Idea for Canon?

[bonedaddy.p7]

And MF sensors are decade old technology. Imagine if they have similar tech to modern FF CMOS sensors. They would have 18 stop DR and usable 1million ISO.

That would be a sight to behold!

But why on earth would a $20k digital back use such outdated tech. You would think they would improve it over the years? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just really curious as to why! If such a sensor existed, even I would buy one. I would take out a loan if I had to. So if that is true that they could have advanced MF tech but didn't, that seems like the biggest marketing oops of all time, no? They don't want to expand the tiny MF market into something resembling the 1dx/D4 market, which I assume is many times bigger?

For what it's worth, CMOS and CCD are practically the same age (1967 vs 1969). CMOS is also a bit more appropriate for pixel-based output in my opinion. Keep in mind, many OLD digital cameras used CCD and have since switched to CMOS. There must be some logical reason for that. Many modern video cameras use CMOS now as opposed to CCD (ah..the days where I would dream about having a 3CCD camera). Cost is a factor in this, but so is complexity of design. I believe many MF backs would still be based on CCD because it would be insanely difficult to manufacture a CMOS sensor at those sizes (I'm sill impressed that we manage to make so many FF CMOS sensors).

[Eengineer]

Here are 2 of Canon's old tech sensors.
http://www.canon.com/news/2010/aug24e.html This is an APS-H 120 mega pixel CMOS sensor from 2010.
http://www.canon.com/news/2010/aug31e.html This is Canon's largest CMOS sensor at 202 x 205mm.  It shows a standard full frame sensor next to it.  This is from 2010 also.
Canon has the sensors and tech to do what every they want that is profitable.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

This seems like a strange thought. 
 
Canon. Nikon, and Sony have switched to CMOS over the last few years because it is better.  Sony and Nikon could not compete with Canon's large CMOS based sensors, so they switched. 
 
Do a little research.
 
 

[sharka23]

I don´t agree in "better".
CMOS advantage are the production costs!

it requires not that much energy like CCD
and the high ISO performance is better.

but color deph and DR, sharpness are definately better at CCDs

[AJ]

CMOS uses a lot less power than CCD.  That's a consideration when using live-view and video.

[Tcapp]

Here are 2 of Canon's old tech sensors.
http://www.canon.com/news/2010/aug24e.html This is an APS-H 120 mega pixel CMOS sensor from 2010.
http://www.canon.com/news/2010/aug31e.html This is Canon's largest CMOS sensor at 202 x 205mm.  It shows a standard full frame sensor next to it.  This is from 2010 also.
Canon has the sensors and tech to do what every they want that is profitable.

Imagine the DoF you could get with that 205mm sensor, and a 85 1.2 lens! Sure, you would probably be looking at a couple hundred thousand $$ worth of equipment, but wow that would give some stunning images.

[untitled10]

But why on earth would a $20k digital back use such outdated tech. You would think they would improve it over the years? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just really curious as to why! If such a sensor existed, even I would buy one. I would take out a loan if I had to. So if that is true that they could have advanced MF tech but didn't, that seems like the biggest marketing oops of all time, no? They don't want to expand the tiny MF market into something resembling the 1dx/D4 market, which I assume is many times bigger?

Fact is, Leica (S2), Pentax (P645), Leaf, Phase One, Hasselblad, probably put them all together and their sensor R&D budgets wouldn't go anywhere near that of Canon or Sony.
It's unfortunate, but MF technology is going to lag further and further behind, if not least because of their lower budgets. Take the latest sensors, the D800, D4, 5D3, and compare them on a *pixel level* (100%) to an MF sensor, half the time the 35mm outperforms the MF, and that's despite the individual pixels being a crudload smaller and closer together, and despite the MF sensors costing as much as a small house.

If Canon or Sony took what they'd learned from making APS-C and FF sensors, and put the same tech into an MF, that would be phenomenal. Take the low-light performance of the 5D3 and make those pixels twice the size again? Take the DR of the D800 and double or triple their full-well capacity and increase another 1 or 2 bits? Even take an MF sensor now and add gapless microlenses would bump up performance a stop or two.
I don't care how expensive that sensor would be, it would be phenomenal and leave even the IQ180 for dust.

Canon should make a 5d2 of the MF world. Something that is affordable enough for the masses, but super amazing. I don't see why they can't, but I know they wont.

The coverage of their lenses dont go over FF , no way is canon making a new lens range (and possibly mount too)

[Tcapp]

But why on earth would a $20k digital back use such outdated tech. You would think they would improve it over the years? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just really curious as to why! If such a sensor existed, even I would buy one. I would take out a loan if I had to. So if that is true that they could have advanced MF tech but didn't, that seems like the biggest marketing oops of all time, no? They don't want to expand the tiny MF market into something resembling the 1dx/D4 market, which I assume is many times bigger?

Fact is, Leica (S2), Pentax (P645), Leaf, Phase One, Hasselblad, probably put them all together and their sensor R&D budgets wouldn't go anywhere near that of Canon or Sony.
It's unfortunate, but MF technology is going to lag further and further behind, if not least because of their lower budgets. Take the latest sensors, the D800, D4, 5D3, and compare them on a *pixel level* (100%) to an MF sensor, half the time the 35mm outperforms the MF, and that's despite the individual pixels being a crudload smaller and closer together, and despite the MF sensors costing as much as a small house.

If Canon or Sony took what they'd learned from making APS-C and FF sensors, and put the same tech into an MF, that would be phenomenal. Take the low-light performance of the 5D3 and make those pixels twice the size again? Take the DR of the D800 and double or triple their full-well capacity and increase another 1 or 2 bits? Even take an MF sensor now and add gapless microlenses would bump up performance a stop or two.
I don't care how expensive that sensor would be, it would be phenomenal and leave even the IQ180 for dust.

Canon should make a 5d2 of the MF world. Something that is affordable enough for the masses, but super amazing. I don't see why they can't, but I know they wont.

The coverage of their lenses dont go over FF , no way is canon making a new lens range (and possibly mount too)

Well, new lens range = more sales opportunities.

[dr croubie]

Imagine the DoF you could get with that 205mm sensor, and a 85 1.2 lens! Sure, you would probably be looking at a couple hundred thousand $$ worth of equipment, but wow that would give some stunning images.

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=397
Unfortunately, the image circle of the 85 f/1.2 L II is only *just* big enough to cover FF. Sure, you could point it at a 210mm wide sensor, but the 'usable photo' size wouldn't be much bigger than 35x35mm (with room for creative cropping maybe).

Now, what you want is a Jupiter 13, 125mm f/1.5, it covers 4x5" Large Format, if you manage to get a 130x87mm 3:2 frame out of it on a huge sensor, you're looking at a 35mm-equivalent of a 50mm f/0.78.
Now *that* is a fast lens...

[Tcapp]

Imagine the DoF you could get with that 205mm sensor, and a 85 1.2 lens! Sure, you would probably be looking at a couple hundred thousand $$ worth of equipment, but wow that would give some stunning images.

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=397
Unfortunately, the image circle of the 85 f/1.2 L II is only *just* big enough to cover FF. Sure, you could point it at a 210mm wide sensor, but the 'usable photo' size wouldn't be much bigger than 35x35mm (with room for creative cropping maybe).

Now, what you want is a Jupiter 13, 125mm f/1.5, it covers 4x5" Large Format, if you manage to get a 130x87mm 3:2 frame out of it on a huge sensor, you're looking at a 35mm-equivalent of a 50mm f/0.78.
Now *that* is a fast lens...

I was kind of thinking make a 85 1.2 lens specifically for the large sensor...

But that Jupiter 13 looks amazing. wow.

[plutonium10]

Don't want to derail this thread, because it's actually going in a more intelligent way than about 90% of the recent threads on this forum, but I am curious, what exactly does Canon need to "bounce back" from?

Nikon D800?

[unfocused]

Don't want to derail this thread, because it's actually going in a more intelligent way than about 90% of the recent threads on this forum, but I am curious, what exactly does Canon need to "bounce back" from?

Nikon D800?

And we have inside knowledge of sales figures to know how each camera is doing? And, while we're at it, how about a crystal ball to know what their total sales and net profits will be a year after the cameras have been released?

[Tcapp]

Don't want to derail this thread, because it's actually going in a more intelligent way than about 90% of the recent threads on this forum, but I am curious, what exactly does Canon need to "bounce back" from?

Nikon D800?

And we have inside knowledge of sales figures to know how each camera is doing? And, while we're at it, how about a crystal ball to know what their total sales and net profits will be a year after the cameras have been released?

I know the sales figures of both cameras... Sales = very very strong.

[HurtinMinorKey]

Medium format video. Bring it.

[Tcapp]

Medium format video. Bring it.

Heck yea! Imagine, night vision mode that functions like day mode with how sensitive the sensor could be. Forget 4k video and just make it 1080p. A 2MP medium format sensor. ISO 1 million. Bwahahahaha!