Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why Obsolescence

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 29, 2005 10:38:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

1The question of Obsolescence was recently raised and where it comes
to electronics/cameras:

Electronics (and today's cameras are masterpieces of electronics) is a
rapidly changing field and the parts used in cameras even more so with
the evolution of sensors, memory, and processors.

Those of us using digital cameras, be they point-and-shoot, or the
more expensive digital SLRs (dSLR) have bought into one of the fastest
changing technologies available.

One of the risks associated with rapidly changing technology is rapid
obsolescence.

Much electronic equipment is made with replacement in mind, not
repair. There is little in a computer than can economically be
repaired. It's far cheaper to replace the motherboard, video card,
hard drives, or R/W DVD drives than to even attempt to repair them. I
have four computers that run 24 X 7. The only thing that remains the
same (so far) are the cases. Almost everything inside is upgraded
every two to three years.

Cameras are currently much the same as computers in the above aspect..
With the rapid advancements in memory, processors, and particularly
sensors coupled with a highly competitive market, there is a
tremendous drive to keep pace with technology. That means the camera
manufacturers have no choice but to try to bring out the latest and
greatest before their competition does.

This means for any given brand, models will be changing rapidly.
Technology allows them to provide more functions for less money. It
also means it is uneconomical for the manufacturers to carry spare
parts for models more than a generation or two back from the current
ones.

Something important to remember: This is a consumer driven market! It
is a highly competitive consumer driven market that requires every
competitor to try and stay at the leading edge by offering the most
features, or the most features for the money (not necessarily the
same).

I'm not so sure the digital camera market has even started to mature
as yet. Until it does so, we will by necessity be looking at what are
essentially "throw away" cameras. You *may* find the more expensive
dSLRs and pro cameras supported for a generation or more longer than
the consumer oriented camera. These cameras are much more expensive
to have repaired so the manufacturer can afford to keep parts for a
while longer.

Like computers where probably 90% of the users could get along with
the $300 to $400 version, many opt for the much faster and higher
priced models, the camera end users are going for the 5, 6 or 8
megapixel models when 2 or 3 megapixels would be sufficient for the
vast majority of the market. These are the people who drive the
market. They are the people who put the majority of the money into
the market that drives the technology. By driving the consumer market
they are indirectly driving the intermediate (dSLR) and even pro
market.

Once the market matures several things should happen. Manufacturers
are no longer going to be able to offer far more capabilities for less
money. That means there will be fewer major upgrades and they will
not come as often. With a much slower pace keeping spare parts at
least for the parts that can be replaced, will become much more
economical and even the lower end cameras *may* find repair as an
option instead of replacement.

I happen to like the new technology, but I still use my 35mm cameras,
my old Oly E20N (even if it is slow) and I use a digital watch even
when flying.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

More about : obsolescence

Anonymous
May 30, 2005 6:32:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger wrote:

> One of the risks associated with rapidly changing technology is rapid
> obsolescence.

Not so much with cameras though.

> Much electronic equipment is made with replacement in mind, not
> repair. There is little in a computer than can economically be
> repaired. It's far cheaper to replace the motherboard, video card,
> hard drives, or R/W DVD drives than to even attempt to repair them. I
> have four computers that run 24 X 7. The only thing that remains the
> same (so far) are the cases. Almost everything inside is upgraded
> every two to three years.

The only thing that "obsoletes" a computer is not the change in
electronics, but the changes in software. Newer, more powerful software
requires a more powerful computer to run it. And old 386 will run a
given app just as well today as it did in, say, 1992. If that app does
the job it's needed to do, then it is not obsolete and neither is the
computer. The computer only becomes "obsolete" if the software becomes
obsolete because newer software with greater capabilities is required.

> Cameras are currently much the same as computers in the above aspect..

Not at all...

> With the rapid advancements in memory, processors, and particularly
> sensors coupled with a highly competitive market, there is a
> tremendous drive to keep pace with technology. That means the camera
> manufacturers have no choice but to try to bring out the latest and
> greatest before their competition does.

A camera is a very simple, basic device: it's a box that holds a
light-focusing mechanism (from pinhole to multielement lens) in front of
some sort of photosensitive material (silver plate, film, CMOS or CCD).
From the first silver-plate pinhole cameras to the latest digital
monstrosities, that premise has not changed. Everything else -
autofocus, electronic metering, adjustable apertures, even the shutter -
is just bells and whistles.

The development of new types of photosensitive materials does not
obsolete the basic concept. It may obsolete other materials of the same
type (as the 8MP sensor may obsolete the 1MP sensor, CMOS may obsolete
CCD, or modern film formulations may obsolete the silver plate) but it
won't necessarily obsolete DIFFERENT technologies.

Even new bells and whistles don't necessarily obsolete the old ones.
New technologies bring their own drawbacks; often the more advanced the
technology, the greater the showstoppers those drawbacks can become. A
single dead battery turns my Digital Rebel and all its accessories into
a $3000 doorstop, while my old Argus C3 "brick" camera continues to take
pictures that are just as clear and sharp as they were when it was new,
50 years ago (and, arguably, CAN be clearer and sharper than anything
the Rebel cranks out).

Old? Yes.

Obsolete? Not even close.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0521-5, 05/29/2005
Tested on: 5/29/2005 7:31:43 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
May 30, 2005 7:32:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 30 May 2005 02:32:00 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com>
wrote:

>Roger wrote:
>
>> One of the risks associated with rapidly changing technology is rapid
>> obsolescence.
>
>Not so much with cameras though.
>
Far more so now than with the earlier 35 mm technology.

>> Much electronic equipment is made with replacement in mind, not
>> repair. There is little in a computer than can economically be
>> repaired. It's far cheaper to replace the motherboard, video card,
>> hard drives, or R/W DVD drives than to even attempt to repair them. I
>> have four computers that run 24 X 7. The only thing that remains the
>> same (so far) are the cases. Almost everything inside is upgraded
>> every two to three years.
>
>The only thing that "obsoletes" a computer is not the change in
>electronics, but the changes in software. Newer, more powerful software

This is one of those chicken or the egg things.
If the computers didn't have the capability to run "bloat ware" the
programs would be much smaller.

>requires a more powerful computer to run it. And old 386 will run a

As it's been my profession, my experience is like the old adage, the
job will take the time allotted, in this case the applications will
expand to use the resources available.

>given app just as well today as it did in, say, 1992. If that app does
>the job it's needed to do, then it is not obsolete and neither is the
>computer. The computer only becomes "obsolete" if the software becomes
>obsolete because newer software with greater capabilities is required.

Much of today's software is truely "bloat ware" and this is
particularly true for the Windows environment.

Being able to program in the object oriented languages such as Visual
C++, or Visual Basic really takes a load off the programmer, but it
puts one whale of a load on the machine. When you compile say 32K of
source code it gets a bit larger, but when you compile it into a
"stand alone' program it may expand by one or two orders of magnitude.

The standard office apps don't have all that much more capability than
the early ones. Certainly they have some and to some people they are
important, but take for instance Front Page used in web page
development. It is one of the sloppiest pieces of software out there.
It works well, but it generates 3 to 5 lines of code for every line on
a page. It starts with three to five pages of definitions and links,
none of which are needed in most cases.

Because of poor design that takes advantage of powerful CPUs and lots
of memory.. and lots of storage we have very large programs that
wouldn't fit on one of the old computers, or if it did it'd run very
slow.

>
>> Cameras are currently much the same as computers in the above aspect..
>
>Not at all...

Working in both professions I still say they are at present.

>
>> With the rapid advancements in memory, processors, and particularly
>> sensors coupled with a highly competitive market, there is a
>> tremendous drive to keep pace with technology. That means the camera
>> manufacturers have no choice but to try to bring out the latest and
>> greatest before their competition does.
>
>A camera is a very simple, basic device: it's a box that holds a
>light-focusing mechanism (from pinhole to multielement lens) in front of
>some sort of photosensitive material (silver plate, film, CMOS or CCD).

35 mm camera were, today's digital cameras are not.

> From the first silver-plate pinhole cameras to the latest digital
>monstrosities, that premise has not changed. Everything else -
>autofocus, electronic metering, adjustable apertures, even the shutter -
> is just bells and whistles.

Bells and whistles the average shooter could not do without.
Bells and whistles demanded by most shooters including the pros.
Take out the film and add a CCD, or CMOS sensor and you have just
ended up with a camera that *requires* a CPU, memory, buffers and a
fair amount of power consumption. Those are the cameras of today and
those are the things that are evolving rapidly.

>
>The development of new types of photosensitive materials does not
>obsolete the basic concept. It may obsolete other materials of the same
>type (as the 8MP sensor may obsolete the 1MP sensor, CMOS may obsolete
>CCD, or modern film formulations may obsolete the silver plate) but it
>won't necessarily obsolete DIFFERENT technologies.

But it obsoletes the specific cameras. The electronic components of a
camera are replace, not repair.

>
>Even new bells and whistles don't necessarily obsolete the old ones.

But we have a consumer driven market and they demand the latest and
greatest, whether they need it or not. That drives rapid development
and evolution of devices that make it impractical to keep parts for
older units. it drives a market that makes it uneconomical to support
many cameras more than a few years old. It's also the reason
manufacturers are resorting to what are sometimes drastic cost cutting
measures and one of the most costly is customer service. Basically
you have to support not only the basics of a camera but a computer
with specialized circuitry as well.

>New technologies bring their own drawbacks; often the more advanced the
>technology, the greater the showstoppers those drawbacks can become. A

Bleeding edge instead of leading edge. OTOH that is a good description
for many of the computers I've owned over the years.

>single dead battery turns my Digital Rebel and all its accessories into
>a $3000 doorstop, while my old Argus C3 "brick" camera continues to take
>pictures that are just as clear and sharp as they were when it was new,
>50 years ago (and, arguably, CAN be clearer and sharper than anything
>the Rebel cranks out).

I have about 20,000 slides from a C-3 and I still have my Original H2
Pentax which was an all manual SLR.
>
>Old? Yes.
>
>Obsolete? Not even close.
>
To you or me, no, but to the market...yes they are.

I still use the old H-2 that was my first camera as a teenager., and
my F4-S (which was a long time after I had been a teenager). The F-4S
is not a brick, it is more related to a bowling ball for heft, but it
sure is strong. It's also capable of shooting in a full manual mode.
However I still see new F4S bodies going for a fraction of what mine
cost. There is no cost effective market for a strictly manual small
frame camera except the disposable 35s. (a growing market BTW)

My minors are art and math with my degree in CS. Back in the
photography classes we had a good percent of the students who had a
devil of a time using cameras in the manual mode. As I was using an
F4S the instructor figured I had the background to use it in manual
mode which I did. It was a bit inconvenient as I had to use the
camera as a light meter and then set everything manually. However if
the batteries go dead it becomes a fully manual camera that even
requires you use a different shutter button.

That F4S has been the most trouble free camera I've ever owned with
maybe the exception of that old C-3. I've used the F4S a lot, but
it's never been my favorite for casual use due to its heft. It's just
too darn heavy for casual work, but it is rugged as opposed to an F-3
I owned for a few years. That camera spent more time in the shop than
all the rest I've owned put together. I still have the 8008S that I
used mostly for casual shooting. It's light and it works well.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Related resources
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 9:04:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger <Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote:


>I happen to like the new technology, but I still use my 35mm cameras,
>my old Oly E20N (even if it is slow) and I use a digital watch even
>when flying.

I thought digital watches were "new technology" What's rendered them
obsolete?


To reply, please remove one letter from each side of "@"
Spammers are VERMIN. Please kill them all.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 4:27:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:38:42 -0400, Roger
<Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote:

snipped
>I'm not so sure the digital camera market has even started to mature
>as yet. Until it does so, we will by necessity be looking at what are
>essentially "throw away" cameras. You *may* find the more expensive
>dSLRs and pro cameras supported for a generation or more longer than
>the consumer oriented camera. These cameras are much more expensive
>to have repaired so the manufacturer can afford to keep parts for a
>while longer.

So? Just buy in a DLSR which has quality lenses which fit all their
bodies. What if you replace bodies every couple of years if your
lenses (the really big investment) go on. This is why I went with
Canon and don't buy EF-S lenses but only EF's and them try to say with
L's.


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 10:41:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 30 May 2005 12:27:19 GMT, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:38:42 -0400, Roger
><Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote:
>
>snipped
>>I'm not so sure the digital camera market has even started to mature
>>as yet. Until it does so, we will by necessity be looking at what are
>>essentially "throw away" cameras. You *may* find the more expensive
>>dSLRs and pro cameras supported for a generation or more longer than
>>the consumer oriented camera. These cameras are much more expensive
>>to have repaired so the manufacturer can afford to keep parts for a
>>while longer.
>
>So? Just buy in a DLSR which has quality lenses which fit all their
>bodies. What if you replace bodies every couple of years if your
>lenses (the really big investment) go on. This is why I went with
>Canon and don't buy EF-S lenses but only EF's and them try to say with
>L's.
>
>
>*********************************************************
>
>"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
> my testimony. The events I have recorded should
> not be forgotten and must not be repeated."
>
> -James Nachtwey-
> http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

John A. Stovall,
IMHO the 1.6x crop factor (APS) size sensor is
unlikely to ever go away. Even if the price of a full frame sensor
was equal to the APS size, I think Canon & others will continue to
make cameras in this sensor size for those who favor the telephoto
lenses because it gives them the option of using smaller, lighter
lenses to meet most of their needs.

On the other side of the equation, here is what I would
consider if I were Canon & wanted to give people their cake & let them
eat it too:

Build a full frame DSLR that can use both EF & EF-S lenses.
On the face of this, the idea seems flawed because the required larger
mirror would likely hit the back of an EF lens. Also an EF-S lens
used with a full size sensor would likely cause serious light drop off
in the corners of the image & or very poor quality edge to edge.

It's my belief that the solution to both of these problems can
be addressed by Canon or others in the following way:

1> Redesign the way that the mirror flips up so that it can
safely clear the rear of the EF-S lens!

2> When an EF-S lens is detected on the camera, it will switch
over to a "electronically" cropped APS sized area of the full sized
sensor. Granted this would result in a considerable loss in
resolution over that of the full size of the sensor being used but for
more casual or higher speed work, this could be a viable option that
some might want when they don't need that much resolution or want/need
to save the memory card storage space.

After all, is this not why the cameras offer the consumer
resolution options? For some things, it's just not needed to use the
full resolution of the camera. Rather like RAW or jpg, each has it's
uses & although RAW can yield better pictures, it requires
considerable post processing that not everybody is willing to do.
Also there is yet to be a single RAW format used by all manufacturers.

In any case, these are just some ideas, thoughts, wishes from
an amateur photographer with 25+ years experience with 35mm film SLR &
4+ years with digital cameras.

It's an interesting time to be in photography because digital
is still growing & advancing. Which way it grows will depend both on
what can be economically (profitably) done as well as what the
consumers "want", not necessarily "need"! Most want more megapixels,
especially in the P&S line where few even consider the actual sensor
size when making the MP size choice.

It will be interesting to see where things go from here!

Respectfully, DHB

..
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 12:15:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 30 May 2005 18:41:12 GMT, DHB <yoda2k@verizon.net> wrote:

snipped
> IMHO the 1.6x crop factor (APS) size sensor is
>unlikely to ever go away. Even if the price of a full frame sensor
>was equal to the APS size, I think Canon & others will continue to
>make cameras in this sensor size for those who favor the telephoto
>lenses because it gives them the option of using smaller, lighter
>lenses to meet most of their needs.

And can you name one EF-S telephoto Canon makes?

If you want a Canon telephoto for a 1.6 sensor, you will buy an EF
lens.


********************************************************

"The condition of civil affairs in Texas is anomalous,
singular, and unsatisfactory."

Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sherdan
to
Bvt. Maj. Gen. John A. Rawlins
November 14, 1866
June 3, 2005 7:27:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 30 May 2005 05:04:57 -0400, Doug Warner
<dwarner22@ccharter.net> wrote:

>Roger <Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I happen to like the new technology, but I still use my 35mm cameras,
>>my old Oly E20N (even if it is slow) and I use a digital watch even
>>when flying.
>
>I thought digital watches were "new technology" What's rendered them
>obsolete?+3.

Not obsolete, but there are areas where watches with sweep second
hands are preferred. I do have a digital timer on the yoke, but the
panel has a wind up clock with a sweep second hand. Like taking a
pulse it is easier to time from a position rather than count. Yes,
you can set a count down timer or straight timer for the other, but in
flying we try to eliminate any extra steps, particularly when you are
coming down an ILS and can't see your own wing tips

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>To reply, please remove one letter from each side of "@"
>Spammers are VERMIN. Please kill them all.
June 3, 2005 7:38:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 30 May 2005 12:27:19 GMT, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:38:42 -0400, Roger
><Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote:
>
>snipped
>>I'm not so sure the digital camera market has even started to mature
>>as yet. Until it does so, we will by necessity be looking at what are
>>essentially "throw away" cameras. You *may* find the more expensive
>>dSLRs and pro cameras supported for a generation or more longer than
>>the consumer oriented camera. These cameras are much more expensive
>>to have repaired so the manufacturer can afford to keep parts for a
>>while longer.
>
>So? Just buy in a DLSR which has quality lenses which fit all their
>bodies. What if you replace bodies every couple of years if your
>lenses (the really big investment) go on. This is why I went with
>Canon and don't buy EF-S lenses but only EF's and them try to say with

Which is also what I did with Nikon. I have several 35s including an
F4S and their lenses work just fine on the D-70. I just purchased a
28 to 105 close focus that works on the 35s and great on the D-70.
Good enough I may start using it as the standard lens instead of the
kit lens.

For my own use, I don't care if a camera is considered
state-of-the-art as long as it does what I want. As I mentioned, one
of the cameras I still use is a fully manual Pentax H-2, but
admittedly it doesn't get a lot of use.

The D-70 does nearly everything I want with a couple of
exceptions. The D70s answers one of those with the remote cable
connection. Sooo... I may add a D70s body, or I may wait to see if
they add a mirror lockup in a year or so. Still, it'd be nice to have
a spare body that I could control remotely from behind instead of the
front mounted IR sensor.

My original post was just an explanation as to why today's cameras go
obsolete so quickly and why they aren't supported for long after
seeing so many complaints about such. It's just pretty much a natural
result of a consumer driven market that is evolving rapidly.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>L's.
>
>
>*********************************************************
>
>"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
> my testimony. The events I have recorded should
> not be forgotten and must not be repeated."
>
> -James Nachtwey-
> http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 7:26:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 31 May 2005 08:15:05 -0500, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 30 May 2005 18:41:12 GMT, DHB <yoda2k@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>snipped
>> IMHO the 1.6x crop factor (APS) size sensor is
>>unlikely to ever go away. Even if the price of a full frame sensor
>>was equal to the APS size, I think Canon & others will continue to
>>make cameras in this sensor size for those who favor the telephoto
>>lenses because it gives them the option of using smaller, lighter
>>lenses to meet most of their needs.
>
>And can you name one EF-S telephoto Canon makes?
>
That's my point, the crop 1.6x crop factor allows shorter
focal length lens to act much like longer focal length lenses. My
Canon EF 100mm f2.0 USM lens acts much like a 160mm lens on my Digital
Rebel/300D so if I prefer longer focal length lenses, I can mimic
their effective performance with shorter 1's thanks to the 1.6x crop
factor.

The only reason Canon "might" make a telephoto EF-S lens in
the future would be to reduce the extra size & weight of the lens. A
reasonably light/small 200mm EF-S lens would be nice if the price was
also less than a comparable EF lens. The relative equivalent of a
320mm lens when used on a 1.6x crop factored camera would be nice but
Canon would only build it if they felt there was a large enough call
for it & if it would not cut too far into comparable EF lenses they
make now that cost more.

>If you want a Canon telephoto for a 1.6 sensor, you will buy an EF
>lens.

True enough but I am hoping that Canon comes out with a
relatively small, light weight, fairly inexpensive EF-S 200mm F2.8
lens. This may simply be wishful thinking on my part but what would
life be without hope?
>
>"The condition of civil affairs in Texas is anomalous,
> singular, and unsatisfactory."
>
> Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sherdan
> to
> Bvt. Maj. Gen. John A. Rawlins
> November 14, 1866

Thanks for your question, I hope I answered it.

Respectfully, DHB

..
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 4:55:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 15:26:09 GMT, DHB <yoda2k@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 31 May 2005 08:15:05 -0500, John A. Stovall
><johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 May 2005 18:41:12 GMT, DHB <yoda2k@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>snipped
>>> IMHO the 1.6x crop factor (APS) size sensor is
>>>unlikely to ever go away. Even if the price of a full frame sensor
>>>was equal to the APS size, I think Canon & others will continue to
>>>make cameras in this sensor size for those who favor the telephoto
>>>lenses because it gives them the option of using smaller, lighter
>>>lenses to meet most of their needs.
>>
>>And can you name one EF-S telephoto Canon makes?
>>
> That's my point, the crop 1.6x crop factor allows shorter
>focal length lens to act much like longer focal length lenses. My
>Canon EF 100mm f2.0 USM lens acts much like a 160mm lens on my Digital
>Rebel/300D so if I prefer longer focal length lenses, I can mimic
>their effective performance with shorter 1's thanks to the 1.6x crop
>factor.
>
> The only reason Canon "might" make a telephoto EF-S lens in
>the future would be to reduce the extra size & weight of the lens. A
>reasonably light/small 200mm EF-S lens would be nice if the price was
>also less than a comparable EF lens. The relative equivalent of a
>320mm lens when used on a 1.6x crop factored camera would be nice but
>Canon would only build it if they felt there was a large enough call
>for it & if it would not cut too far into comparable EF lenses they
>make now that cost more.
>
>>If you want a Canon telephoto for a 1.6 sensor, you will buy an EF
>>lens.
>
> True enough but I am hoping that Canon comes out with a
>relatively small, light weight, fairly inexpensive EF-S 200mm F2.8
>lens. This may simply be wishful thinking on my part but what would
>life be without hope?

They have nearly that now, the 135mm F2.0L.


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
!