Will Canon ever move into the Medium Format space?

[JonB8305]

with canons scale surely they could make MF affordable.

[bdunbar79]

The answer is no.  They have absolutely no reason to enter such a small, and I mean very small, market compared to a huge market that they currently dominate.  No business sense in doing so.

[JonB8305]

The answer is no.  They have absolutely no reason to enter such a small, and I mean very small, market compared to a huge market that they currently dominate.  No business sense in doing so.

Do MF sensors offer advantages over FF

[bdunbar79]

Bigger sensors always offer bigger advantages.  135mm format is much larger than 35mm format.  This will typically result in a lot more resolution and clarity when working with the files.  Not to mention a lot more detail.  Imagine a file of 60 MP's vs 18 MP's.  I've noticed less grain/noise as well in a lot of MF files.  A 20x24 print remains incredible in MF, while that size of print remains subjective on whether it's acceptable or not for 35mm format.

[JonB8305]

Bigger sensors always offer bigger advantages.  135mm format is much larger than 35mm format.  This will typically result in a lot more resolution and clarity when working with the files.  Not to mention a lot more detail.  Imagine a file of 60 MP's vs 18 MP's.  I've noticed less grain/noise as well in a lot of MF files.  A 20x24 print remains incredible in MF, while that size of print remains subjective on whether it's acceptable or not for 35mm format.

Thanks, thats good to know. If I ever get rich I'll look into getting a MF camera.

[bdunbar79]

Well I've seen the prices of the newer MF cameras, and I guess that means I'll probably never have one .

[Menace]

It would be nice to have something similar to the Pentax 645D ($10k)

[Sporgon]

Bigger sensors always offer bigger advantages.  135mm format is much larger than 35mm format.  This will typically result in a lot more resolution and clarity when working with the files.  Not to mention a lot more detail.  Imagine a file of 60 MP's vs 18 MP's.  I've noticed less grain/noise as well in a lot of MF files.  A 20x24 print remains incredible in MF, while that size of print remains subjective on whether it's acceptable or not for 35mm format.

Thanks, thats good to know. If I ever get rich I'll look into getting a MF camera.

With both current and past technology everything in photography is a compromise from 'optimum', whether it be lenses or camera bodies. I used both MF and 35mm in film days when MF really was MF (6x7) and gave a substantial increase in 'IQ'. But the problem is you loose a huge amount of flexibility along with gaining huge cost implications. In the end I dropped MF and concentrated on optimum technique with 35mm.

My partner in Building Panoramics started his career assisting to a top name in London during the '80s, and bought himself a Bronica MF outfit. The (very successful) pro told him to forget it and concentrate on getting best results with 35mm.

Modern digital MF isn't that big and doesn't have the advantage film MF had over smaller formats, but the drawbacks remain the same. I know one portrait pro who uses Hassleblad. This pictures are impressive. Would they be any different if shot on a 5D with 85 1.2 ? I think not.

The issue of flexibility is one of the reasons I find APS dissatisfying: it's a substantially smaller format than FF, but generally offers nothing better in terms of flexibility or size. However there is a significant cost advantage.

Also you can emulate the feel of the larger format by stitching FF assuming your subjects not moving.

I would guess that digital MF is either a static or shrinking market so can't see Canon getting involved IMO.

(Just had to pop back in and change some errors in this post : must stop trying to type long posts on iphone whilst sat on loo )

[sandymandy]

There is not much money to make in the MF market so Canon likely wont go there. Every sensor size got advantagse and disadvantages. You just gotta find out for urself what u need.  35mm aka "FF" has just established itself as the most allround useable format.
I just use MF for shooting B&W film cuz i think digital doesnt deliver equal results.

[darkhound]

of course they will go to MF eventually.  as soon as FF drops to sub $600.  they'll need something new

[risc32]

i don't think they will ever go into the MF arena.
also, isn't 135, 35mm? I think the last time i looked, my 35mm film said 135 on the box. did you mean 120?

[pwp]

The tangible advantages of MF like superior dynamic range are being steadily reduced as sensor technology pushes FF closer to parity. Right now a good MF will amaze with its far reaching highlight detail and deep deep shadow detail when compared to a 5D3 file shot in the same low ISO circumstances. Some clients like a very high degree of cropability to accommodate text, headings etc, or to have the option to pull a cover out of a landscape image. MF will deliver on this score.

As soon as you get away from static or moderately higher ISO subjects, the MF vs FF argument swings abruptly back to FF with the vastly superior handling ans ISO performance.

Sensor technology is moving along pretty smartly and the MF advantages are getting fewer all the time...as are their sales compared to FF. Never say never, but I'd be extremely surprised if Canon made a move towards the MF market. Hasselblad, Pentax and other who have had a history of MF film cameras were always the ones more likely to continue on this path.

A true FF competitor to MF from Canon would be more likely to come in the form of the so-called megapixel monster, perhaps with a bias to lower ISO performance at the expense of high ISO performance, but with the advantage of increased dynamic range.

-PW

[JoeDavid]

Besides, look at the reality of Canon's insane camera body pricing lately compared to the completion.  They'd price it so high that it would be ridiculous!  But it would probably shoot 2k video... 

[skfla]

If theres some kind of break through in manufacturing costs, maybe. But frankly Canon would be more like to buy the patent and then stick it in a file cabinet, never to see the light of day.  They really have to much to lose in the 35mm "full" format & crop sensor market for them to want any big changes going on.

[@!ex]

As an aside, you can use bokeh or panorama stitching to get a MF DOF effect and resolution.  It is often referred to as the Brenzier method (named after the wedding photog that made it famous).  Using this has its drawbacks, but it also has the advantage of getting images that wouldn't even be possible with any MF cameras.  There is a calculator where you input you camera and lens setup and how many images you did in your stitch and it will tell you what imaginary camera and lens you would have needed to actually get something similar in real life (some of my image have come to the equivalent of a non existent f0.7 lens). 

Here is Ryan Brenzier's webpage with more examples.  His are mostly wedding and engagement stuff, but you can also use it for landscape as well.

http://www.ryanbrenizer.com/category/brenizer-method/

Here is a great example of how this technique can be used in landscape photography (love this shot):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38068178@N08/6354950127/#

Here is a crappy attempt I did for a test a couple months ago (which reminds me, I should go outside right now and enjoy the equipment I already own):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/benison/6881124182/#in/photostream