Canon's Medium Format

[IsaacImage]

Hello dear friends.

What do you think - Canon need this market ?
Will we see any MF cameras and lenses of course any soon ?

 

[privatebydesign]

Hello dear friends.

What do you think - Canon need this market ?
Will we see any MF cameras and lenses of course any soon ?

No and no, would be my guess. The returnables are just not there as the market is just too small, all the money, effort, and R&D that might have gone into a MF line is going into the C line anyway.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

This would probably only happen if Canon bought a MF manufacturer. Its not a profitable business, many MF companies have been losing money and are consolidating.

Canon has been very conservative and has not jumped into a new area without some reasonable expectation of making a profit,.

That doesn't currently seem likely.

 

[unfocused]

Agree with Private and Mt. Spokane. Heck, Canon doesn't seem to be in any hurry to offer a high megapixel DSLR, much less get into medium format.

Lesson: Internet chatter does not equate to an actual market for a product.

 

[hgraf]

Hello dear friends.

What do you think - Canon need this market ?
Will we see any MF cameras and lenses of course any soon ?

I'd say no.

The question you should be asking is this: what benefit would going into MF be for Canon? The market itself is tiny. It's tiny because the equipment big, hard to use and is super expensive. So say Canon went into it with the intention of undercutting the competition (cheaper, easier to use). How much would that grow the market? Enough to be worthwhile?

Now look at it from the technology viewpoint: what benefit does MF bring to the table? Does MF produce a better result in the "meat and potatoes" section of the photography business?

My opinions? No. Due to pure physics (size, weight, lens focal lengths) MF isn't very convenient in pretty much any setting other then landscapes and studio work. Outside of that MF is too big, too slow and too unwieldy. Any improvement brought to the MF game would be equally applicable to the FF and APS-C markets (aside from size, can't get around that one). Even IN the realm of landscapes and studio MF really only helps if you're going WAY big with your image. I'm not talking about a 2 page spread. I'm talking about a 30 foot tall poster. How big is the market for that kind of photography?

So, would MF bring something to the table to say a wedding photographer, or a news photographer, or a sports photographer, or a travel photographer, that would make it worthwhile? IMHO, no. The image quality benefit just isn't there for those uses, and the equipment would be bigger and heavier then FF or APS-H/C sized solutions, again for no benefit.

MF has been a niche for a long time, and the physics IMHO just prevent it from leaving that niche.

 

[pwp]

Canon would have a hard time getting an MF expansion past the shareholders. It's such a tiny market with dubious profit potential.

There's little profit for them in the pro market (1DX, big white glass etc) but these are reputation builders and highly visible, aspirational "halo" products.

MF is generally hidden from view in studios and tightly managed productions, thus no "halo" effect.

As far as cameras go, they'll stick with core business.

-pw

 

[100]

Not as long as medium format will have prices with 5 digits.
At those prices the market is too small.
But if the price drops the market for medium format could grow substantially and Canon might be interested.
Current full frame 35mm format might become the new APS-C and medium format the new full frame.
I don’t see that happening in the next 2 or 3 years, but in long term…

 

[Halfrack]

As a MF shooter, there is limited gains by going into this market. To do a whole new mount and the lenses that would be expected, plus the distraction it would be to their business just doesn't make sense. What does a MF camera give you that you currently don't have?

Resolution? - Sony has a 36mp chip shipping, rumors of a 40mp+ Canon chips are out there
sync speed? - it would be really nice to have a 1.4x tele-adapter that can be a leaf shutter that the focal plane can use

Basically, when Canon puts their name on it, the expectation of perfection is there. Think of how much you'd laugh of Nikon put out a 'wannabe MF camera' that was slow, incompatible with anything else, and expensive. Canon is in that boat, their ability to half ass a product in this space is zero. I mean, look at how poorly the 35mm world is looking at the Hasselblad re-branded Sony products.

 

[Drizzt321]

Medium Format (in my limited experience) is obviously quite a bit bigger than 35mm, but from what I see briefly on Wikipedia the digital sensors are smaller than the smallest 'normal' film equivalent, which is 6x4.5cm (aka 645 format). That aside, the market is so incredibly smaller, it's already almost crowded. Canon would have to do something crazy like a full 6x6cm or 6x7cm format sensor and all new, super-high quality lenses in order to have pretty much anyone using digital MF even consider switching. And at that, it'd be insanely expensive, especially for full size sensors like that.

 

[pdirestajr]

I would be surprised if Canon went into the medium format market.
They continue to develop and grow their EOS Cinema Division, which ties nicely into their DSLR/lens system. They are evolving in a smart way, contrary to internet forums where you are lead to believe Canon is "failing" because you can't raise the shadows in an underexposed image in Lightroom as much as a raw file from other sensor.

 

[Don Haines]

Everyone seems obsessed with a bigger sensor, but forgets about bigger lenses and bigger price tag. 35mm does so well because it hits the sweet spot for ergonomics...

 

[agierke]

A resounding no. I would actually be pissed if they wasted R&D resources in this manner.

I used to be a medium and large format shooter in the film days and I loved it. I had zero interest in the 35mm format as it could not come close to delivering the quality that even the smallest size medium format could deliver. Running around with a hassi or a 4x5 was worth the extra effort due to the phenomenal quality provided.

In the digital world that is no longer the case. Though there still may be a gap in quality between the formats it has been significantly reduced. If you remember, once digital came out of it's growing pains, it actually put a huge dent in the medium format market. Why go into a market you helped to mostly annihilate after you annihilated it?

The only aspect I miss from the medium and large format days is the leaf shutter and syncing at any shutter speed. That's it.

 

[phoenix7]

lenses? yes, Canon already makes lens that will work with the smaller sized medium digital format sensors out there.
Now of course before people hollar they aren't ment for that and there aren't many, the easiest to use are the wider angle TS lens, and from what I've read you can still get a fair bit of T and S out of them before they vigenette heavily. With the not quite really medium format (6cm x 4.5cm or greater) of around 4.xcm x 3.xcm sensors we aren't talking about nearly as large a jump up in size. From what I've read it's around 1.5x or 1.6x so I always think of of digital MF as being the APC of the medium format world right now. When they can give me a full frame MF sensor (6x4.5) for about the price of a 1DX I'll start saving for one. (yeah, fat chance, I know)

 

[dolina]

Buying a current MF brand is more feasible than Canon doing it from scratch. There is more money in Cinema EOS than MF.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

But if the price drops the market for medium format could grow substantially and Canon might be interested.
Current full frame 35mm format might become the new APS-C and medium format the new full frame.
I don’t see that happening in the next 2 or 3 years, but in long term…

I see electronics' price dropping, but lenses?

 

[jeffa4444]

I agree with other MF is not Canon goal they are happy growing in Cinema EOS and they have hade a huge dent in documentory camera usage with the C300. They are not quite a Hollywood camera but they will be one day.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Cameraphones are encroaching more and more on the consumer digital stills market, where many potential buyers would rather opt for convenience and portability over outright IQ. I don't know how close we are to the IQ ceiling on full-frame digital, perhaps others could comment...

A larger format could offer better low light capability, better background blur and a smaller diffraction limited aperture. For landscape and and portrait work these could all be put to good use. In terms of ergonomics sure you'd need to use longer focal lengths on a larger format but perhaps "DO" lens designs (which offer reduced size and weight) could be employed? Anyway, since this is supposedly "The Year of the Lens" maybe all Canon's new lenses will be forwards-compatible to a larger sensor size... perhaps an "XL" line of lenses.

On a theoretical 48x36mm (0.7x Crop) sensor: (Doubled FF sensor size)
1) SNR could be 41% better than equivalent full frame tech.
2) Angle of view - TS-E 24mm would be similar to 17mm on full frame
3) Background rendering - 135mm f/1.8 would be similar to 85mm f/1.2 on full-frame.
4) Diffraction limit would be extended by 1 stop. (e.g. f/14 vs f/11)

On a theoretical 5x7cm (0.5x Crop) sensor: (Quadrupled FF sensor size)
1) SNR could be 100% better than equivalent FF tech.
2) Angle of view - 30mm "XL" would be similar to 15mm on FF
3) Background rendering - 200mm f/2.8 would be similar to 85mm f/1.2 on FF.
4) Diffraction limit would be extended by 2 stops. (e.g. f/22 vs f/11)

http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-1x-85mm-f1.2-and-0.7x-135mm-f1.8-and-0.5x-200mm-f2.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

How significant these advantages are is up to debate...

 

[phoenix7]

A larger format could offer better low light capability, better background blur and a smaller diffraction limited aperture. For landscape and and portrait work these could all be put to good use. In terms of ergonomics sure you'd need to use longer focal lengths on a larger format but perhaps "DO" lens designs (which offer reduced size and weight) could be employed? Anyway, since this is supposedly "The Year of the Lens" maybe all Canon's new lenses will be forwards-compatible to a larger sensor size... perhaps an "XL" line of lenses.

I'm curious. How does digital MF have better low light capability? From what I've read on Luminous Landscape and other sites many (most?) MF backs don't even do above 800ISO and if they do it's not very good, also I've read they have issues with long exposure heat build up? Have I missed something lately that they are getting good 4 and 5 digit ISOs on digital MF backs now?

DO XL lenses sounds good. That would be a place Canon could really pioneer.

Also just as an aside, why so much comparison to Canons Cinema line? Did medium format film get used that much? Other than 70mm that is.

 

[StudentOfLight]

I'm curious. How does digital MF have better low light capability? From what I've read on Luminous Landscape and other sites many (most?) MF backs don't even do above 800ISO and if they do it's not very good, also I've read they have issues with long exposure heat build up? Have I missed something lately that they are getting good 4 and 5 digit ISOs on digital MF backs now?

Most MF digital backs use CCD-based sensors and most smaller format cameras these days tend to use CMOS sensors so there is a difference in technology. The SNR numbers I put down are based on calculations where equivalent technology is employed, the only difference being the size of the sensor.

A larger format could offer better low light capability...

On a theoretical 48x36mm (0.7x Crop) sensor: (Doubled FF sensor size)
1) SNR could be 41% better than equivalent full frame tech.

I did these calculations out of interest to see how much of an advantage a larger format could offer, and to see whether I would be interested in moving up to MFD at some point in the future. Looking at the benefits I could gauge at what price point I might be seeing a significant enough cost-benefit advantage.

Also just as an aside, why so much comparison to Canons Cinema line? Did medium format film get used that much? Other than 70mm that is.

I didn't make any comparisons to Canon's cinema line, so I'm a bit confused. Was that question meant for someone else?

 

[Drizzt321]

I'm curious. How does digital MF have better low light capability? From what I've read on Luminous Landscape and other sites many (most?) MF backs don't even do above 800ISO and if they do it's not very good, also I've read they have issues with long exposure heat build up? Have I missed something lately that they are getting good 4 and 5 digit ISOs on digital MF backs now?

Most MF digital backs use CCD-based sensors and most smaller format cameras these days tend to use CMOS sensors so there is a difference in technology. The SNR numbers I put down are based on calculations where equivalent technology is employed, the only difference being the size of the sensor.

I think most new MF backs are actually CMOS these days. I remember reading that somewhere...although I could be wrong. But for quite some time, yea, CCD. However, most still don't have the super-high ISOs that 35mm CMOS has been getting lately.

Also just as an aside, why so much comparison to Canons Cinema line? Did medium format film get used that much? Other than 70mm that is.

I didn't make any comparisons to Canon's cinema line, so I'm a bit confused. Was that question meant for someone else?

MF film (120 roll) used to be used constantly, and actually has experienced somewhat of a slight resurgence thanks to the whole Holga type movement/experimentation, and the fact that hobbyists like myself have discovered MF and a rather low price for the older (but still great) film gear.

Also, the comparison is partly due to the rather high price of MF Digital. Most especially for the digital backs, and the lenses since they tend to be much larger (e.g. bigger pieces of glass, which is more expensive) than the 35mm lenses. Especially some of the bigger formats, such as 6x9, where the lens had to project a significantly larger image circle.