Um, you're missing the point entirely. Why would Canon do it? Because they'd help CREATE the market for it, by building it in the first place. You speak of film...I'm talking about a sensor that is similar in size to the Leica S2. Google it, and get back to me...
I certainly was not talking about what the consumer wants. I was talking about WHAT THE PROFESSIONAL wants.
And, if Canon made a larger sensor in a very slightly larger body than the 5D3 or 1DX, with huge dynamic range (20 stops or more), huge signal to noise ratio, and as many MP as you could ask for (different sensor choices for the same body)...and an autofocus system that exceeds anything in existence today...along with the ability to shoot 8k video...and if they made a full line of lenses (including supertelephoto) that would work with this system...well I would definitely buy into it if I could both afford to and needed it for pro or high quality work.
10 years from now, just see if something like this isn't in widespread use...by PROFESSIONALS...not people taking selfies while driving drunk...
Okay. I'll play along.
I did Google the Leica you are referring to. It is $22,000 body only. For the sake of argument, let's say Canon could produce a similar product for half the cost, that's still $11,000, before lenses.
How would you propose Canon "CREATE" a market for this camera? You say "I was talking about WHAT THE PROFESSIONAL wants."
But what professionals are you referring to? Have you surveyed professionals and found this need? They don't seem to be beating down the door for the Leica, so what would create sudden demand for a Canon version?
About the only professional market that remains today is wedding and event photography and that is very price sensitive and competitive. I don't see most wedding photographers moving to this.
It's not suitable for photojournalists or wildlife photographers. There are almost no professional landscape photographers. High-end commercial studio photographers maybe, but that's a very small market. So again, how would you suggest Canon "create" this market.
Nothing personal, I just don't agree with your original premise. I think Canon is better off concentrating on improvements in their existing formats.
Well, I disagree. Your assumption is that costs would remain high, even at half what the S2 costs. I'm saying that 10 years from now, it's entirely possible that costs will not be any higher than what it costs to build full frame sensors today. Surely you're not suggesting that the main cost of the camera is the body, or the raw material, are you? I had thought you would delve into the physics of being able to make a reflex mirror that is a bit larger, yet still able to fire at 14 fps or more. If you had done that, you would have a better argument against mine. But you can't just assume that costs to produce the image sensor, are going to remain high. Why would they? I'm asserting that if Canon actually starts producing MF in a big way, people will indeed buy into it...especially if the cost is not any higher than what their 1 series and 5 series are today. I'm saying that 10 years from now, full frame 35mm sensors, will be like what aps-c is today.
Now, you could say that the world economy will collapse before then, and thus would put off such innovation and lowering of production and research costs by a generation...and I might be inclined to agree with you. But you can't just speculate how things will be in the future, based only on the past. That's how you're looking at it.
Think of it like stocks and companies...you can't base future earnings on past performance.
Again, if the point of this whole thread is, that Canon must produce MF cameras and lenses today, or else never do it...then I guess I would say they will never do it. But, since they are the world's largest camera company, they don't need to be in a hurry to delve into medium format...they can wait out the demise of the smaller companies. By then they will be ready.