Canon medium format...

[Dylan777]

Hi guys,
Just for fun

Let's say tomorrow Canon releases medium format in DSLR and mirrorless, would you:

1. Jump on it and sell your current FF or crop gear
2. Add to your current FF or crop gear

Big questions: why? or Why not?

Look forward to hear your feedbacks.
Dylan

 

[Haydn1971]

Why not ?

Because Canon would be asking Hasselblad money for it !

 

[Random Orbits]

No and no. Lenses get bigger with larger sensor sizes, and a bag of FF lenses are heavy enough and take enough space. Plus, the larger the format, the fewer zooms there are, so it's a lot more lens changes...

If I made a living from photography, then it might be different...

 

[takesome1]

Already said, they would ask Hasselblad money for it.

If I were going to spend that kind of money I would buy Hasselblad, not a Johnny come lately mf camera.

 

[mackguyver]

I already have 5DSR a slew of sharp lenses ;D

 

[privatebydesign]

Less and less likely to be interested in MF enough to actually buy it. The idea is always intriguing whenever anybody comes out with anything but the traditional strengths aren't there too often.

The main technical reasons are less and less compelling and not in several newer MF options anyway.

Give me a 5dsr with 50mp, dual pixel raw, a global shutter that syncs at any speed and true 16 bit raw file depth in color and dr and nobody with a brain would ever buy a MF digital.

 

[Dylan777]

I already have 5DSR a slew of sharp lenses ;D

Good to see you again. Hope everything went well

 

[Dylan777]

Less and less likely to be interested in MF enough to actually buy it. The idea is always intriguing whenever anybody comes out with anything but the traditional strengths aren't there too often.

The main technical reasons are less and less compelling and not in several newer MF options anyway.

Give me a 5dsr with 50mp, dual pixel raw, a global shutter that syncs at any speed and true 16 bit raw file depth in color and dr and nobody with a brain would ever buy a MF digital.

Really?

 

[Dylan777]

Given that none of your EF lenses would work, if you wanted to go MF today, you might as well do it now, sell all of your EOS/EF equipment and choose from the vendors already offering MF.

I will keep an eye on both Has x1d and this Fuji. I like the thinner look on x1d over Fuji at this moment. Never own MF before, always want to own one. Will see how these MF will perform in real life situation. Not sure how much lower, rumors said GFX will be lower than x1d.

Native 35mm f2ish + 100mm f2 will cure the itch

 

[l_d_allan]

I'd have zero interest in a what is now misleadingly called a "medium format camera". In fact, I'd have less than zero interest and instead be annoyed that the manufacturer was wasting time on a camera incorporating a sensor that just isn't all that much larger than a full frame sensor.

Back in the film days, "medium format" was typically 6x6 or 6x7. I had a Mamiya C33 TLR that used 120 or 220 film. The frame size was ~ 60mm x 60mm, or 3600 sq.mm.

Doing the math, a full frame sensor is ~ 36mm x 24mm = 864 sq.mm. A "real" medium format 6x6 had > 4x more surface area.

Now ... the Pentax 645 series gets it's model name because it can use the old 645 lenses. However, the Sony "medium format" sensor is actually 44mm x 33mm = 1452 sq.mm.

So, it really isn't that much of an increase in sensor size to go from f.f. to m.f. My impression is that you have to at least double the sensor area to see a real, dramatic difference. Instead, you pay a LOT of $$$ for less than 70% increase.

That's about equivalent of going from m43 (225 sq.mm) to Nikon APS-C (368 sq.mm) = +64%

However, man EF lenses might have some "extra coverage" of the m.f. image circle, with edge softness and significant vignetting.

No thanks.

 

[privatebydesign]

Less and less likely to be interested in MF enough to actually buy it. The idea is always intriguing whenever anybody comes out with anything but the traditional strengths aren't there too often.

The main technical reasons are less and less compelling and not in several newer MF options anyway.

Give me a 5dsr with 50mp, dual pixel raw, a global shutter that syncs at any speed and true 16 bit raw file depth in color and dr and nobody with a brain would ever buy a MF digital.

Really?

Yep. Global shutters are going to be much more useful than leaf shutters and most digital medium format cameras don't have leaf shutter lenses anyway, or very few old designs that fit.

Canon are already getting 13.6 stops of DR out of 14 bit files so are going to have to move to 16 bit in time. Once they do that what does MF have to offer over 135 format? And don't say 'look' that is utter nonsense if you work to equivalence, around 0.7 for most MF digital at this point. Lets be honest, none of these new 'medium format' cameras are close to actual medium format, they all use the same 50MP Sony sensor too!

So 135 offers greater lens choice, equivalency, nearly the same DR, nearly the same color depth the single shot resolution at a fraction the size, weight and price.

135 became 'the standard' because it became that perfect balance between size/price/quality, because of this unmatched systems were built to compound the advantage. Now 135 offers higher quality than ever and is easily within reach of MF in many situations, it won't take much effort (16 bit and global shutter both of which are available in current cameras) and any choices outside 135 format have to be made for esoteric reasons than the need for any particular image.

 

[chauncey]

What in the name of gawd would be gained...larger images, use photomerge...more DR, use PS CC HDR...yadda/yadda/yadda.

 

[dak723]

Absolutely no interest. In fact, as smaller sensors keep getting better, FF offers less and less advantage over crop, so going even larger is completely out of the question. I may replace my FF 6D with the new crop M5. Will have to test them out and compare. My other camera is already an MFT Olympus. Smaller is the future (at least for me).

 

[scyrene]

I'd never be able to afford it. If money was no object, I'd already have bought a 645z, but it could never be a main camera for most of what I do.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Medium format is pretty specialized, those with jobs that require it, know what they are doing, but for 99+% it would be wasted money, because the advantages are not needed for what most of us do.

 

[Pookie]

I'd never be able to afford it. If money was no object, I'd already have bought a 645z, but it could never be a main camera for most of what I do.

I think I'm one of two here on the forum owning this camera. Great images but I'd have to agree with l_d_allan it's barely considered a MF camera. If you're a working photographer then I guess you're in the 1% on this site. I use mine for commercial work and wedding photography, it's been in heavy rotation this year.

I was never that impressed with the 5Ds/r (let's not get our panties bunched over this comment, just my opinion). I'm most interested in the new Fuji MF that just been announced. When that comes out I will sell the 645z most likely unless it really negatively surprises me. Loved the X100S images but sold it after a couple years because the quirks with it were too much to handle. Hopefully none of that transfers to the new camera.

 

[Dylan777]

Medium format is pretty specialized, those with jobs that require it, know what they are doing, but for 99+% it would be wasted money, because the advantages are not needed for what most of us do.

Cleaner image at higher ISO is almost never considered as waste.

 

[Eldar]

I have played with this idea many times. The turn offs for me is to establish a new workflow, to drag two systems around, the cost and the size of the sensor. The only MF sensor I find really interesting is the new 100MP used in the new Hasselblad and PhaseOne, which is approaching true MF size. As Privatebydesign pointed out, the 50MP Sony sensor is a lot smaller.

However, even with my poor character, I am not doing this for a living and I just can't justify a $75k investment in a 100MP system (for now anyway). The IQ I am getting from the 5DSR with the best Canon and Zeiss lenses is so good that it is obvious that the weakest link is me.

 

[IglooEater]

Medium format is pretty specialized, those with jobs that require it, know what they are doing, but for 99+% it would be wasted money, because the advantages are not needed for what most of us do.

Cleaner image at higher ISO is almost never considered as waste.

Yes, if the shallow depth of field is not an issue. If it's not, you can get much faster lenses for full frame. The vast majority of medium format lenses are f/2.8 or slower. If shallow depth of field is a problem, then one must stop down more and increase the ISO more, so the advantages then become negligible. Either that or use tilt-shift lenses to put that depth of field where you want.

 

[Larsskv]

Medium format is pretty specialized, those with jobs that require it, know what they are doing, but for 99+% it would be wasted money, because the advantages are not needed for what most of us do.

Cleaner image at higher ISO is almost never considered as waste.

Yes, if the shallow depth of field is not an issue. If it's not, you can get much faster lenses for full frame. The vast majority of medium format lenses are f/2.8 or slower. If shallow depth of field is a problem, then one must stop down more and increase the ISO more, so the advantages then become negligible. Either that or use tilt-shift lenses to put that depth of field where you want.

+1! Due to faster lenses on FF than medium format, neither depth of field or low light performance will be strong reasons to buy medium format. I guess the main reason would be the possibility to get sharper images, due to larger pixels. However, my impression is that many of the best L lenses (and Zeiss) outperform many medium format lenses in regards to sharpness. If I remember correctly, there were comparisons between 5Dsr and Pentax 645, where the 5Dsr had sharper images due to better optics.

I'm sure the best medium format lenses are better/sharper than 5Dsr on let's say a Phase 1, but also bigger and way more expensive.