September 01, 2014, 03:23:39 PM

Author Topic: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]  (Read 14528 times)

ahab1372

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 327
    • View Profile
Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« Reply #30 on: August 15, 2013, 12:50:57 AM »

Maybe they plan on bigger for MF ---something in the 80mp range.  If they can make 50 mp FF sensors, then 80 + mp mf sensors shouldn't be that hard. 
Reminds me of the guy from Top Gear saying "How hard can it be?" before they go out and build amphibious cars that all sink elegantly in the lake  :D

But I don't know much about sensor production, so maybe you right.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« Reply #30 on: August 15, 2013, 12:50:57 AM »

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« Reply #31 on: August 15, 2013, 12:56:57 AM »
It makes sense. With the old sensor technology Canon are using, the only way to increase the pixel count and not hurt the IQ is to keep the pixels the same size and increase the size of the sensor.  ;)

KAS

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
    • Afterglow Images - Niagara Weddings and Portraits
Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« Reply #32 on: August 15, 2013, 01:57:12 AM »
Maybe, the image circle would be big enough on some EF lenses (maybe just the TS-E lenses). I've played around with a RZ67, and it's really a pretty huge MF system. The film plane in 60mm x 70mm. The current digital MF offerings from Pentax (645D) and the new Leica S are both 30mm x 45mm give or take. Although it's bigger than FF's 24mm x 36mm, it's not THAT much bigger. Is it?

A 67 MF sensor would be astronomical to be sure, but maybe the 30x45 sensors won't be too much trouble. After all, the Pentax 645D is about the same price as the 1DX.

Historically, I believe, the benefit of MF wasn't just the megapickles. It was the increased dynamic range, lower noise, smoother gradations, aspect ratio, and that sort of thing. So, we might not see a huge increase in MPs compared to current offerings.

That being said, my hope is that Canon does come out with a MF system or a proper 1Ds replacement that has higher dynamic range (e.g., 16bit).

wockawocka

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 386
    • View Profile
    • Wedding Photography
Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« Reply #33 on: August 15, 2013, 05:32:06 AM »
I've always said that if there was a high iso performing MF solution I'd be all in for my wedding photography.
1DX, 5D3 and Hasselblad H Series owner.

hendrik-sg

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« Reply #34 on: August 15, 2013, 06:41:06 AM »
According to dxo comparisions the MF sensors are quite behind the best FF and APS sensors, so there would be a chance to put the best technology form FF Cameras into a new MF syste, including Low Light and AF Performance, maybe on the cost of Frame rate.

If one of the major players in Imaging, maybe Sony or Canon this camera could avoid many of the current MF disadvantages, a way the Leica S&Pentax 645 go. But with more funds of the big companies even more should be possible.

But don't expect this would be a affordable system, i would expect this in the top range of MF systems. So almost all of us dreamerd would stay outside. So i think in forseeable future FF will stay the limit for most  hobbyists

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« Reply #35 on: August 15, 2013, 09:28:38 AM »
I've always said that if there was a high iso performing MF solution I'd be all in for my wedding photography.

I do not believe that this would help you. Larger sensor are better in high ISO (low light) only when you get shallower DOF (which you may not want), with faster lenses in equivalent terms. But MF lenses are not really faster in equivalent terms (they have larger f-numbers than, say, f/1.4; I think that f/2.8 is considered quite fast already). Also, right now larger sensors are quite inefficient but this might change.

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1817
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« Reply #36 on: August 15, 2013, 10:02:10 AM »
I've always said that if there was a high iso performing MF solution I'd be all in for my wedding photography.

Larger sensor are better in high ISO (low light) only when you get shallower DoF
???

 :-\

 ::)



canon rumors FORUM

Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« Reply #36 on: August 15, 2013, 10:02:10 AM »

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« Reply #37 on: August 15, 2013, 10:25:38 AM »
I've always said that if there was a high iso performing MF solution I'd be all in for my wedding photography.

Larger sensor are better in high ISO (low light) only when you get shallower DoF
???

 :-\

 ::)

?

It is all about TOTAL LIGHT.

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1817
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« Reply #38 on: August 15, 2013, 11:04:27 AM »
Or even TAKEN LIGHT  ;)

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14025
    • View Profile
Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« Reply #39 on: August 15, 2013, 11:19:09 AM »
According to dxo comparisions the MF sensors are quite behind the best FF and APS sensors, so there would be a chance to put the best technology form FF Cameras into a new MF syste, including Low Light and AF Performance, maybe on the cost of Frame rate.

According to dxo comparisons, the sun rises in the west.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3064
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« Reply #40 on: August 15, 2013, 12:32:35 PM »
To me, it's about the lenses.... MF has a much wider field of view than Ff, which has a much wider field of view than APSC. If yow want wide, MFN has it best, if you go long, crop sensors, and FF somewhere in the middle.

Look at sport photography.....see all those people with the FF cameras and the 600mm lenses? With an APSC camera you can get the same field of view with a 400mm lens, but at the cost of image quality. A MF shooter would need a 1500mm lens to get the same field of view, but would have superior image quality. Obviously, this is not practical and MF will never fit this segment of the market.

Studio work is a different story... The lenses are more normal sized and you can put more pixels and/or better pixels on the subject, but for higher cost. It's not for me, but I can certainly see the market for it.

To my mind, use the most appropriate tool you can afford for the job..
The best camera is the one in your hands

dryanparker

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 105
  • Fine art photographer based in Miami.
    • View Profile
    • D RYAN PARKER Fine Art Photography
Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« Reply #41 on: August 15, 2013, 12:48:58 PM »
Look at sport photography.....see all those people with the FF cameras and the 600mm lenses? With an APSC camera you can get the same field of view with a 400mm lens, but at the cost of image quality. A MF shooter would need a 1500mm lens to get the same field of view, but would have superior image quality. Obviously, this is not practical and MF will never fit this segment of the market.

Regarding the field of view, you are spot-on. But readers should bear in mind, a 600mm lens is still 600mm regardless of platform. With MF, you get the FF field of view, plus a great deal more, so that 600mm appears to be a shorter focal length. (You may have been making this point.)

As for practicality, I shoot the RZ. It is HIGHLY impractical for most stuff you might use a FF to shoot. It's heavy and awkward. It's made for slow, methodical tripod work. That said, I absolutely love it.

My longest lens is currently a 210mm, which offers the field of view of 102mm on FF. The resolving power of the lenses is pretty incredible, and with a 60x70mm negative, my desktop scans are north of 65MP. Pretty cool!
5D3, 24-70L II, TS-E 24L II, Zeiss ZE 15 T* // X100S
www.dryanparker.com

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« Reply #42 on: August 15, 2013, 12:56:54 PM »
To me, it's about the lenses.... MF has a much wider field of view than Ff, which has a much wider field of view than APSC.

How can a format (without a specified lens) have FOV? Does MF has something wider than 12mm on FF?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« Reply #42 on: August 15, 2013, 12:56:54 PM »

V8Beast

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
    • Stephen Kim Automotive Photography
Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« Reply #43 on: August 15, 2013, 01:07:19 PM »
I played with one at one of my local camera shops.  When all the reps from all the companies were there showing off all their gear.  Leica was represented.  I tell ya...  I played with the Canon 1DX, 5D3 and a Nikon D4...  But the Leica S2 impressed me the most.  I took some stupid, simple picture in the store with it..  And I was BLOWN AWAY by the image.  The colors were so rich and detailed.

Touche. The only medium format files I've had a chance to play with are files I hunted down online, but the tonal range and latitude in those files are astounding to say the least.

Cost aside, I have to wonder how many printing mediums exist that can take advantage of what medium format has to offer over 35mm? Car mags, at least in America, are printed on terrible paper with terrible ink. I know an independently wealthy car photog that shoots with a D800 and a Hassleblad. I'm sure the color, DR, and tonal gradations look incredible on his monitor, but by the time they're printed on paper, those medium format images are indistinguishable from what you'd get out of a lowly 35mm Canon sensor.

Obviously, there's much more  budget and far superior printing in high-end fashion photography, but how many other forms of photography does that apply to that makes it practical to dish out the extra bucks for medium format? Even if I worked in an industry with the caliber of printing required to take advantage of medium format files, I'd never make enough money to justify the expense.

dryanparker

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 105
  • Fine art photographer based in Miami.
    • View Profile
    • D RYAN PARKER Fine Art Photography
Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« Reply #44 on: August 15, 2013, 01:20:28 PM »
To me, it's about the lenses.... MF has a much wider field of view than Ff, which has a much wider field of view than APSC.

How can a format (without a specified lens) have FOV? Does MF has something wider than 12mm on FF?

Well, you use FF as a benchmark. The FOV is basically the crop factor...so APS-C is 1.6x compared to FF, so a 17-55mm zoom on a 7D is kinda like the 24-70mm on a 5D. This is because the APS-C sensor is physically smaller than FF, so the area of view it records is similarly reduced. This has the effect of cropping the FOV into what appears to be a longer focal length.

On the MF Mamiya RZ that I use, the "crop factor" is 0.48 because the 6x7cm film negative is so much larger than a FF sensor. This makes my 65mm fairly wide, with a 32mm FF equivalent FOV.
5D3, 24-70L II, TS-E 24L II, Zeiss ZE 15 T* // X100S
www.dryanparker.com

canon rumors FORUM

Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« Reply #44 on: August 15, 2013, 01:20:28 PM »