Canon Medium Format Talk, It's Not in the Works

[Canon Rumors]

Every few years we hear discussion about Canon and medium format, as noted by <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon_medium_format_2ff.html">Northlight Images</a>, it usually happens in a Photokina year, which 2016 is. With <a href="http://www.++++++++rumors.com/sr3-new-sony-medium-format-rumor-101-megapixel-mirrorless-system-camera-at-photokina/">rumors of Sony</a> and Fuji entering the segment, the talk of what Canon’s plans are have come up again.</p>
<p>For the moment, Canon is paying attention to the medium format market, but have no currently plans or team in place to develop such a product. Canon has in the past made medium format sensors that top 250mp, but those were engineering samples.</p>
<p>Northlight notes that the “official” line from Canon is that there is lots of development possibilities with 35mm sensors. Not to mention, that the medium format segment likely wouldn’t be profitable.</p>
<p>We know that Canon has looked into medium format acquisitions as well as development, but it doesn’t look like we’re going to see them go beyond just tinkering.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[kaihp]

With a yearly WW sales of around 5-6000 cameras, this makes good business sense.
Heck, even the two players today have a hard time making ends meet.

 

[Bernard]

kaihp,

I count 4 players: Phase One, Hasselblad, Leica, Pentax. Nevertheless, your point is a valid one. It's a tiny market by Canon's standards, they would need to release a product that expands the size of the market significantly.

 

[jeffa4444]

Its not long ago Hasselblad business was sold almost certainly Canon and Sony would have been able to read the financials through an NDA the fact both didnt speaks volumes to what they thought about the financial viability.
Hasselblad get their optics from Fuji, Phase One bought Mamiya both get sensors from Sony as does Pentax. The volumes are tiny by comparision to 35mm, APS-C & the smaller compact camera sensors in fact Canon likely sell more Super 35 sensors in the cine line where yield is also likely better. Dont see this happening at all.

 

[YuengLinger]

DSLRs do such a great job for most portrait situations, sports, and weddings. So much photography is consumed on smartphones and tablets.

I think medium format is being used mostly by professional commercial photographers with corporate expense accounts backing them. A few fine-art photograpers, rarified high-end portrait "artists."

The idea of paying $20,000 or so for a body, and then investing in lenses would make even successful pros look hard at the numbers.

"Enthusiast" would become too weak a word for hobbyists.

Years ago I foolishly believed that sensors would become larger and cheaper like Intel CPU's, and that medium format would be available to the masses...

But with even a Rebel seen by many as too big to be cool, maybe there wouldn't be enough sales volume to drive efforts...

 

[RGF]

Only way I can see Canon entering this area if they could adapter their lenses to work with MF body. Then to cost of entry would another body, perhaps $10-15,000. But the lenses can not be adapter, at least for most lenses, so cost for a person to add MF to their camera bag is simply too large.

perhaps we will see a foveon type sensor to effectively double the resolving power. With today's best glass that would be truly close to MF.

 

[LDS]

With a yearly WW sales of around 5-6000 cameras, this makes good business sense.
Heck, even the two players today have a hard time making ends meet.

The main issue is it can be barely profitable, or not profitable at all. As long as some profits could be made, some very high-end, flagship products can be useful to "display excellence" even if the unit sold number are low - but are sold to highly visible customers.

Selling at loss is justifiable only if those products greatly increases other sales, but MF today is not the way to sell more DSLR or mirrorless, especially when 35mm sensor can reach 50Mp+... or maybe it's time for a mirrorless MF?? <G>

 

[MarinnaCole]

Using full frame lens on medium format makes as much sense as using crop lens on full frame. Yes you may find an adaptor to do the job but why even bother to use a bigger (and very expensive) sensor in the first place?

With Canon the sensor they are using on full frame is at least a generation behind Sony. (I think most manufacturers do at the moment) I doubt it makes much sense to go for medium format if they can't confidently feel they would be able to catch up.

For these not familiar with the sensor technology, Sony has deployed BSI CMOS sensor on full frame on their recent full frame. In average the expectation for BSI CMOS is you can capture 30% to 2X+ light, which is roughly the kind of improvement most Canon users aiming to move to a low-end medium format. That overwhelming edge can easily make Sony users to forgive the disadvantage of their optics. It makes way more sense for me (a landscape photographer) to buy the latest Sony camera (i.e. Sony a7R II) with an EF mount adaptor. It won't make it a medium format for the DOF and FOV but it's a darn good alternative given the upgrade cost.

On the business side, if I were Canon I would try to use my resource to improve the sensor technology on full frame (and crop) first before it's too late. I just don't see Canon have much chance in medium format without the DSLR market backing them financially. They are not Hasselblad. and BTW Sony already has a 100MP CMOS in production. Maybe Canon should just give up and buy sensors from Sony instead.

 

[Refurb7]

If anyone can make an excellent and profitable medium format camera, Canon can. But, as others have said, it probably doesn't make much business sense. Full frame is already a large enough format for the vast majority of photographic applications. Meanwhile, the market for medium format is very small and pretty well covered by the existing players.

 

[ashmadux]

Canon moves way too slow for any new markets at this point. Engineer driven sony moves too fast for the market generally, and inferior support structure comparable to canon shows that.

Who pushes godzilla? No one...she moves when she does, unfortunately for us consumers.

 

[CanonGuy]

Using full frame lens on medium format makes as much sense as using crop lens on full frame. Yes you may find an adaptor to do the job but why even bother to use a bigger (and very expensive) sensor in the first place?

With Canon the sensor they are using on full frame is at least a generation behind Sony. (I think most manufacturers do at the moment) I doubt it makes much sense to go for medium format if they can't confidently feel they would be able to catch up.

For these not familiar with the sensor technology, Sony has deployed BSI CMOS sensor on full frame on their recent full frame. In average the expectation for BSI CMOS is you can capture 30% to 2X+ light, which is roughly the kind of improvement most Canon users aiming to move to a low-end medium format. That overwhelming edge can easily make Sony users to forgive the disadvantage of their optics. It makes way more sense for me (a landscape photographer) to buy the latest Sony camera (i.e. Sony a7R II) with an EF mount adaptor. It won't make it a medium format for the DOF and FOV but it's a darn good alternative given the upgrade cost.

On the business side, if I were Canon I would try to use my resource to improve the sensor technology on full frame (and crop) first before it's too late. I just don't see Canon have much chance in medium format without the DSLR market backing them financially. They are not Hasselblad. and BTW Sony already has a 100MP CMOS in production. Maybe Canon should just give up and buy sensors from Sony instead.

Wait till canon fan boys jump on you for telling the truth haha. Some guys here saying that the 1dx mk ii has improved DR and comparable to d750/A7r ii. It baffles me that they are comparing a 6000$ camera to 2000$ cameras and giving the cup to canon lolz. Like really? Admit it that canon sensors are lagging and canon seriously needs to step up. Like now.

 

[frankchn]

Wait till canon fan boys jump on you for telling the truth haha. Some guys here saying that the 1dx mk ii has improved DR and comparable to d750/A7r ii. It baffles me that they are comparing a 6000$ camera to 2000$ cameras and giving the cup to canon lolz. Like really? Admit it that canon sensors are lagging and canon seriously needs to step up. Like now.

I think the Canon 1DX Mark II dynamic range is still about 0.5 stops or so behind the D750 or the A7r II, but I don't think most people who will actually buy and use the 1DX2 really care -- they are not pushing +5 stops in post anyway. Just look at the Nikon D5, the closest competitor camera, which has a base DR equivalent to a D3s, but actual buyers don't seem to be complaining too much.

Canon could probably do with better DR in their 5D and 5Ds lines, but the 1D camera has never really been about dynamic range, especially at base ISOs.

 

[CanonGuy]

Wait till canon fan boys jump on you for telling the truth haha. Some guys here saying that the 1dx mk ii has improved DR and comparable to d750/A7r ii. It baffles me that they are comparing a 6000$ camera to 2000$ cameras and giving the cup to canon lolz. Like really? Admit it that canon sensors are lagging and canon seriously needs to step up. Like now.

I think the Canon 1DX Mark II dynamic range is still about 0.5 stops or so behind the D750 or the A7r II, but I don't think most people who will actually buy and use the 1DX2 really care -- they are not pushing +5 stops in post anyway. Just look at the Nikon D5, the closest competitor camera, which has a base DR equivalent to a D3s, but actual buyers don't seem to be complaining too much.

Canon could probably do with better DR in their 5D and 5Ds lines, but the 1D camera has never really been about dynamic range, especially at base ISOs.

Valid point and I agree that DR is not a selling point of 1Dx ii. My point was, people STILL comparing the DR of 1Dx mk ii and handing the cup over to Canon. This type of attitude helps a company to perish. Look at Microsoft's denial of mobile business+OS, Blackberry and Nokis's denial of upsurge of Android, Kodak's denial of digital imaging. Look at where they were and where they are now. I love Canon and heavily invested on the Canon ecosystem. But if this trend continues, I'm afraid, sensor business/technology will be out of reach of Canon even to catch up. I hope they get's their act together soon.

 

[j-nord]

Just keep improving the DSLR/EF lens environment. Cramming more m-pix, DR, ISO, etc into 35mm and crop formats is a better business strategy. The 5DSR was referred to as a 'medium format killer' after all.

 

[Pascal Parvex]

And BTW Sony already has a 100MP CMOS in production. Maybe Canon should just give up and buy sensors from Sony instead.

Sure, they should give up, as Sony has an 100 MP Medium Format Sensor and Canon "only" has an APS-H sized sensor with 120 MP. And a 250 MP sensor of the same size.

 

[YuengLinger]

Wait till canon fan boys jump on you for telling the truth haha. Some guys here saying that the 1dx mk ii has improved DR and comparable to d750/A7r ii. It baffles me that they are comparing a 6000$ camera to 2000$ cameras and giving the cup to canon lolz. Like really? Admit it that canon sensors are lagging and canon seriously needs to step up. Like now.

I think the Canon 1DX Mark II dynamic range is still about 0.5 stops or so behind the D750 or the A7r II, but I don't think most people who will actually buy and use the 1DX2 really care -- they are not pushing +5 stops in post anyway. Just look at the Nikon D5, the closest competitor camera, which has a base DR equivalent to a D3s, but actual buyers don't seem to be complaining too much.

Canon could probably do with better DR in their 5D and 5Ds lines, but the 1D camera has never really been about dynamic range, especially at base ISOs.

Valid point and I agree that DR is not a selling point of 1Dx ii. My point was, people STILL comparing the DR of 1Dx mk ii and handing the cup over to Canon. This type of attitude helps a company to perish. Look at Microsoft's denial of mobile business+OS, Blackberry and Nokis's denial of upsurge of Android, Kodak's denial of digital imaging. Look at where they were and where they are now. I love Canon and heavily invested on the Canon ecosystem. But if this trend continues, I'm afraid, sensor business/technology will be out of reach of Canon even to catch up. I hope they get's their act together soon.

Yes, CanonGuy, you know about lack of innovation. Back in August of last year your wrote:

"Tech world moves very fast. look at blackberry, nokia, microsoft mobile and so on so on. they were great companies with billions in revenue. all went down in merely 2/3 years."

Looking at your few posts, you seem to think you are being cute with 1) your ironic screen name, and 2) complimenting Canon with one sentence and then repeating the same basic attack over and over.

So, here you go again, not addressing the topic, in this case medium format bodies, just replying to write your worn out position yet again.

One doesn't have to be a fanboy to be tired of what, by all evidence of your posts, is just a dull campaign against a manufacturer. Whatever gets your juices flowing. It could be genuine frustration, some pleasure at interrupting adults having a conversation, or scoring points with somebody by writing negative stuff on whatever forum you happen to be haunting.

 

[CanonGuy]

Wait till canon fan boys jump on you for telling the truth haha. Some guys here saying that the 1dx mk ii has improved DR and comparable to d750/A7r ii. It baffles me that they are comparing a 6000$ camera to 2000$ cameras and giving the cup to canon lolz. Like really? Admit it that canon sensors are lagging and canon seriously needs to step up. Like now.

I think the Canon 1DX Mark II dynamic range is still about 0.5 stops or so behind the D750 or the A7r II, but I don't think most people who will actually buy and use the 1DX2 really care -- they are not pushing +5 stops in post anyway. Just look at the Nikon D5, the closest competitor camera, which has a base DR equivalent to a D3s, but actual buyers don't seem to be complaining too much.

Canon could probably do with better DR in their 5D and 5Ds lines, but the 1D camera has never really been about dynamic range, especially at base ISOs.

Valid point and I agree that DR is not a selling point of 1Dx ii. My point was, people STILL comparing the DR of 1Dx mk ii and handing the cup over to Canon. This type of attitude helps a company to perish. Look at Microsoft's denial of mobile business+OS, Blackberry and Nokis's denial of upsurge of Android, Kodak's denial of digital imaging. Look at where they were and where they are now. I love Canon and heavily invested on the Canon ecosystem. But if this trend continues, I'm afraid, sensor business/technology will be out of reach of Canon even to catch up. I hope they get's their act together soon.

Yes, CanonGuy, you know about lack of innovation. Back in August of last year your wrote:

"Tech world moves very fast. look at blackberry, nokia, microsoft mobile and so on so on. they were great companies with billions in revenue. all went down in merely 2/3 years."

Looking at your few posts, you seem to think you are being cute with 1) your ironic screen name, and 2) complimenting Canon with one sentence and then repeating the same basic attack over and over.

So, here you go again, not addressing the topic, in this case medium format bodies, just replying to write your worn out position yet again.

One doesn't have to be a fanboy to be tired of what, by all evidence of your posts, is just a dull campaign against a manufacturer. Whatever gets your juices flowing. It could be genuine frustration, some pleasure at interrupting adults having a conversation, or scoring points with somebody by writing negative stuff on whatever forum you happen to be haunting.

Are you claiming that Canon brought out something very innovative since I made that post? Something that should make me change my opinion? : : :

 

[unfocused]

As someone who has had 5DIII images printed on billboards and the sides of buses, I have to wonder how viable medium format is in the long term. I am sure there are some uses, but it seems like they are getting fewer and fewer as the quality gap narrows.

In addition, we are living in an internet world these days, where fewer and fewer photos ever make it into print, so the demand for medium format is going to shrink even more.

I can certainly see why Canon is not interested in a tiny niche market that is likely to get even tinier.

 

[jeffa4444]

As someone who has had 5DIII images printed on billboards and the sides of buses, I have to wonder how viable medium format is in the long term. I am sure there are some uses, but it seems like they are getting fewer and fewer as the quality gap narrows.

In addition, we are living in an internet world these days, where fewer and fewer photos ever make it into print, so the demand for medium format is going to shrink even more.

I can certainly see why Canon is not interested in a tiny niche market that is likely to get even tinier.

Would not be so quick to write medium format off. In motion picture S35 will be replaced by Vistavision and Arri have produced a 65mm camera that uses Hasselblad / Fujinon lenses the rational being the difference in apparent depth of field and the less video look.
I dont buy Canon 8K S35 its a mistake for cinema maybe TV but who wants to sit six inches from the screen it shows Canon dont understand the market.
Whats important to consumers is price and over time even large sensors will fall in price as the technology matures and the manufacturers need a new angle.

 

[MarinnaCole]

And BTW Sony already has a 100MP CMOS in production. Maybe Canon should just give up and buy sensors from Sony instead.

Sure, they should give up, as Sony has an 100 MP Medium Format Sensor and Canon "only" has an APS-H sized sensor with 120 MP. And a 250 MP sensor of the same size.

If one thing you can learn from the industry, that is never to treat lab prototype the same thing as product in mass production. If a product never ship, it never exist. Canon doesn't provide any additional information to the public other than # of pixels. manufacturing quality? hot/cold pixels, sensitivity, cross-talking? DR, and cost? Until they ship APS-H to the market or they are confident enough to lend a prototype to 3rd party like DxOMark to test, you can pretty much ignore it for now.

Just as an example: It took Sony 7 years from first mass production of BSI-CMOS to put it in a full frame camera. and we always see it took years amount of development for Canon to just ship update version of the existing lens. If you can already see a 100MP medium format sensor in the market, what do you think that they have in their Lab? In fact it's a very common business practice to use your competitor's technology in your own product instead of yours. You get to keep your consumer product competitive while pushing harder on your sensor division all in once.

I don't own a MF camera but if high end camera takes years to gain its market share you can only imagine MF will only take significantly longer. People don't spend 30~50K to buy a system and renew it two years later like smart phone. That's one reason I think it makes no sense for Canon to enter this market unless they acquire a major player. They can barely even survive in mirrorless market.