Canon to announce medium format dslr?

[The Bad Duck]

It does sound unlikely. Why on earth would anyone use a crop mode on a MF camera? You get a MF camera because of sensor size then why not use it? Does not make sense. However, if FF is considered "full" and aps-c is considered "small" then medium format might be aps-h? But then again, why keep that format around anyways? Better to develop less sensors and do them better as competition on sensors are harder than ever. No. If I would spend money on a MF cam I would also spend money on one or two great lenses built for it instead of cripling it with croped lenses.

 

[wockawocka]

It does sound unlikely. Why on earth would anyone use a crop mode on a MF camera? You get a MF camera because of sensor size then why not use it? Does not make sense. However, if FF is considered "full" and aps-c is considered "small" then medium format might be aps-h? But then again, why keep that format around anyways? Better to develop less sensors and do them better as competition on sensors are harder than ever. No. If I would spend money on a MF cam I would also spend money on one or two great lenses built for it instead of cripling it with croped lenses.

Well it's not as crazy as it sounds.

For studio work I use two lenses, on the H3dII-39 I use a 100mm 2.2 with a 1.7x TC, I also have an 80, which I don't use and a 35mm for landscapes.

My canon kit though has 10 lenses.

So a MF body with an EF mount would be cool. I could buy the body, then expand my lenses. a bit like how you can fit a EF lens to a crop body. It doesn't use all the lens but you get used to the L glass.

But if you can remove the back and send it to a Haselblad / Mamiya or Phase body Canon will sell them by the bucketload. In fact, I'd go so far as to say they'd dominate the market in less than 12 months.

The only thing Hasselblad's H3D body and sensor has over the 1DX is 39mp, 16 bit files, no AA filter, and Hasselblad glass.

But my max useable ISO is 200.

Imagine what it would do to the MF market.

 

[dhofmann]

One strategy to allow EF lenses on a medium format body despite the smaller image circle is to apply vignetting correction in firmware, provided the vignetting isn't too severe.

Increasing the flange distance to accommodate a larger mirror will lose infinity focus on some lenses, but maybe Canon has designed this problem out of their new lenses. So this might be an alternative to a mirrorless medium format body.

And of course, an adapter with glass can fix both problems, but the results may not be pretty.

 

[wockawocka]

A lot of my L glass goes past infinity.

 

[art_d]

But, really...there's no point. Maybe you could use the TS-E lenses without using the movements, but everything else is going to have an image circle that just barely covers the 135 format.

Actually it's been known for some time that Canon's newer TS-E lenses can be used on medium format sensors with movements.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/hartblei-cam.shtml

I would be interested in a Canon EF-mount medium format even if the only lenses that worked on it were TS-E lenses, and even if it was a live-view only camera. I think there are a lot of architecture and landscape photographers like myself who would be very interested in this as an option. A really nice alternative over going with something like a Phase One back with a technical camera setup. But, the problem in my view is that Canon would need to add a couple more TS-E lenses into their lineup.

The 24mm is just about perfect for architecture in most circumstances, and 17mm is really nice but useful mostly in a few specialized circumstances because of how ultrwide angle can exaggerate the viewpoint. Say theoretically Canon comes out with a typical "small" MF sensor that's 33x44mm....a 24mm lens would become equivalent to 19mm on a FF DSLR. And 17mm would be like 13mm. That's great for ultrawide fanatics, but not so great for more typical commercial photos. There are rumors of updated 45mm and 90mm TS-Es, which would be great, but a 45mm on the MF would be like 35mm on FF. To get to that 24-28mm range which is in my opinion the classical "sweet spot" for standard wide angle, they'd need to also come out with a 30-35mm TS-E.

 

[Dylan777]

Would be nice to be able to shoot at 12800 ISO without noise ;D

I'm in

 

[TrumpetPower!]

One strategy to allow EF lenses on a medium format body despite the smaller image circle is to apply vignetting correction in firmware, provided the vignetting isn't too severe.

It's not just a matter of a couple stops of darkening plus a bit of loss of contrast / resolution.

It's complete darkness, as dark as with a lens cap.

I can't be arsed to look for examples, but the new fisheye zoom at its smallest focal length is what it looks like.

Increasing the flange distance to accommodate a larger mirror will lose infinity focus on some lenses, but maybe Canon has designed this problem out of their new lenses. So this might be an alternative to a mirrorless medium format body.

And of course, an adapter with glass can fix both problems, but the results may not be pretty.

The whole point of medium format is image quality. Suggest to somebody about to blow five figures on a medium format kit that you can kludge together an adapter that'll let you turn a 135 format lens into a coke bottle and they'll ask you what kind of crack you've been smoking.

There really, truly isn't any advantage at all to be had by mounting a 135 format lens to a medium format body (with the exception of some bizarre specialist rigs), even in a crop mode.

If you can afford a medium format body and you've got a bunch of 135 format lenses, you've already got multiple 135 format bodies. So why on Earth would you want to stick one of those lenses on the medium format body any more than somebody who today shoots a 5DIII / 1DX / D800 would want to mount an EF-S lens?

Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Cheers,

b&

 

[Tayvin]

This rumor has been around forever. I don't see Canon benefitting from the MF market. Their main target is photo enthusiasts and they make a fortune doing just that. Hassy will make a 35mm camera before Canon gets into MF. 35mm is what sells.

 

[Portrait_Moments_Photogra]

all i can say is -

you will be AMAZED how many medium format cameras got sold to "Non Photography Professionals"

- think of it this way - are those who bought Lambos, Ferraris, Vipers, Corvettes - race car drivers?


- Im not going to hold my breath if canon makes MF or not - i got my share of MF cameras and digital backs.

but to say one camera manufacturer over the other will not make one camera system over the other system...
try asking surgeons, lawyers and high end professionals who are into photography - most of them got one

... because they can.

 

[ishdakuteb]

Would be nice to be able to shoot at 12800 ISO without noise ;D

I'm in

there are noise even at 100 iso, so you probably have no chance to see a camera produce an image without noise unless it is a camera making by aliens...

 

[Dylan777]

Would be nice to be able to shoot at 12800 ISO without noise ;D

I'm in

there are noise even at 100 iso, so you probably have no chance to see a camera produce an image without noise unless it is a camera making by aliens...

Will be alot of green dot instead ;D ;D ;D

A simle wish I have for Canon is FF mirrorless body, that didn't happen. AND NOW MF body coming soon???? u guys funny

 

[Hillsilly]

all i can say is -

you will be AMAZED how many medium format cameras got sold to "Non Photography Professionals"

You're right. I'm one of them. I've been playing around with Mamiya medium format cameras since the mid 90's. Yet I've never sold a photo or made any money professionally. I just like taking photos and until recently medium format film has been the optimal choice for me (I lack the interest and patience of 8x10 or bigger.) But I think there's a difference between spending a few thousand on a camera versus tens of thousands.

My 2c, if they make an excellent camera and keep the cost of a reasonable system (body and a couple of lenses) under $10k, there will be a lot of interest. Over that price, they'll quickly lose a lot of enthusiasm. Those that are left are probably already looking at Hasselblads. Probably the Ferrari edition to match their car.

 

[Neeneko]

I am rather surprised so many people are commenting about how 'silly' the idea of putting an EF lens on a MF camera is.....

I see people using Nikon FF lenses on MF view cameras fairly regularly....

 

[dr croubie]

You're right. I'm one of them. I've been playing around with Mamiya medium format cameras since the mid 90's. Yet I've never sold a photo or made any money professionally. I just like taking photos and until recently medium format film has been the optimal choice for me (I lack the interest and patience of 8x10 or bigger.) But I think there's a difference between spending a few thousand on a camera versus tens of thousands.

Me too. Click my sig for (half of) the MF lenses I own (since I took the photo i've bought an(other) P6, a Kiev60, an(other) Zodiak 30mm fisheye, an(other) MC Flek 50/4, an MC Volna 80/2.8, an MC Biometar 120/2.8, an(other) MC Sonnar 180/2.8, an MC Sonnar 300/4, and for the hell of it, a P67 Takumar 300/4.

It started out as just a cheap way to use MF lenses as Tilt/Shifts on my 7D, then it kind of grew into its own obsession. And if I ever move to Mamiya 645 (which I was going to do soon but instead I blew my money on those MC Zeisses), they'll all adapt (and then when I win the lottery i'll get a digital back for it).



I know it'll never happen, but an EF-mount MILC with proper 44mm flange distance and no mirror, and a sensor maybe 40x30mm is highly possible, add in Hybrid Sensor AF and IS and it'll beat almost every current MF system for everything but IQ (well, maybe IQ, but hey, this is canon with their dirty read-noise ADCs we're talking about here).

Just consider image-circles for comparison:
24x36mm, image circle is 43.3mm.
30x40mm, image circle is 50mm.
30x45mm (Leica S2 size), image circle is 54mm
33x44mm (Leaf Credo 40 size), circle is 55mm.
Blow a FF sensor up to Leaf Credo 40 or Leica S2 size, and you're only pushing each corner 6mm out further from the centre, if even that.

So yes, some lenses (that already vignette heavily on FF) won't be too useful, and EF-s is just out.
But there's a lot that don't.
Check out the vignetting results at TDP, set the aperture to f/4 or so, and notice how a lot are only 1/3 stop or less at FF corners, blow that out only 6mm wider at each corner, you'd be less than 1-stop vignetting on a 33x44mm sensor. Like the TS-Es and 8-15 as already said. How about the 100 LIS or 180L Macros? Even the 50/1.2L at f/4 looks like it'll cover 55mm image circle easily, with no more vignetting than wide-open on FF. It sure beats an EF-s 15-85 at 15mm at any aperture on APS-C.
Yes, I'm only looking stopped down. But you don't run an MF lens at f/1.2. Hell, the fastest MF lenses ever (mass) produced were f/1.8-2.0, and most primes were f/2.8, zooms are f/4 or slower.

Don't say it can't happen.
Because it can.
Technically at least.
We know that it's Canon, and they probably won't, but that's a different argument.

 

[Wideopen]

Would be nice to be able to shoot at 12800 ISO without noise ;D

I'm in

+1 same here

 

[XanuFoto]

It will sell for base price USD 7000. With kit lense for 8000.

 

[iMagic]

I have no experience in MF world, but doesnt Hartblei have some mechanism that allows EF lenses on MF cameras?

http://www.hartblei.de/en/hartbleicam1.htm

 

[dr croubie]

I have no experience in MF world, but doesnt Hartblei have some mechanism that allows EF lenses on MF cameras?

http://www.hartblei.de/en/hartbleicam1.htm

Yep, what's being discussed is pretty much a Hartblei Hcam... except it would have an integrated sensor like a normal mirrorless camera, probably with Hyrbid AF like the EOS M, so AF and IS would work (which they don't on the HCam).
The Hartblei is about $8k (without a digital back), I don't see any potential Canon version being much cheaper.

 

[c.d.embrey]

Hmmm, how about a Canon Medium format system with a removable back and adaptor for Hasselblad bodies which consists of 2 x 1Dx sensors.

Hasselblad is a Closed System, their backs are the only onrs thay will work with the H3 or H4 bodies. They can't use Phase One, Leaf or Sinar backs

 

[dr croubie]

Hmmm, how about a Canon Medium format system with a removable back and adaptor for Hasselblad bodies which consists of 2 x 1Dx sensors.

Hasselblad is a Closed System, their backs are the only onrs thay will work with the H3 or H4 bodies. They can't use Phase One, Leaf or Sinar backs

True, the H3 and H4 (and I think the H2F) can't take 3rd-party backs (nor film backs, which is annoying to some pros i've heard).

Except for the new H4X, can take any leafmiyaone back like the H1 and H2. Maybe the H4X is Hassy's way of saying, "our backs aren't that good, please don't swap systems, you can use someone else's backs just please keep buying our glass"?