Canon Medium Format Talk, It's Not in the Works
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
unfocused said:
I think you have hit the nail on the head - it makes more sense for Canon to cannibalise the market shares of medium format players, and drive medium format into a smaller niche than to actually play in that niche. Come to think of it, when I was a kid, school photographers used medium format - now they all use mostly APS-C (possibly some full frame).
The 5Ds and 5DsR are pushing more into medium format territory.
Sure, there will always be some applications where medium format produces a better result, but the number of applications where that is the case is shrinking.
And, even if you could have produced better images for billboards using medium format, would anyone have paid you more? Would anyone have cared? - You have to optimise your profit margin - i.e. produce a product which is good enough to get you repeat business, while keeping your costs as low as possible. - With that in mind, the 5DIII makes sense.
Upvote
0
CanonGuy said:
Company perish because of DR? You must be kidding.
I shot my kid's soccer game this weekend with the lowly old 70D (got it cheap!) at 3pm against the bright afternoon sun and got great results. I used Av mode with exposure compensation set to zero. Easy peasy. Detail in white jerseys. Detail in shade-side of faces. Raw mode + tweaks in Lightroom = sharp beautiful action pics with tons of detail. Now the 80D is available and it's even better. And anyone with a 1DX2 is sitting pretty.
The point is: Canon sensors are fully up to speed for the vast majority of photography. The problem of DR was conquered long ago. Witness: great pro work done with Canon gear by photographers far better than any of us on a photo gear forum.
Some people claim to need more DR and some no doubt would benefit from more DR, but either way it's not going to terminate the company. Canon offers way too much great stuff for photography to fail because of some DR comparison. Most people DO NOT CARE.
Canon's biggest problem is the decline of camera sales generally — thanks to the smart phone — not some DR comparison. That's a minor detail in the big scheme of things.
Upvote
0
1. No, they won't perish because of DR haha. At most they will completely lag behind in sensor tech which they are currently.
2. I know a guy who produces amazing studio work with his 40D and 85mm f/1.8 lens. That 10 year old camera is very capable. That doesn't mean we didn't need 50/60/70D. Just cause people are producing good work with with inferior sensor camera doesn't mean that Canon did enough. If I wasn't heavily invested on 3 bodies, I would have switched by this time. Which I'm seriously considering for next body purchase (keeping an eye on 5d iv but not holding my breath. I know it's slow dull canon).
3. My point was, when a company lacks drive for innovation and goes to denial stage, then yes, they may perish. Don't say I'm crazy, I'm sure Kodak's CEO once thought the critics are crazy. See where they are now.
2. I know a guy who produces amazing studio work with his 40D and 85mm f/1.8 lens. That 10 year old camera is very capable. That doesn't mean we didn't need 50/60/70D. Just cause people are producing good work with with inferior sensor camera doesn't mean that Canon did enough. If I wasn't heavily invested on 3 bodies, I would have switched by this time. Which I'm seriously considering for next body purchase (keeping an eye on 5d iv but not holding my breath. I know it's slow dull canon).
3. My point was, when a company lacks drive for innovation and goes to denial stage, then yes, they may perish. Don't say I'm crazy, I'm sure Kodak's CEO once thought the critics are crazy. See where they are now.
Upvote
0
CanonGuy said:
So in 1. No, they won't perish because of DR.
But in 3. yes they might still perish because of some innovation lag ... like DR?
And in 2. Yes, we did need the 50/60/70D and 80D, because each one brought with it something more. Which shows Canon doing the right thing, though obviously not pleasing everyone (impossible to do).
I understand being invested in 3 bodies. But if DR is so important, and another brand offers so much more, then why wait for something that may or may not come. I've probably sold an average of one camera body each year for the past 15 years. It can't be that hard to sell three.
Upvote
0
CanonGuy said:
Very good analogy. I do however think that DR is given a little more weight than it deserves. Just look at DR Review. It's the first or second thing on the list. Always. I understand that certain types of photography benefits from it more than others. Not everybody needs to push shadows +5 or more on every photo they take. Of course more DR is NOT a Bad thing by any means. As for Canon Giving up and using Sony sensors we Don't want that to happen. NO company should have a monopoly on a product or part of a product.
(Remember Intel vs AMD? What if AMD had given up or went under? Intel would have raised prices to what ever they wanted to.)
If that did happen Sony would have a monopoly. I know there are a few other small time companies that make image sensors too but they would be NO competition to Sony. Sony could then set the price of sensors and keep the best tech for themselves. They would be fools not to and they are not fools. Canon needs to wake up in the sensor department and also get with the current times on 4K video and mirrorless. Yeah, I know they are the Camera sales leader. So was Blackberry for smartphones in 2011. So was Kodak in film. Canon is a big diversified company. They do make more than cameras and lenses. I doubt they will go out of business over cameras but they may not stay number one in sales if they don't change their ways.
Also it has been pointed out many times most people shooting entry level cameras of all brands that make up most of the sales don't know what DR means and are happy with what they have and take good photos with them. Smartphones have taken the biggest bite out of all camera sales by far. Especially PS cameras. Of course We all already know that. ;-)
Upvote
0
Silly opinion: I never found more DR and pushing +5EV an important innovation.
I like reading specs sheets but they don't make coffee for me.....yet.
Ok, back to shooting my pictures with unrecoverable shadows that doesn't effect my target audience.
I like reading specs sheets but they don't make coffee for me.....yet.
Ok, back to shooting my pictures with unrecoverable shadows that doesn't effect my target audience.
Upvote
0
3kramd5 said:
Vignetting effect is not what you need to worry about. It can be very nicely software corrected. If you start to look at the MTF chart of most Canon lens you will see at the right side of the curve how much your image got degraded. With bigger sensor beyond its design spec it will only get degraded worse. Yes you might still have an unobstructed image, if that's all you need from a $20K body. If you really want that angle of view try Brenizer method with a DSLR will actually get you better image quality with a bit additional hassle.
Upvote
0
MarinnaCole said:
There's one obvious exception to this: Canon's TS-E lenses cover medium format sensors, with limited movements.
There's also the approach that Leica uses with the SL: you can use smaller-format lenses in crop mode. For instance, a 100 MP medium format sensor could be used as a 33 MP FF sensor with FF lenses. That's plenty for almost all uses, and you could also get the benefit of adding a square format, a 4:3 format, and a "portrait" (vertical) mode.
You could keep using your EF lenses for the 90% of shots that don't need ultra-high resolution, and have the option of going to medium format without carrying a second (heavy/expensive) system.
Upvote
0
unfocused said:
Medium (and large) formats were never only for bigger enlargements. I've seen 8x10" negatives printed that size, or little larger. Why? For the incredible details they could convey. A few months ago I got the latest edition of Stephen Shore's "Uncommon Places" (shot with a 8x10" camera). Even in a printed edition, the details are astounding. IIRC, Lachapelle works with MF cameras too with his often very complex subjects.
On a bus side, you don't really need much detail. In other photos, you may strive for a lot. It is true high Mpx FF cameras are getting a lot of them, and lens are improving too, but they too may hit some limits.
Today MF (and LF) are truly niche markets where very fine details are essential (i.e. high-end art reproduction), or the photographer aims for something outside the actual FF capabilities, usually for artistic reasons, or some specific commercial ones. But it's a smaller market, and with enough established players already.
What would Canon gain by "fighting" against Hasselblad and Phase One in that market? It would need at least a body (even if without being modular like others), and enough lenses to cover most MF user needs. Moreover, at that level of prices, you have also to offer a dedicated specialized support. Not a market which could be entered with a so-so product (like the XC10 in its own, for example...) given the competition and actual real users needs. No DSLR user would feel the need to move to a "cheap" MF camera today, those looking at those products have specific needs to fulfill.
Not a small investment, for an uncertain return - MF users may not be much willingly to switch to a new system they have no confidence with, after investing a lot of money in their actual one.
Upvote
0
As I see it, high resolution full frame 35mm format cameras are going to increasingly become more like medium format cameras, leaving current medium format makers offering the digital equivalent of large format cameras. Micro four thirds sensors have now reached 20MP. When micro four thirds cameras eventually reach first 24-28MP, then head slowly towards 36+MP in resolution, and APS-C sensors towards 50+MP, it would make it harder and harder for the average enthusiast, and many pros too, to be bothered to carry around "big" full frame bodies and lenses. You may scoff, but my first digital camera had a 2MP sensor back in 1999.
It also raises questions as to whether medium format has any place in a digital future, or whether as medium format sensors come down in price, this format too can find its place once again in amongst the standard equipment of a large proportion of professional photographers, just as in the film days.
However, if FF sensors reach 120MP, which is where Canon intends to go in the next few years, MFD sensors will have to go up even higher to justify their existence, placing pressure on lens engineers to produce ultra high resolution glass that can keep up with it. Unfortunately, the rate at which sensors go up in resolution will likely rapidly outstrip the pace at which lens IQ can be improved. If we imagined a time when sensor resolution can be increased to 1GP, it would seem improbable that glass development could keep up with that level of resolution. Next, it would be have longed passed the point of ever decreasing return. It seems questionable that this level of detail would even be desirable in anything other than forensic or scientific photography. It would be incredibly unforgiving to shoot with when even the most minor degree of movement in either the camera or the subject would cause a loss of pixel peeping level IQ. Nobody would want every pore and pimple documented with that level of microscopic detail anyway.
As for Sony, the superconductor division and the camera making division have now separated into two different companies. Although there is talk of Sony putting a 70-80MP 35mm sensor into an upcoming new model, I doubt they can do that, and not because they are technically incapable of manufacturing such a sensor. Sony superconductors has to keep its sensor buying clients happy too, and at the moment they are tending not to issue sensors in any format that has a maximum resolution that is equal to the lowest resolution of the next sensor size above it. That means the maximum resolution of the APS-C sensor is 24MP, the same as the minimum resolution of FF sensors.
Just think of the discontent amongst sensor buying clients it would produce if Sony issued a 28-36MP M4/3 sensor while keeping their APS-C sensor limited to a maximum of 24MP. It would severely shake confidence in Sony. For this reason, I suspect that Sony will limit the maximum resolution of their 35mm sensor to around 51MP as long as the 51MP cropped 44x33mm MFD sensor used in the Pentax 645Z is still around. We will only see a 70-80MP 35mm format sensor after Sony cease making the 51MP 44x33 sensor, and replace that with a 70-80MP version (for the replacement model of the 645Z and Phase One/Hasselblad backs). It is likely one of the reasons Sony only issued a 42MP sensor for the a7RII, since the 51MP 44x33mm MFD sensor was relatively new, and they didn't want to to undermine sales of that sensor.
This is not to say that it is not beneath Sony to release a 35mm format camera with a 70-80MP sensor before they release a 70-80MP 44x33mm sensor to Pentax (and other medium format firms), who would feel majorly stabbed in the back as 645Z sales plummet. The rest of Sony's sensor buying clients would be wondering if they going to be next in getting the same ill treatment. However, the very point of separately the camera and superconductor divisions of Sony was to surely to eliminate this conflict of interest.
Canon does not have this issue. They can push the resolution of their 35mm sensor up to 120MP without offending any medium format sensor buying clients. It is one of the advantages of sticking to in-house sensor manufacture.
I anticipate that Canon will refresh the 5Ds shortly after the release of the 5DIV principally so they can use the same magnesium alloy body for both models. I suspect Canon may well bump up the resolution of the 5DsII. If so Canon could have a 70-80MP FF model out before Sony do, just as they issued a 50MP FF model before Sony. Canon said at the launch of the 5Ds that it was a scaled down version of the 120MP ASP-H sensor they had already demonstrated publically, but it would make sense to have a 70-80MP intermediate resolution 5DsII model before eventually getting to 120MP with the 5DsIII.
It also raises questions as to whether medium format has any place in a digital future, or whether as medium format sensors come down in price, this format too can find its place once again in amongst the standard equipment of a large proportion of professional photographers, just as in the film days.
However, if FF sensors reach 120MP, which is where Canon intends to go in the next few years, MFD sensors will have to go up even higher to justify their existence, placing pressure on lens engineers to produce ultra high resolution glass that can keep up with it. Unfortunately, the rate at which sensors go up in resolution will likely rapidly outstrip the pace at which lens IQ can be improved. If we imagined a time when sensor resolution can be increased to 1GP, it would seem improbable that glass development could keep up with that level of resolution. Next, it would be have longed passed the point of ever decreasing return. It seems questionable that this level of detail would even be desirable in anything other than forensic or scientific photography. It would be incredibly unforgiving to shoot with when even the most minor degree of movement in either the camera or the subject would cause a loss of pixel peeping level IQ. Nobody would want every pore and pimple documented with that level of microscopic detail anyway.
As for Sony, the superconductor division and the camera making division have now separated into two different companies. Although there is talk of Sony putting a 70-80MP 35mm sensor into an upcoming new model, I doubt they can do that, and not because they are technically incapable of manufacturing such a sensor. Sony superconductors has to keep its sensor buying clients happy too, and at the moment they are tending not to issue sensors in any format that has a maximum resolution that is equal to the lowest resolution of the next sensor size above it. That means the maximum resolution of the APS-C sensor is 24MP, the same as the minimum resolution of FF sensors.
Just think of the discontent amongst sensor buying clients it would produce if Sony issued a 28-36MP M4/3 sensor while keeping their APS-C sensor limited to a maximum of 24MP. It would severely shake confidence in Sony. For this reason, I suspect that Sony will limit the maximum resolution of their 35mm sensor to around 51MP as long as the 51MP cropped 44x33mm MFD sensor used in the Pentax 645Z is still around. We will only see a 70-80MP 35mm format sensor after Sony cease making the 51MP 44x33 sensor, and replace that with a 70-80MP version (for the replacement model of the 645Z and Phase One/Hasselblad backs). It is likely one of the reasons Sony only issued a 42MP sensor for the a7RII, since the 51MP 44x33mm MFD sensor was relatively new, and they didn't want to to undermine sales of that sensor.
This is not to say that it is not beneath Sony to release a 35mm format camera with a 70-80MP sensor before they release a 70-80MP 44x33mm sensor to Pentax (and other medium format firms), who would feel majorly stabbed in the back as 645Z sales plummet. The rest of Sony's sensor buying clients would be wondering if they going to be next in getting the same ill treatment. However, the very point of separately the camera and superconductor divisions of Sony was to surely to eliminate this conflict of interest.
Canon does not have this issue. They can push the resolution of their 35mm sensor up to 120MP without offending any medium format sensor buying clients. It is one of the advantages of sticking to in-house sensor manufacture.
I anticipate that Canon will refresh the 5Ds shortly after the release of the 5DIV principally so they can use the same magnesium alloy body for both models. I suspect Canon may well bump up the resolution of the 5DsII. If so Canon could have a 70-80MP FF model out before Sony do, just as they issued a 50MP FF model before Sony. Canon said at the launch of the 5Ds that it was a scaled down version of the 120MP ASP-H sensor they had already demonstrated publically, but it would make sense to have a 70-80MP intermediate resolution 5DsII model before eventually getting to 120MP with the 5DsIII.
Upvote
0
j-nord said:
The original 5D was as well, in its time, and so was the 5DmII.
The problem with cramming more and more pixels into a small format is diffraction.
People think of diffraction as one fixed "cutoff" number, but it applies all the time.
All things being equal, a shot on a 24x36mm 100MP sensor at 5.6 will have lower local contrast than a 100MP shot on a 36x48mm sensor at the same aperture.
Put it another way. If you know what an MTF curve is, a smaller sensor will use the bottom-most set of lines (highest frequency), while a larger sensor will use the next set up, at the same total resolution.
That's why pictures from a 20 MP point-and-shoot don't look as good as a 20 MP FF camera. Larger sensors are just easier on your lenses (for the same output format).
Upvote
0
There are a lot of confusing things being said about diffraction.
From the point of view of physics, diffraction is caused by light passing through a small hole. The smaller the hole the more diffraction of light you get. This is illustrated well in this diagram from Canon:
The amount of light diffraction has nothing to do with the size of the sensor or the pixel pitch. Diffraction is only determined by aperture size.
This article explains it well:
https://jonrista.com/2013/03/24/the-diffraction-myth/
From the point of view of physics, diffraction is caused by light passing through a small hole. The smaller the hole the more diffraction of light you get. This is illustrated well in this diagram from Canon:
The amount of light diffraction has nothing to do with the size of the sensor or the pixel pitch. Diffraction is only determined by aperture size.
This article explains it well:
https://jonrista.com/2013/03/24/the-diffraction-myth/
Upvote
0
Sator said:
I think you vastly overestimate the importance of resolution to medium format buyers. The fundamental draw is the format, not the pixel count. I don't foresee many 645Z or Phase or Hasselblad owners metaphorically burning their backs in anger at the development of a 135-format sensor with more pixels.
Besides, Sony is selling Phase One a 100MP sensor, so even if Sony Semiconductors imposed a resolution limit based on larger formats (they demonstrably do not), an 80MP full frame would not violate it.
For example: IMX135, IMX220, IMS220S, IMX214, IMX230, IMX234, IMX240, IMX258, IMX278, IMX298, IMX300, and IMX318 all have resolutions higher than a current Sony full frame (found in A7S II), and they're all 1/2.3" or smaller.
They did? That's odd; it makes no sense. If they scaled it down, it would be smaller, but it's larger. If they scaled it up, it would be higher resolution; it's lower. Got a link? I question any direct relationship between the sensors.
Upvote
0
Canon always make experimental sensors in APS-H size. By scaled down, it is obviously not scaled down in format but scaled down in resolution for the full frame production model.
The statement about the 5Ds sensor being based on the 100-120MP experimental model Canon had been showing off for a while at shows was made by a Canon UK or Europe manager (I recall he was British and had a short trimmed beard) during a press interview at the time of release. The statement was made on video during a live interview and it was stated that they chose to scale resolution down to 50MP for practical purposes.
I will keep hunting for the video in question. It might have been on DPR or another site, but it was a year ago and it is hard to dig it up. Do others recall the interview in question?
I wasn't aware that Hasselblad and Phase One offered 24MP medium format sensors for people who just wanted the medium format "look" because higher resolution like 100MP count for nothing.
The statement about the 5Ds sensor being based on the 100-120MP experimental model Canon had been showing off for a while at shows was made by a Canon UK or Europe manager (I recall he was British and had a short trimmed beard) during a press interview at the time of release. The statement was made on video during a live interview and it was stated that they chose to scale resolution down to 50MP for practical purposes.
I will keep hunting for the video in question. It might have been on DPR or another site, but it was a year ago and it is hard to dig it up. Do others recall the interview in question?
I wasn't aware that Hasselblad and Phase One offered 24MP medium format sensors for people who just wanted the medium format "look" because higher resolution like 100MP count for nothing.
Upvote
0
Found the interview:
http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/tv/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm
For anyone who wants to say that he doesn't specifically state that the 5Ds sensor is a "scaled down" version of the experimental 120MP sensor, which he reminds us was first demonstrated publicly back in 2010, it is clear nonetheless that Canon does translate its R&D into manufactured lines even if in a scaled down fashion. It would be silly to state that Canon does not implement experimental R&D technology into production models even if in a scale down manner.
That means that things like the experimental 120MP—and now 250MP!—APS-H sensor being demonstrated in public has technology that will slowly trickle down to production lines. That's why Canon put money into R&D.
http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/tv/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm
For anyone who wants to say that he doesn't specifically state that the 5Ds sensor is a "scaled down" version of the experimental 120MP sensor, which he reminds us was first demonstrated publicly back in 2010, it is clear nonetheless that Canon does translate its R&D into manufactured lines even if in a scaled down fashion. It would be silly to state that Canon does not implement experimental R&D technology into production models even if in a scale down manner.
That means that things like the experimental 120MP—and now 250MP!—APS-H sensor being demonstrated in public has technology that will slowly trickle down to production lines. That's why Canon put money into R&D.
Upvote
0
Sator said:
You see no relation between the Airy disk and pixel pitch? OK then, you really are confused.
BTW, Hasselblad and Phase One offered 24MP medium format sensors in the past, lots of them available on the used market. They (and Leica and Pentax) still offer lots of options in the 37-50 MP range, which should theoretically have been made obsolete by cameras such as the d810, 5Ds and A7r2. They haven't, and the reason for that is that a 40 MP medium image looks better than a 50 MP FF image, because micro-contrast is better. Larger pixels don't stress high-frequency MTF as much.
This assumes that you are using lenses of similar quality. You can obviously spend a small fortune on Zeiss Otus lenses and get results that will pass for medium format, provided your technique is meticulous.
None of this is new, by the way. Back in the film days, you could get medium format resolution from 35mm by using Kodak's Tech Pan film and high quality Zeiss/Leica glass, but it was 10 times more difficult. You had to use the best tripods, focus with a magnifier (or bracket your focus), avoid any conditions that kill micro contrast (haze, high heat, any vibration). Even then, any fool with a Yashicamat and a roll of Plus-X would do better without even trying.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
