Canon's Medium Format
- Thread starter IsaacImage
- Start date
- Status
unfocused said:
Thanks, Unfocused. That's a logical analysis.
S.O.L. - I ment that as a general question as some had added a comment about Cinema. And thanks for clarifing. I just went and read about the new IQ250 P1 back on LL last night as I realized after commenting that it had been a couple months, before the holidays, since I'd checked that site. It seems CMOS has finally come to the (APC sized version) of MF backs. And the 4 digit ISO numbers appear to give really clean images, just wish it wasn't a $40k luxury car price.
Upvote
0
There is an option there - new Pentax 645D 2014 which will become available probably by mid 2014. Pricewise should be not big difference from 1DX systemphoenix7 said: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.
Upvote
0
Neutral said:There is an option there - new Pentax 645D 2014 which will become available probably by mid 2014. Pricewise should be not big difference from 1DX systemphoenix7 said: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.
With the back? Cause that's be really impressive actually.
Upvote
0
Drizzt321 said:Neutral said:There is an option there - new Pentax 645D 2014 which will become available probably by mid 2014. Pricewise should be not big difference from 1DX systemphoenix7 said: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.
With the back? Cause that's be really impressive actually.
Even if it were _only_ 25 or 30 "megapickles" that would be pretty awesome for around 8grand.
Upvote
0
Right ON, as with other cameras, its about the cost of the glass, not the cost of the body. MF glass costs at least 5X the price of a equivalent EF lens. If you want a f/2.8 Medium Format lens equivalent to the Canon 200mm f/2.8, its going to cost you.Don Haines said:
Upvote
0
In reading this and thinking about it, Canon need not make a full play into MF. They could, for example, produce high-resolution backs for the 'Blad. Or perhaps just some lenses. In that way, they could make money off of MF cameras with minimal risk to themselves, much as Sony today smiles when certain Sony-sensored Nikon cameras sell well. Canon previously demonstrated a 100Mp sensor which could be the basis for such a position. They also have some great lens technology, notably the TS-E series.
Years ago the same relationship existed between IBM and Apple in the 80's. Apple was presented to the public as the antidote to an IBM PC. IBM manufactured most of the hard drives and often other components, deriving a small profit from every Apple sold.
It all depends on whether there is enough profit to be made to justify an investment. At this point, I don't see anything in MF that looks very profitable, but I don't have access to Canon's spreadsheets. A MF 17mm TS-E might sell enough and might be built from a reworking of the current 35mm design, but Canon's fab and lens manufacturing facilities are busy so I don't see a pressing need to use up slack.
There is, of course, the possibility that all of the MF players are struggling financially and looking to merge with larger entities, but I'll leave that thought open to further data gathering and discussion. I'm sure someone else here can better analyze the prospecti. It would indeed be startling if Canon bought multiple MF players and essentially cornered the whole MF market.
Fun to think about. All in all, business can be a strange business!
Years ago the same relationship existed between IBM and Apple in the 80's. Apple was presented to the public as the antidote to an IBM PC. IBM manufactured most of the hard drives and often other components, deriving a small profit from every Apple sold.
It all depends on whether there is enough profit to be made to justify an investment. At this point, I don't see anything in MF that looks very profitable, but I don't have access to Canon's spreadsheets. A MF 17mm TS-E might sell enough and might be built from a reworking of the current 35mm design, but Canon's fab and lens manufacturing facilities are busy so I don't see a pressing need to use up slack.
There is, of course, the possibility that all of the MF players are struggling financially and looking to merge with larger entities, but I'll leave that thought open to further data gathering and discussion. I'm sure someone else here can better analyze the prospecti. It would indeed be startling if Canon bought multiple MF players and essentially cornered the whole MF market.
Fun to think about. All in all, business can be a strange business!
Upvote
0
Well it's certainly feasible to pack a square sensor within the 35mm full frame image circle and that would yield about 20 % or so more pixels at the same density. As the pixel size decreases it would be reasonable to expect
a 50-60 megapixel image size within the same form factor that is currently available and would use existing full format lenses. How about coupling that with an interchangeable back (think the old 35mm date/time backs) as a seating for the sensor and you could have multiple backs for depending on your shoot requirements. Be good for photographers but bad for suppliers if you could just switch the back for an upgrade. Ricoh's experiment with sensor embedded backs didn't work out to well but users loved the camera.
a 50-60 megapixel image size within the same form factor that is currently available and would use existing full format lenses. How about coupling that with an interchangeable back (think the old 35mm date/time backs) as a seating for the sensor and you could have multiple backs for depending on your shoot requirements. Be good for photographers but bad for suppliers if you could just switch the back for an upgrade. Ricoh's experiment with sensor embedded backs didn't work out to well but users loved the camera.
Upvote
0
dickgrafixstop said:
Dick, they could only do that if they dropped the mirror in favourite of an EVF, so far there is no sign they like that idea.
Upvote
0
Pellicle mirrors, but there are loads of practical problems with their use that has never satisfactorily been overcome for SLR use, so swap one unsolved so of engineering issues for another.
I am pretty certain Canon will never make a different format to go behind the EF lenses than the 135 format, and APS-C for the EF-S and EF-M. Some EF lenses would even need baffles removed so you'd have a compatibility list of those that would work, those that wouldn't and those that needed adjustments, I just don't see that ever happening. Canon have always confidently put forward one of the basic points of the EF system, every EF lens made should work on every EF camera made.
I am pretty certain Canon will never make a different format to go behind the EF lenses than the 135 format, and APS-C for the EF-S and EF-M. Some EF lenses would even need baffles removed so you'd have a compatibility list of those that would work, those that wouldn't and those that needed adjustments, I just don't see that ever happening. Canon have always confidently put forward one of the basic points of the EF system, every EF lens made should work on every EF camera made.
Upvote
0
Interesting idea, but only a limited number of lenses might currently work with this. Most lenses are optimised to cover the existing rectangular sensor shape with image quality falling dramatically outside of this area.dickgrafixstop said:
I think Canon will get into MF at some point. Now that everybody has a DSLR, there must be an ever increasing number of wealthy people who feel the need to raise above the mainstream. Turning up to the next family gathering with a 500+mp Canon MF camera is the logical way. Canon can even develop a new projector system for the new camera that can display the image across an entire wall. And 500mp could be enough to ensure the image doesn't look pixelated. It would be just like being there. (especially if you buy the 3D add-on camera for three times the price). Hasselblad have already recognised this trend of people not caring how much things cost (hence the Lunar and Stellar). Canon won't be far behind.
Upvote
0
dickgrafixstop said:
My pet dream is not a square sensor inside the image circle, but a square that covers the entire image circle (or maybe all but the very marginal margin). You could then crop it in post to set the orientation, so there'd be no need to rotate the camera, or for a portrait grip. It would waste a few pixels, though it need not be the expected ~22% if the sensor is made appropriately. Others have pointed out, though, that this would require a mirrorless body since conventional mirror configurations wouldn't work for this size sensor. It also requires lenses to be usable all the way around the edge (or nearly so). But a guy can dream, no?
Upvote
0
Honestly I think a mirrorless body makes more sense for MF than it does for 35mm.
You look at a modern 35mm sized SLR(either in the latter days or film or digital) and honestly does the mirror really make it much bigger than it needs to be? the need for controls and a good sized grip do IMHO mean that most users aren't going to want something tiny.You look at MF SLR's on the other hand and to me size seems to increase beyond the ideal as the mirror box starts to become much larger than the grip and theres more space than it really needed for controls. I don't think its a coincidence that in the days of film rangefinder designs were a larger part of the MF market than they were the 35mm market.
The user expectations likely differ as well if you ask me, your typical 35mm/FF user is going to want fast zooms and fast AF, your typical MF user is more likely to put up with slower zooms or primes and not demand as much from his AF.
You look at a modern 35mm sized SLR(either in the latter days or film or digital) and honestly does the mirror really make it much bigger than it needs to be? the need for controls and a good sized grip do IMHO mean that most users aren't going to want something tiny.You look at MF SLR's on the other hand and to me size seems to increase beyond the ideal as the mirror box starts to become much larger than the grip and theres more space than it really needed for controls. I don't think its a coincidence that in the days of film rangefinder designs were a larger part of the MF market than they were the 35mm market.
The user expectations likely differ as well if you ask me, your typical 35mm/FF user is going to want fast zooms and fast AF, your typical MF user is more likely to put up with slower zooms or primes and not demand as much from his AF.
Upvote
0
Orangutan said:dickgrafixstop said:
My pet dream is not a square sensor inside the image circle, but a square that covers the entire image circle (or maybe all but the very marginal margin). You could then crop it in post to set the orientation, so there'd be no need to rotate the camera, or for a portrait grip. It would waste a few pixels, though it need not be the expected ~22% if the sensor is made appropriately. Others have pointed out, though, that this would require a mirrorless body since conventional mirror configurations wouldn't work for this size sensor. It also requires lenses to be usable all the way around the edge (or nearly so). But a guy can dream, no?
It would waste more than a few pixels, it would waste a crap load of pixels and add significantly to the cost of the camera, not just for the extra silicon and circuitry, but also in terms of heat generation and processor overhead. If you are not going to use that part of the image anyway, why would you need pixels there?
Upvote
0
I have to confess that when Canon introduced their first pellicle mirror camera back in the sixties the first thought that came to my mind would match your picture. Thanks for the smile this morning.
funkboy said:phoenix7 said:
Yeah, I think they made a Pelican mirror at some point:
Sorry, couldn't resist <grin>
Upvote
0
dickgrafixstop said:
How do you get 20% more?
A 36*24mm sensor has surface area of 864mm^2
The diagonal (= diameter of image circle) is 43,27mm
The largest square to fit in that image circle has sides of 30.6mm so the surface area is 936mm^2 which is less than 10% more than the current 24x36mm sensor.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
