Hi Skip > >> > > >> Uhhhhh, what more do you want from a lens? The 28-135 I use on my > >> EOS-3 works on my 20D just as well. The image makes its way > through the > >> glass and unto the image sensor just fine. > >> > >> The size of the image sensor is resposible for the 1.6 "crop factor" . > > > > yes, and that's my issue ... this previously wasn't an issue with EOS > > cameras, and now there seems to be different capture area factors to > > include. > > but that hardly makes the lenses "incompatible," does it? Which is the > inference of what you said, if not the direct wording. > > > >> This may take a little getting used to but isn't there a difference > >> between the 5X7 and 4X5 when using, say a 75mm lens? > > > > yes ... my point exactly ... the 75mm is a wider field of view > on the 5x7 > > camera, so my TS-E 24 is now a narrower field of view on the > digital EOS > > ... > > nothing to do with the lens, everything to do with the > different EOS body. > > Of course a 5D or a 1D would mean different results to the > 20D, but then > > that's why I asked are all EOS's equal now? > > No, you asked if all EOS were EOS, a different question. And you > made the > statement that the lenses were no more compatible than the old FD mount > lenses (actually you said F and T series, but that's the same > thing.) Think > of it in terms, as previously mentioned, of different film format bodies > that have the same lens mount. You wouldn't say that a lens that > fit on a > 5x7 was incompatible with an 8x10 if it fit the lens board, just > because it > gave a different field of view, would you? > > > > previously my 630, or a 1 or 55 or rebel or any other EOS > camera gave me > > the > > same results in terms of what I expected to see in the view > finder and in > > my > > image. > > And they still do. What you see through the viewfinder of a 20D is what > will be on the final image, give or take a couple of % points (95% > viewfinder, same as on a 55.) > > > >> > >> From my point of view, any incompatibilty would be with the > "S" lenses > >> which are designed for the digital bodies and can't be used on my -3. > > > > ah yes ... them too ... won't fit onto any of my EOS film > bodies either. > > Now > > that I've got one (had to get something to be able to take wide shots > > again) > > I can't use it on anything else in the EOS range ... perhaps > not even the > > 1D > > Or on the 5D. 1Ds or older cameras like the 10D. > > > > so, is it time to create a EOS D category? > > No, because the 1Ds mkII and 5D, while digital, don't have the > "problems" to > which you refer. >
except the flash problems that I refered to ... and no, I still do not think that the lenses are fully 'compatible' even if physicaly operational, I do reguard the 180mm for my 4x5 camera differently to how it is on a 5x7 or even a 8x10 (not that it would cover that area anyway) I was thinking initially that FD series lenses at least looked the same on the EOS, but of course apature operation doesn't work and infinity focus may be lost ... for sure the analogys I made are not a perfect representation of the situation, but it seems to me that all EOS's are no longer as backward compatible as they used to be. I reguard my 20D as a different camera system to my film EOS bodies. I don't mind if noone else sees my points, I was just voicing them to see what came back. It helps me form my own thoughts better that way :-) see ya * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
