Canon Doing Market Research on Medium Format?

[RLPhoto]

Make it sub-10K and give it some LS lenses. It will sell like hotcakes.

Repeating the same thing over and over again won't make it come true.

Well, it worked so well for him with the 135mm f/1.8L IS, I guess he figures it'll work even better for an entirely new line of expensive bodies and lenses. It seems he also thinks calling everyone else stupid makes him smart, instead of just making him look like a petulant child. :

I find it funny that both a sub 10k Brand new MF body and a 135mm f/1.8 IS already exist. Now since those are facts, you both look really ludicrous to think I'm the one who looks dumb here. XD

 

[Loswr]

I find it funny that both a sub 10k Brand new MF body and a 135mm f/1.8 IS already exist. Now since those are facts, you both look really ludicrous to think I'm the one who looks dumb here. XD

Don't be so manifestly obtuse. We all know you are talking about Canon products.

 

[RLPhoto]

I find it funny that both a sub 10k Brand new MF body and a 135mm f/1.8 IS already exist. Now since those are facts, you both look really ludicrous to think I'm the one who looks dumb here. XD

Don't be so manifestly obtuse. We all know you are talking about Canon products.

Canon would be nice but those sigma Art lenses wouldn't be a bad choice either.

 

[lintoni]

I could see this. if canon released "full frame" MF, it would seriously cause a lot of heads to turn canon's way in a big hurry as the current 1.3 crop factor adds dramatic and considerable cost to the lens investment with UWA lenses in MF.

I could be wrong, but even the most expensive systems to date were 1.16 crop - none of them produced the fully 60x45 of traditional 645.

Hmmm. Didn't Fuji make both 6x8 and 6x9 Full Frame Medium Format Film cameras ??? That would be a very expensive sensor.

http://photo.net/equipment/fuji/617
Try a 6 x 17!

 

[unfocused]

Make it sub-10K and give it some LS lenses. It will sell like hotcakes.

Repeating the same thing over and over again won't make it come true.

Well, it worked so well for him with the 135mm f/1.8L IS, I guess he figures it'll work even better for an entirely new line of expensive bodies and lenses. It seems he also thinks calling everyone else stupid makes him smart, instead of just making him look like a petulant child. :

I find it funny that both a sub 10k Brand new MF body and a 135mm f/1.8 IS already exist. Now since those are facts, you both look really ludicrous to think I'm the one who looks dumb here. XD

Exists...or selling like hotcakes? Let's see some sales figures please.

 

[Lee Jay]

IT'S THE SENSORS STUPID!!!!! THE PEOPLE WANT A SENSOR LIKE NIKON HAS IN THE 810!

As long as they include an AA filter.

Go full color per sensor cell.
-No more need for an AA-filter.

Still need an AA filter.

Sigma seems to have brainwashed everyone.

 

[unfocused]

To look at it from a different perspective, who would buy into Canon MFDB?
* sports photographers - they would need to replace all of their current lenses with newer, bigger lenses and if they don't work from monopods/tripods, they would then need to. For newspapers, etc, this ecosystem upgrade would be costly without any gain as current model FF cameras deliver what's required. i.e. no buyers here.

* event photographers - aren't going to want to carry around bigger and bulkier cameras and lenses to gigs, concerts, etc.

* wedding photographers - some parts of the wedding (non-walk around shoots) are suitable for MF shooting but not a whole lot. Those at the top end of this market are probably already using MF but it isn't a big market. With the barrier to entry being so low, it is hard to see wedding photographers being able to justify the spend.

* studio photographers - this group of the market is where most of the MF activity lives today. It's not an incredibly big market (if unit sales are anything to go by) and Canon would need to be very disruptive and aggressive to break into it.

* hobbyists - just don't have the money required (or not enough of them that do!) to make it worthwhile. When the type of photography is examined further, the group that benefits is landscape shooters but again equipment will become larger and less fun to take with you. If you're doing animals birds (in flight especially) then you'll need to buy and wield bigger cameras and lenses which is not all that attractive.

* cat photography - obviously the docile nature of cats and their fur makes them the perfect subject for MF digital photography however cat photographers do not seem to be particularly fussy about which camera they use so there could be difficulty in convincing this group to open their wallets.

Yikes, twice in two days, Dilbert is the voice of reason. I'm starting to worry.

 

[dgatwood]

So wait, Canon might make a 50 MP MF camera, but not a 50MP FF camera with the same pixel density as a crop body? Talk about running before you walk.

 

[RLPhoto]

Make it sub-10K and give it some LS lenses. It will sell like hotcakes.

Repeating the same thing over and over again won't make it come true.

Well, it worked so well for him with the 135mm f/1.8L IS, I guess he figures it'll work even better for an entirely new line of expensive bodies and lenses. It seems he also thinks calling everyone else stupid makes him smart, instead of just making him look like a petulant child. :

I find it funny that both a sub 10k Brand new MF body and a 135mm f/1.8 IS already exist. Now since those are facts, you both look really ludicrous to think I'm the one who looks dumb here. XD

Exists...or selling like hotcakes? Let's see some sales figures please.

Well they made a successful run with the 645D to make a successor with the 645z. Obviously it must be selling and in a year, well have the figures on the 645z, which would sell like hotcakes if they had some LS lenses.

check in then.

 

[Lawliet]

Still need an AA filter.

Let me count how often I encountered moire from the monochrome back...0 times, seems to be a real everyday problem.

 

[DavidD]

If you're seeking reliable rumors, I'm pretty good at making isht up.
Canon's long anticipated 3D will use a true 60x45 MF Foveon type sensor and is scheduled to hit stores on October 32, 2014.

Rats, and I am working that day. Go figure the odds of that huh?

You must be a dentist.

Its true. He is a dentist. My appointment is at tooth-hurty ;-)


Sorry I can't help it.

 

[Lee Jay]

Still need an AA filter.

Let me count how often I encountered moire from the monochrome back...0 times, seems to be a real everyday problem.

I encounter moire occasionally even with an AA filter.

 

[Lawliet]

I encounter moire occasionally even with an AA filter.

Which back?

 

[jeffa4444]

Designing & building a complete camera system from scratch will run to many millions of dollars. The most expensive part of that will be lenses and even for Canon that would take at least 2-4 years. The amortization of lenses, if they successfully enter the market would likely be 10+ years but then Canon has EF lenses much older than this although the period for FF would be lower due to higher sales.
The fact that Canon entered the cinematography market which you could equally argue is a much smaller market than the DSLR market means it could be feasable and in that market they have designed three cameras C100, C300 & C500 and a set of primes & zoom lenses which can be had in both EF and PL mounts, its a market also now crowded for both cameras & lenses so there are similarities. The Super 35 format however is not too disimilar to APS-H / C wheras much bigger glass is require for MF. In each case an optimized system would require lenses matched to sensor to get the Nyquist balance right so the work on the MF lenses is far removed from the APS-C or FF lenses. Pentax back focus is Pentax 645 70.87mm, Pentax 6x7 84.95mm, Canon EF / EF-S 44mm, and Arri PL 52mm.
if its an entirely new system like the EF-M which is 18mm they could shrink the back focus with true telecentric lenses. Arri maintained a consistent back focus i.e. Arri 65mm system is 52mm like the 35mm system but the lenses are completely a different design for obvious reasons. However maintaining a constant back focus they could "region" the sensor to FF and you could use existing FF lenses.

 

[Lawliet]

The fact that Canon entered the cinematography market which you could equally argue is a much smaller market than the DSLR market means it could be feasable and in that market they have designed three cameras C100, C300 & C500 and a set of primes & zoom lenses which can be had in both EF and PL mounts, its a market also now crowded for both cameras & lenses so there are similarities.

Notably they entered that market from the price angle. Canons cine lenses are among the less expensive of the bunch, as strange as that might feel for some.

The Super 35 format however is not too disimilar to APS-H / C wheras much bigger glass is require for MF.

Only in size though. Motion picture has those additional requirements that make completely different designs, esp for the zooms, desirable. For MF one could start with small frame lenses as baseline template. The elements would be large, but nothing that hasn't been done in the new TS-Es or the big whites. Even the new 24-70 is at least for the front part in the MF size bracket.

The question is whether there are strong differentiators as with the cine lenses, or if its more cost efficient to get a similar result by more conventional means.

 

[jeffa4444]

Its actually harder to make high performance lenses for smaller sensors due to the increased depth of field however I agree cinematography lenses far outperform stills lenses particularly zooms and that equally applies to 70mm which is the largest cinematography format. Making fast MF lenses is a challenge hence why their is not so many of them.

 

[wockawocka]

Medium format is the new full frame.

If not now in 3-5 years. It's another market to make money from and I fully expect it to be pushed to all hell.

If canon get's into bed with some pre existing lenses it's a done deal.

 

[unfocused]

...
Yikes, twice in two days, Dilbert is the voice of reason. I'm starting to worry.

And what happens when you're the voice of reason? Absolutely nobody joins in to discuss what you've said.

Ha! So true. So very, very, sadly true.

Perhaps this will help: Dynamic Range, Banding, Shadow Detail, High ISO, High Megapixels, Sony Sensors, DxO.

It that doesn't get the juices flowing, nothing will.

 

[Stephen Melvin]

In order for there to be a noticeable image quality difference, you have to double the diagonal. So you'd be going from 43mm to 85mm, give or take.

I don't think the lenses would be a huge issue. They could rework some existing designs to throw a larger image circle. A "normal" lens would be 85mm. The job would be easier if they went with a mirrorless design. I doubt the 85 f/1.2 would throw an 85mm image circle, as designed, but I'll bet an 85 f/2 wouldn't be a difficult engineering challenge.

They hardest part would be the business case. a 36 x 48mm sensor would be pointless. The image quality difference would be imperceptible. You'd need a 55 x 70mm sensor to make things worth the effort. But then costs would be too high.

It seems unlikely to me.

 

[Halfrack]

The EF lenses would vignette like crazy, but maybe less than expected. The T/S lenses are basically MF with large image circle. A sensor size where the most common or best EF image circles just touched the top and bottom ... 12mm away .. might be usable. Or less ambitious, touched the left and right ... 18mm away.

Except that the T/S lenses would then cease to be a T/S lens because the image circle isn't big enough.

For Canon to start its own MF line requires a whole new camera system to be designed. This could go down as:
* body with integrated sensor - to just supply a body with sensor and use existing lenses (similar approach to 645Z)
* body with integrated sensor + lenses - similar approach to the 645Z but only works with Canon lenses
* MFDB - similar approach to Leaf and Phase One and leave body/lens manufacturing to others
* MFDB + body - produce a body that takes existing MF lenses from other manufacturers
* MFDB + body + lenses - introduce a whole new ecosystem (return on investment possible?)

To look at it from a different perspective, who would buy into Canon MFDB?
* sports photographers - they would need to replace all of their current lenses with newer, bigger lenses and if they don't work from monopods/tripods, they would then need to. For newspapers, etc, this ecosystem upgrade would be costly without any gain as current model FF cameras deliver what's required. i.e. no buyers here.

* event photographers - aren't going to want to carry around bigger and bulkier cameras and lenses to gigs, concerts, etc.

* wedding photographers - some parts of the wedding (non-walk around shoots) are suitable for MF shooting but not a whole lot. Those at the top end of this market are probably already using MF but it isn't a big market. With the barrier to entry being so low, it is hard to see wedding photographers being able to justify the spend.

* studio photographers - this group of the market is where most of the MF activity lives today. It's not an incredibly big market (if unit sales are anything to go by) and Canon would need to be very disruptive and aggressive to break into it.

* hobbyists - just don't have the money required (or not enough of them that do!) to make it worthwhile. When the type of photography is examined further, the group that benefits is landscape shooters but again equipment will become larger and less fun to take with you. If you're doing animals birds (in flight especially) then you'll need to buy and wield bigger cameras and lenses which is not all that attractive.

* cat photography - obviously the docile nature of cats and their fur makes them the perfect subject for MF digital photography however cat photographers do not seem to be particularly fussy about which camera they use so there could be difficulty in convincing this group to open their wallets.

There is the rich hobbyist market - someone said one of the more common hobbies for tech focused employees is photography - so there is a growing market, and to these folks the Phase/Hass system is really a reach. Wedding shooters can do it all with their existing gear, but there is an issue in pricing - MF is an easy way to 'increase' your rates, and there are weddings that seem to have endless money available.

Canon would have to bring a higher performing AF system - the Phase One DF+ has 3 AF points (center and either side about 1mm away from center), while Hasselblad has a single AF point but compensates for it with TrueFocus which adjusts the focus based of how you recompose the image.

Here's your MF cat image...