Canon's Medium Format

[CarlTN]

Does anyone not think that, perhaps 10 years from now, Canon will be into Medium Format in a big way? It just seems everybody thinks small cameras will go extinct because of smartphones, so the only thing left to do will be to go bigger. Is the Leica S2 system so much bigger than 35mm format?

 

[hgraf]

Does anyone not think that, perhaps 10 years from now, Canon will be into Medium Format in a big way? It just seems everybody thinks small cameras will go extinct because of smartphones, so the only thing left to do will be to go bigger. Is the Leica S2 system so much bigger than 35mm format?

But is the answer "big cameras"? There is a very simple fact with big cameras: they are physically big!!

The question should be: 10 years from now, will the market and consumer interest for Medium Format be any bigger then today? Will it be big enough to warrant Canon's entry?

Without a question, medium format sensors will come down in price. but price isn't everything. Consider the average buyer of say a 5D MKIII today: would they choose a medium format camera if the price were the same?

Perhaps, but enough to sustain the market? Perhaps not.

Here's a question: in the film days, why wasn't there a mad rush to formats bigger then 35mm? In fact I'd say there was a mad rush AWAY from medium format once 35mm came into being.

There is no way around the physical size issues of anything bigger then 35mm. The bodies are bigger, the lenses are longer/heavier/bigger.

It seems the market has choose 35mm as the perfect compromise between quality and size. This has been the case for MUCH longer then digital cameras have been on the scene.

I'll check back in 10 years...

 

[unfocused]

Does anyone not think that, perhaps 10 years from now, Canon will be into Medium Format in a big way?

I think not.

It just seems everybody thinks small cameras will go extinct because of smartphones...

No. Simple, all purpose, fixed lens cameras with short zoom ranges may go extinct but small cameras will not. In fact, smart phones are small cameras. Small cameras that can fill a niche that a smart phone can't – Superzooms, waterproof and high-quality fixed lens – are likely to survive.

The truth is, Canon already makes medium (or possibly large) format cameras. They are called 1D, 5D and 6D. The standard format (by sales volume and use) is APS-C.

For the past 70 years or so, Canon and Nikon have been destroying the medium and large format (by film standards) market. Why would they invest in that money pit?

 

[StudentOfLight]

...The truth is, Canon already makes medium (or possibly large) format cameras. They are called 1D, 5D and 6D. The standard format (by sales volume and use) is APS-C.

Wooohoo! I have 3 medium format cameras

 

[eml58]

Does anyone not think that, perhaps 10 years from now, Canon will be into Medium Format in a big way?

I tend to agree, I can't not see Canon delving into Medium Format dslr, how much so I honestly couldn't guess.

The fact that Nikon have for the past 2 years had a 36MP body available to the Market & now Sony with the a7r, I feel ensures Canon will release a +/- 40MP Sensor dslr Body, and I would Guess, sometime this year. This is a Market, not huge, although both the D800 & a7r seem to be selling quite well, I just can't not see canon wanting some of this Market going forward.

Wether or not Canon get into the true MF Market of the Phase One style of Studio Bodies I'm less sure of, this is a highly specialised and quite small Market.

I'de like them to produce something like this though, not sure what I'de do with it with 1.5 fps, but it sure is a thing of Beauty. Sony 50MP Sensor as well.

 

[scottburgess]

I'm curious if anyone who likes the idea of a MF Canon would like the idea of a fixed lens camera in MF--something like a giant G1X but with 40Mp and great low light capability? Would you be interested if it had a wide-to-normal zoom lens, and cost under $3k?

 

[privatebydesign]

I'm curious if anyone who likes the idea of a MF Canon would like the idea of a fixed lens camera in MF--something like a giant G1X but with 40Mp and great low light capability? Would you be interested if it had a wide-to-normal zoom lens, and cost under $3k?

No, but at this point a 40MP medium format sensor probably costs over $3,000 alone.

 

[Hillsilly]

I'm curious if anyone who likes the idea of a MF Canon would like the idea of a fixed lens camera in MF--something like a giant G1X but with 40Mp and great low light capability? Would you be interested if it had a wide-to-normal zoom lens, and cost under $3k?

Adjusted for inflation, many fixed lens MF cameras sold for more than $3k. Given that there was interest in the past, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some interest now. Still, I'd do it differently. People buying MF are after two things - the "look" and the improved image quality. Drop the zoom and put the best, widest aperture lens you could build for that price range. Rather than one camera, release an ultra wide, wide and normal lens versions.

 

[CarlTN]

I'm curious if anyone who likes the idea of a MF Canon would like the idea of a fixed lens camera in MF--something like a giant G1X but with 40Mp and great low light capability? Would you be interested if it had a wide-to-normal zoom lens, and cost under $3k?

Why yes, yes I would. Are you going to build one and then let me test it?

 

[CarlTN]

Does anyone not think that, perhaps 10 years from now, Canon will be into Medium Format in a big way? It just seems everybody thinks small cameras will go extinct because of smartphones, so the only thing left to do will be to go bigger. Is the Leica S2 system so much bigger than 35mm format?

But is the answer "big cameras"? There is a very simple fact with big cameras: they are physically big!!

The question should be: 10 years from now, will the market and consumer interest for Medium Format be any bigger then today? Will it be big enough to warrant Canon's entry?

Without a question, medium format sensors will come down in price. but price isn't everything. Consider the average buyer of say a 5D MKIII today: would they choose a medium format camera if the price were the same?

Perhaps, but enough to sustain the market? Perhaps not.

Here's a question: in the film days, why wasn't there a mad rush to formats bigger then 35mm? In fact I'd say there was a mad rush AWAY from medium format once 35mm came into being.

There is no way around the physical size issues of anything bigger then 35mm. The bodies are bigger, the lenses are longer/heavier/bigger.

It seems the market has choose 35mm as the perfect compromise between quality and size. This has been the case for MUCH longer then digital cameras have been on the scene.

I'll check back in 10 years...

So I guess what you're saying is, the Leica S2 was like an 800lb gorilla next to the 1DX? Except, it's not...not at all. So I think I asked the right question!!

 

[CarlTN]

Does anyone not think that, perhaps 10 years from now, Canon will be into Medium Format in a big way?

I think not.

It just seems everybody thinks small cameras will go extinct because of smartphones...

No. Simple, all purpose, fixed lens cameras with short zoom ranges may go extinct but small cameras will not. In fact, smart phones are small cameras. Small cameras that can fill a niche that a smart phone can't – Superzooms, waterproof and high-quality fixed lens – are likely to survive.

The truth is, Canon already makes medium (or possibly large) format cameras. They are called 1D, 5D and 6D. The standard format (by sales volume and use) is APS-C.

For the past 70 years or so, Canon and Nikon have been destroying the medium and large format (by film standards) market. Why would they invest in that money pit?

Um, you're missing the point entirely. Why would Canon do it? Because they'd help CREATE the market for it, by building it in the first place. You speak of film...I'm talking about a sensor that is similar in size to the Leica S2. Google it, and get back to me. It's a whopping what, 8 to 10 millimeters larger sensor on the wide dimension? It's much smaller than 120 roll film or something. And even lenses for that format, are not only NOT very large or heavy...but they're actually not any bulkier than EF lenses (I'm currently selling a Pentax 67 300mm f/4 lens. It is old tech, made from brass and painted...and it is barely heavier than my 70-300L !!)

I certainly was not talking about what the consumer wants. I was talking about WHAT THE PROFESSIONAL wants.

And, if Canon made a larger sensor in a very slightly larger body than the 5D3 or 1DX, with huge dynamic range (20 stops or more), huge signal to noise ratio, and as many MP as you could ask for (different sensor choices for the same body)...and an autofocus system that exceeds anything in existence today...along with the ability to shoot 8k video...and if they made a full line of lenses (including supertelephoto) that would work with this system...well I would definitely buy into it if I could both afford to and needed it for pro or high quality work.

10 years from now, just see if something like this isn't in widespread use...by PROFESSIONALS...not people taking selfies while driving drunk. Who the hell cares what they want?? Not me. They won't survive the next 10 years anyway!

 

[unfocused]

Um, you're missing the point entirely. Why would Canon do it? Because they'd help CREATE the market for it, by building it in the first place. You speak of film...I'm talking about a sensor that is similar in size to the Leica S2. Google it, and get back to me...

I certainly was not talking about what the consumer wants. I was talking about WHAT THE PROFESSIONAL wants.

And, if Canon made a larger sensor in a very slightly larger body than the 5D3 or 1DX, with huge dynamic range (20 stops or more), huge signal to noise ratio, and as many MP as you could ask for (different sensor choices for the same body)...and an autofocus system that exceeds anything in existence today...along with the ability to shoot 8k video...and if they made a full line of lenses (including supertelephoto) that would work with this system...well I would definitely buy into it if I could both afford to and needed it for pro or high quality work.

10 years from now, just see if something like this isn't in widespread use...by PROFESSIONALS...not people taking selfies while driving drunk...

Okay. I'll play along.

I did Google the Leica you are referring to. It is $22,000 body only. For the sake of argument, let's say Canon could produce a similar product for half the cost, that's still $11,000, before lenses.

How would you propose Canon "CREATE" a market for this camera? You say "I was talking about WHAT THE PROFESSIONAL wants."

But what professionals are you referring to? Have you surveyed professionals and found this need? They don't seem to be beating down the door for the Leica, so what would create sudden demand for a Canon version?

About the only professional market that remains today is wedding and event photography and that is very price sensitive and competitive. I don't see most wedding photographers moving to this.

It's not suitable for photojournalists or wildlife photographers. There are almost no professional landscape photographers. High-end commercial studio photographers maybe, but that's a very small market. So again, how would you suggest Canon "create" this market.

Nothing personal, I just don't agree with your original premise. I think Canon is better off concentrating on improvements in their existing formats.

 

[privatebydesign]

The big market for high end gear is not pro photographers, it is wealthy enthusiasts, just look at the "limited edition" Leica market.

Not that I think a Canon MF speculation has legs, I don't believe it does, whereas the Cinema range has an expanding market and they can have leveraged the EF lens tech very well , I was just pointing out the faulty logic of linking gear price to pro use.

 

[unfocused]

The big market for high end gear is not pro photographers, it is wealthy enthusiasts, just look at the "limited edition" Leica market.

Not that I think a Canon MF speculation has legs, I don't believe it does, whereas the Cinema range has an expanding market and they can have leveraged the EF lens tech very well , I was just pointing out the faulty logic of linking gear price to pro use.

Exactly right.

 

[darktiger]

I would be happy with 16bit color and the AA filter/screen removed....

 

[Halfrack]

The 'pro' mini-medium format already exists - it's the Pentax 645D or a D800/e/A7r setup. The Leica S2/S3 system isn't what I would call a pro setup - there are a few pros shooting S2/S3, but they're not common, and they tend to shoot Hasselblad HC lenses with the adapter.

Wealthy enthusiasts have high expectations on the post-sales service. You're not selling these cameras at Ritz or Best Buy. This is what the Hasselblad Lunar, Stellar and HV are targeted at, but it's a mixed bag - re-branded Sony gear and all.

Canon can't create a market that doesn't leverage existing wares. Or better put, they work conservatively and refuse to push the edge. They 'could' purchase the Sony chip like Nikon and put it into a body, but they don't. Ditto the 33mmx44mm chip, it's 'possible' but they'd be grilled if it didn't perform as folks expected, didn't work with their existing wares, etc. There's always a problem.

Canon has an issue it hasn't figured out how to manage. It has a small percentage of customers who demand that their needs be serviced at a cheap price point. This small percentage is common among all camera makers - people bitch about the Hasselblad and Phase stuff all the time - though it comes down to 'can I see a difference for the price'. Enjoy what you have, if it doesn't do what you need it to, change to what will. Don't have enough money to do it? Figure out a way to make it work - that is what professional photographers are paid to do - troubleshoot and solve problems.

 

[klickflip]

I know many here are very versed in MF but a just as many or more are not and see that many are missing the point.
Simple if you can't see the point in MF then your not aware or it, simples. let it lie it's not for you don't pipe up with unsubstantsiated thoughts.

Basically canon rocks for day to day professional shoots and up to fairly hi-end but the MF optics and especially phase one backs offer another league up in terms of image quality and MP, but in lowish light is you thing then probably best with canon FF- though the new 50mp CMOS sony phase one and hassy will be awesome for a more rounded use. The game has changed right now. And Canon will have to do a shedload to win in this market now.
If we got a MF 5D III similar with autofocus to boot and something like the 50MP sony sensor them many pros may change system.

If you use hi-end strobes / studio work on controlled shoots all the time on decent budget shoots say $2-5000 per day then MF is perfectly viable either to buy or hire. But the the crus is many MF users are seriously bought into hassy or phase glass already so canon would be a bit late in the day. Some retailers will offer decent money for swapping systems espc from hassy to phase one. So this may well continue if Canon got into the game.

Every one I know who has a phase or hassy also has a 5D III pus much L glass , most prefer using the canon but when in an controlled environment the hassy or phase shines . Its horses for courses completely.

16bit smoothness plus better optics will win every time especially when making images for billboards and pushing files in retouching , if its for magazine adverts or 6 sheet then canon is quite capable . And if you bitch about the difference its not for you. yes you can make a canon in controlled environments very nearly as good as as 30MP MF file and only a few would notice the difference, but art directors and clients often do .. don't underestimate them.

I did think Canon had a good chance of entering the MF market until last month when Phase and hassy announced the noes 50MP CMOS sony sensors into their line up.. I think Canon will be gutted about this as anything they have been developing is too late at this time.

Unless they are going to come out with a super sized DSLR or camera / back system in the next year that out shines phase one espc , it would have to be as responsive as 5D III with all the same DR and noiseless of the sony but there's also the leaf shutter sync (i.e. up to 1/1600s which adds so much versatility to shooting outside with flash) to add into the mix that I don't think they'll do without a huge investment in lenses .

Phase one , leaf, mamiya etc are so well thought of by customers and the owners that I doubt an interjection buyout/ merger from canon would be feesable . Its like thinking audi, lamborgini although make super cars could try to merge in with ferrari its not going to happen ever.

if canon were to enter MF it would probably be very similar to leica's or pentax's MF effort which is good but not hassy or phase territory.
They would have to come out with a completely new system better than phase ones, at a simlar price point which would take many years to out sell them.

I think best we can hope for is the 40+ MP FF sensor camera with equal to sony sensor DR and noise. All dev so far points to lens being upgraded first which is logical and sigma following suit and possibly beating canon in quality to date.

As much as I'd love Canon to come out with a 1D / 5D AF based camera but 40+ MP sensor with great DR and no noise in shadows & banding etc many of the lenses would not handle it properly but seems to me sigma are ahead of the game , the 35 1.4 is outstanding as good as the 85 1.2 II in my experience, the new 50 art will be stunning i'm sure and canon had better wake up to this.

One thing for sure in terms of photographers is still image quality. is this being developed in secret or simply put to the side to exploit video to make money for the corporation. 1Dx pro press base will always be high but seems that its been many years since the 1D3s that ruled the pro high end FF user base and has been forgotten about for many years which many are getting restless of that I speak with.

Can't wait to see canons next move to regain this market this year.. if it's not till next year then it will prob be too late.....but i they make as much or more from the 4K video market then Canon will be doing well in business terms even if they loose a previous core customer base. And business change and diversify all the time, but it would be big shame to current uses.

 

[klickflip]

About the only professional market that remains today is wedding and event photography and that is very price sensitive and competitive. I don't see most wedding photographers moving to this.

It's not suitable for photojournalists or wildlife photographers. There are almost no professional landscape photographers. High-end commercial studio photographers maybe, but that's a very small market. So again, how would you suggest Canon "create" this market.

Bollocks , you don't know you're markets or simply not aware of a huge sector that is advertising- studio is a big section in this and design and corporate that i consider the bulk decent photographers. yes wedding and event is a huge market but only a very small proportion would consider MF as a viable option there. Event and social portraiture / wedding photography is ruled by Nikon D7000's from my experience and would put most of them in the pro hacks category or semi pros straight from college thats why it's very price sensitive and competitive, higher up the ladder it's less so when dealing with agencies and corporations that want quality opposed to the majority of the public purchasing photography services that care more how their hair is looking than image quality or overall scene / light quality.
Some wedding . social and event photographers are really talented but many are just trying to make money from that market with little regard for pushing quality. If this offends some then so.. but any offended would not put themselves in this bracket I'd imagine they would put themselves in the social art photographers bracket which is a different league.

Why did the 1Dx go down to 18mp simply press doesn't need the quality - 1fps 50MP vs 10fs 18MP or so thats what counts there as with wildlife which is a big sector too. landscape is also a big sector but many are hobbyists which will still buy the best equipment because they can and their audience can tell the difference. Also fine art and museum reproduction require the highest quality and there's money there to pay for it.
Wise up there's still many different hi-end niches that command a lot of money within the industry that use MF and would welcome another option.

 

[Bishop80]

Bollocks , you don't know you're markets or simply not aware of a huge sector that is advertising- studio is a big section in this and design and corporate that i consider the bulk decent photographers. yes wedding and event is a huge market but only a very small proportion would consider MF as a viable option there. Event and social portraiture / wedding photography is ruled by Nikon D7000's from my experience and would put most of them in the pro hacks category or semi pros straight from college thats why it's very price sensitive and competitive, higher up the ladder it's less so when dealing with agencies and corporations that want quality opposed to the majority of the public purchasing photography services that care more how their hair is looking than image quality or overall scene / light quality.
Some wedding . social and event photographers are really talented but many are just trying to make money from that market with little regard for pushing quality. If this offends some then so.. but any offended would not put themselves in this bracket I'd imagine they would put themselves in the social art photographers bracket which is a different league.

Why did the 1Dx go down to 18mp simply press doesn't need the quality - 1fps 50MP vs 10fs 18MP or so thats what counts there as with wildlife which is a big sector too. landscape is also a big sector but many are hobbyists which will still buy the best equipment because they can and their audience can tell the difference. Also fine art and museum reproduction require the highest quality and there's money there to pay for it.
Wise up there's still many different hi-end niches that command a lot of money within the industry that use MF and would welcome another option.

Here's another target MF market example... for the fellow photog Walking Dead fans

Shot with a Hasselblad H4D-40. That is the shot before editing. The final shot was given some mood, and the bits of orange tape were cloned out:

http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/the-walking-dead-cast-season-two1.jpg

If your response is that the scene could have just as easily been shot with a Canon 5D3, while true, that misses the point.

 

[Tugela]

Bollocks , you don't know you're markets or simply not aware of a huge sector that is advertising- studio is a big section in this and design and corporate that i consider the bulk decent photographers. yes wedding and event is a huge market but only a very small proportion would consider MF as a viable option there. Event and social portraiture / wedding photography is ruled by Nikon D7000's from my experience and would put most of them in the pro hacks category or semi pros straight from college thats why it's very price sensitive and competitive, higher up the ladder it's less so when dealing with agencies and corporations that want quality opposed to the majority of the public purchasing photography services that care more how their hair is looking than image quality or overall scene / light quality.
Some wedding . social and event photographers are really talented but many are just trying to make money from that market with little regard for pushing quality. If this offends some then so.. but any offended would not put themselves in this bracket I'd imagine they would put themselves in the social art photographers bracket which is a different league.

Why did the 1Dx go down to 18mp simply press doesn't need the quality - 1fps 50MP vs 10fs 18MP or so thats what counts there as with wildlife which is a big sector too. landscape is also a big sector but many are hobbyists which will still buy the best equipment because they can and their audience can tell the difference. Also fine art and museum reproduction require the highest quality and there's money there to pay for it.
Wise up there's still many different hi-end niches that command a lot of money within the industry that use MF and would welcome another option.

Here's another target MF market example... for the fellow photog Walking Dead fans

Shot with a Hasselblad H4D-40. That is the shot before editing. The final shot was given some mood, and the bits of orange tape were cloned out:

http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/the-walking-dead-cast-season-two1.jpg

If your response is that the scene could have just as easily been shot with a Canon 5D3, while true, that misses the point.

There is some other point? At the end of the day any picture taken is going to go into a print of some sort of a video screen, and they will all look exactly the same. Have a camera with 50MB or odd perspective is not going to change that.