, I bought a full-frame camera body.
One EF-S lens, that sold at a fair price, didn't make a dent.
- Why would you want an EF-S Lens on a Full Frame?
- by thomasjames December 17, 2007 6:29 PM PST
- You have outlined the clues yourself! Using only 5 megapixels of a
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Always helpful
- by nicmart December 17, 2007 9:09 PM PST
- There is always nice person available to tell other how they should
- Like this
-
(16 Comments)12 megapixel camera?? Insanity.
The Canon EF lens range is the finest range of lenses in the world.
If you are upgrading to a full frame camera and were silly enough
to invest in EF-S lenses in the past when its always been known
that the EF range is more future proof... then just sell the EF-Ss on
eBay and get a real lens!
have and ought to spend their money.