Canon's Medium Format

[100]

Actually, it probably has really huge pixels. There are Kodak astro CCDs that have 9µm and 24µm square pixels. If we figure that the pixel sizes for this 8x10 sensor are somewhere around there, the guy has ~640mp @ 9µm, and ~90mp @ 24µm. I figure, just from a space and processing standpoint, the pixels would have to be garganguan. I think 24µm pixels sounds more reasonable, and I guess it's possible they were larger than that. So this guy is taking maybe 70-90 megapixel photos with a giant 8x10 sensor with pixels that probably have about 12 times the sensitivity as the 1D X sensor. That would make full well capacity per pixel around 1.1me- to 1.5me-...WOW. Dynamic range on that sucker must be like, 150dB!

In the comments he says it takes photos of about 10 mpix. Yup, ten megapixels.

In that case, I think the guy got ripped off. That means the pixels are 20mm in size. That's just a waste of space and fabrication power.

He just needed something to replace his large format polaroid. He shot 7 or 8 large format polaroid’s before taking the "real" pictures, for him that’s about $ 50,000 a year in polaroid’s alone...

By the way, 8 by 10 inch is 203 by 254mm which is about 50,000mm^2
Divide that by 10mp (10,000,000 pixels) and you get 0.005mm^2 per pixel.

Anyway, Canon also made a large (202 x 205mm) CMOS sensor back in 2010 that can do 60fps
http://www.canon.com/news/2010/aug31e.html

The technology for large format digital sensors has been there for years, but there is no real market.

I think you've got your math wrong somewhere. If we convert the sensor size into millimeters, it is as you say 203.2x254mm. We can then figure out how many pixels per row, and how many rows, assuming a 5µm pixel:

203.2/0.005 = 40,640
254/0.005 = 50,800

That is over 40 THOUSAND pixels per row, and over 50 THOUSAND rows. That's a LOT of pixels! Multiply the rows by columns to get the actual megapixel count:

40,640 * 50,800 = 2,064,512,000

That would be TWO GIGAPIXELS. You said it was 10 MEGAPIXELS. There is no way in hell that guy has 5 micron pixels on his sensor. If he did, that would be kick ass. I actually made an error in my math for the last answer, and I wrote the wrong units anyway. I said the pixels were 20 millimeters, that was supposed to be 20 microns, however correcting my math, its 72 microns:

203.2/0.072 = ~2823
254/0.072 = ~3528

2823 * 3528 = 9,959,544

That's a little more reasonable. I still think he could have easily gotten away with pixels ~15x smaller (about 20 microns square) and had more than enough signal to noise ratio and dynamic range, and had about 130 megapixels instead of 10. That wouldn't have required any special fabrication techniques or anything either, 20 micron pixels are monsters, and have more than enough room for very large, easy to fabricate wiring. I think the most difficult aspect of building a sensor that large is that you cannot fabricate it on a single wafer. You would have to fabricate a number of pieces of the sensor on multiple wafers, then assemble them together. There would certainly be additional cost there...but it isn't a new technique, it's been done before (Canon did it for that very same 202x205mm sensor you mentioned), however if you cut corners on readout rate (i.e. you went for one frame every 30 seconds, rather than 60 frames every one second), the task would be easier (Canon used a hyperparallel on-die readout and ADC system for that ultra large sensor.)

I wrote 0.005mm^2
the ^2 means square
1mm^2 = 1 mm² = 1 000 000 μm²

http://www.aqua-calc.com/what-is/area/square-millimeter

 

[CarlTN]

In my assertion about what pros might be using in 10 years, I was not speculating at all that a sensor would be anywhere near that large. Frankly that's just stupid...nobody thinks that would ever be in widespread use. Even 10 years from now with lowered manufacturing costs and improved processes, a digital sensor that size would still cost $1 million, if not several.

In 2010 Mitchell Feinberg had two 8 by 10 inch digital back made (maxback), the cost were in "the low six figures". http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/08/23/mitchell-feinbergs-8x10-digital-capture-back/
So it can be done for a lot less than a million.

Ok then, but that has nothing to do with just wanting an image sensor that is slightly larger than 24x36mm.

I just wonder why nobody has gone the 4x5 route for medium format... Not necessaraly the huge sensor size, but more the tilt/swivel lens plane, film (sensor) plane, and bellows/rail system? To my mind, the manipulation of the image was the real reason for going large format... you could correct distortions and you could either increase or decrease the in-focus flane of your image.

You would know more than I would about why...but it does seem like it's cost. I suppose it's likely to get done eventually.

 

[CarlTN]

Well, I guess I just am all wrong, huh?

You really need to grow a thicker skin, dude.

You're not sure why I'm saying you wouldn't need to match the FOV? I thought I already explained it. It's not complicated. If you have a 100 MEGAPIXEL sensor, you don't need that many megapixels with a very long telephoto lens, in my opinion.

A 45mm wide sensor that has 100 Megapixels, would not need a 3000mm f/4 lens, to get adequate pixels on subject of things like distant birds, sports, or anything.

You're completely ignoring the fact that the larger medium format sensor has vastly more, as in 5 times more megapixels...THAT'S WHY you don't need to match field of view.

Like I said, it's a stupid argument, you're nitpicking, and it's lame. There's no reason to pile on me just because you're bored. If your point of view is correct, then all of the people who use a 5D3 or 1DX with a 600mm lens, are fools...because they could do better with a 7D or 70D. But that's just not right...and frankly I'm not going to waste time arguing about it.

No, I fully understood your argument. I think your argument is fallacious.

Well, no you did not, because you said you didn't. And it's not remotely fallacious, and it's quite amusing that you would think I need to develop a thicker skin, and refer to me as "dude". I recall a while back when you didn't have such a thick skin...get over yourself. Your opinion does not matter to me on this subject. You are just wanting to argue, period.

 

[jrista]

I wrote 0.005mm^2
the ^2 means square
1mm^2 = 1 mm² = 1 000 000 μm²

http://www.aqua-calc.com/what-is/area/square-millimeter

Ah, yes, I do understand what ^2 means. ;P I've been spitting out this kind of math on these forums for years now.

BTW, 0.005mm^2 is 5µm^2. Same thing, it's just a scale factor of 1000.

So, you said in your previous answer that this photographer's 8x10 sensor had five micron pixels. That is incorrect (assuming the sensor does indeed have only 10 megapixels). If the sensor had five micron pixels, that would mean the number of rows and columns of pixels is calculated by the width and height of the sensor, in millimeters, divided by 0.005mm. Based on my math in my prior post, 0.005mm pixels would mean the sensor had TWO GIGAPIXELS, or 40640x50800 pixels, a far cry from 10 megapixels.

Keep in mind, 0.005mm pixels are SMALLER than the 1D X (which has 0.00695mm pixels) and the 5D III (which has 0.00625mm pixels). Based on my math, this guy has a sensor with 0.072mm pixels, which is 72 microns...not 7.2, but 72. It's highly unlikely this guy's sensor has pixels that are smaller than the 1D X, let alone the 5D III. Hell, at 5µm, they would be a mere 0.1µm bigger than the D800 pixels! Imagine the D800 sensor scaled to 8x10...thats how many pixels this guy's sensor would have if he really had a 0.005mm/5µm pixel pitch.

They have to be 0.072mm/72µm pixels...its the only size that fits a 10mp total pixel count. Those are VERY big pixels. I'd really love to have that kind of sensor for my astrophotography.



To demonstrate the error in your math another way. You took the squared area of the 8x10 sensor, and divided it by the LINEAR megapixel count:

203.2mm*254mm / 10000000px = ~0.005mm^2/px

We can use a know quantity to check this math. The 7D, for example, has a 22.3x14.9mm sensor, with a full output image size of 5184x3456, which comes out to 17,915,904 pixels. We also know that the 7D has a very well known 4.3 micron pixel pitch, the same size of pixel for ALL of Canon's 18mp APS-C sensors. If we run these numbers through your formula:

22.3mm*14.9mm / 17915904px = ~0.0000185mm^2/px

By your squared over linear formula, the 7D should have 0.0185 micron pixels, or 18.5 NANOmeter pixels!!! We know for sure that is not correct, as 18nm is smaller than the wavelengths of all infrared, visible, and ultraviolet light.

 

[Don Haines]

In my assertion about what pros might be using in 10 years, I was not speculating at all that a sensor would be anywhere near that large. Frankly that's just stupid...nobody thinks that would ever be in widespread use. Even 10 years from now with lowered manufacturing costs and improved processes, a digital sensor that size would still cost $1 million, if not several.

In 2010 Mitchell Feinberg had two 8 by 10 inch digital back made (maxback), the cost were in "the low six figures". http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/08/23/mitchell-feinbergs-8x10-digital-capture-back/
So it can be done for a lot less than a million.

Ok then, but that has nothing to do with just wanting an image sensor that is slightly larger than 24x36mm.

I just wonder why nobody has gone the 4x5 route for medium format... Not necessaraly the huge sensor size, but more the tilt/swivel lens plane, film (sensor) plane, and bellows/rail system? To my mind, the manipulation of the image was the real reason for going large format... you could correct distortions and you could either increase or decrease the in-focus plane of your image.

You would know more than I would about why...but it does seem like it's cost. I suppose it's likely to get done eventually.

And at the risk of shooting myself in the foot.... it's amazing what you can do with post processing and image/focus stacking... A lot of the advantages that come from the variable planes and bellows systems can be duplicated through software.. In the "good old days of film" we had to capture images properly in-camera. The added flexibility of digital post-processing really changes the work-flow... Even Lightroom allows you to adjust perspective, where with film, what you captured was what you got.

 

[100]

I wrote 0.005mm^2
the ^2 means square
1mm^2 = 1 mm² = 1 000 000 μm²

http://www.aqua-calc.com/what-is/area/square-millimeter

Ah, yes, I do understand what ^2 means. ;P I've been spitting out this kind of math on these forums for years now.

After all these years of spitting out math on these forums, one would think you understood the basics….

BTW, 0.005mm^2 is 5µm^2. Same thing, it's just a scale factor of 1000.

It seems to me you don’t understand the basics, so let me explain.

A square with sides of 1 millimeter has a surface area of 1mm * 1mm = 1mm²
Agreed?
1mm = 1,000μm (no ^2 in this, that’s important)

A square with sides of 1,000μm (=1mm) has a surface area of…
1,000μm * 1,000μm = 1,000,000μm² (here we do have the ^2)

So 1mm² = 1,000,000μm² (a factor of a million, not a thousand due to the ^2)
Once you understand this basic concept you know that 0.005mm² = 5000μm² (and not 5μm²)

One side of a square of 5000μm² is equal to the de square root of 5000μm² which is just over 70μm.
you reached that conclusion already yourself in a very complex way in your previous post, but failed to see the relation with the 0.005mm² surface area.

 

[CarlTN]

I wrote 0.005mm^2
the ^2 means square
1mm^2 = 1 mm² = 1 000 000 μm²

http://www.aqua-calc.com/what-is/area/square-millimeter

Ah, yes, I do understand what ^2 means. ;P I've been spitting out this kind of math on these forums for years now.

After all these years of spitting out math on these forums, one would think you understood the basics….

BTW, 0.005mm^2 is 5µm^2. Same thing, it's just a scale factor of 1000.

It seems to me you don’t understand the basics, so let me explain.

A square with sides of 1 millimeter has a surface area of 1mm * 1mm = 1mm²
Agreed?
1mm = 1,000μm (no ^2 in this, that’s important)

A square with sides of 1,000μm (=1mm) has a surface area of…
1,000μm * 1,000μm = 1,000,000μm² (here we do have the ^2)

So 1mm² = 1,000,000μm² (a factor of a million, not a thousand due to the ^2)
Once you understand this basic concept you know that 0.005mm² = 5000μm² (and not 5μm²)

One side of a square of 5000μm² is equal to the de square root of 5000μm² which is just over 70μm.
you reached that conclusion already yourself in a very complex way in your previous post, but failed to see the relation with the 0.005mm² surface area.

Thanks for pointing this out!

 

[CarlTN]

In my assertion about what pros might be using in 10 years, I was not speculating at all that a sensor would be anywhere near that large. Frankly that's just stupid...nobody thinks that would ever be in widespread use. Even 10 years from now with lowered manufacturing costs and improved processes, a digital sensor that size would still cost $1 million, if not several.

In 2010 Mitchell Feinberg had two 8 by 10 inch digital back made (maxback), the cost were in "the low six figures". http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/08/23/mitchell-feinbergs-8x10-digital-capture-back/
So it can be done for a lot less than a million.

Ok then, but that has nothing to do with just wanting an image sensor that is slightly larger than 24x36mm.

I just wonder why nobody has gone the 4x5 route for medium format... Not necessaraly the huge sensor size, but more the tilt/swivel lens plane, film (sensor) plane, and bellows/rail system? To my mind, the manipulation of the image was the real reason for going large format... you could correct distortions and you could either increase or decrease the in-focus plane of your image.

You would know more than I would about why...but it does seem like it's cost. I suppose it's likely to get done eventually.

And at the risk of shooting myself in the foot.... it's amazing what you can do with post processing and image/focus stacking... A lot of the advantages that come from the variable planes and bellows systems can be duplicated through software.. In the "good old days of film" we had to capture images properly in-camera. The added flexibility of digital post-processing really changes the work-flow... Even Lightroom allows you to adjust perspective, where with film, what you captured was what you got.

But didn't a lot of people scan negatives and edit with Photoshop, at least like all through the 1990's? I recall photoshop being around in the late '80's...if I remember right. It didn't do much, but it did something...lol.

 

[jeffa4444]

Camyx today:

Sony medium format camera is in the works and coming soon

Sony has been supplying 50-megapixel CMOS image sensors to both Hasselblad and Phase One for their new medium format cameras. Furthermore, the Pentax 645D II will employ the same sensor. Enough is enough, says the rumor mill, as a Sony medium format camera is allegedly in the works and could be announced soon.

 

[CarlTN]

Camyx today:

Sony medium format camera is in the works and coming soon

Sony has been supplying 50-megapixel CMOS image sensors to both Hasselblad and Phase One for their new medium format cameras. Furthermore, the Pentax 645D II will employ the same sensor. Enough is enough, says the rumor mill, as a Sony medium format camera is allegedly in the works and could be announced soon.

Like I said, it just seems to me, that professional cameras, will all move to even larger sensors in the future. Because not enough consumer level cameras will sell...because those people use smartphones and tablets (or whatever the fad will be at the time) to take pictures. Again I'm not saying Canon will replace 35mm format sensors, with something 50 to 60mm, or larger in width. I'm saying it seems like it would be between 36mm and 50mm...like 40 to 45mm. And it won't be in widespread use...for quite a while...8 to 10 years is my prediction. But I'm not predicting the demise of Sony in the meantime...Nikon might be another story, though!

 

[Sporgon]

Camyx today:
Sony medium format camera is in the works and coming soon
Sony has been supplying 50-megapixel CMOS image sensors to both Hasselblad and Phase One for their new medium format cameras. Furthermore, the Pentax 645D II will employ the same sensor. Enough is enough, says the rumor mill, as a Sony medium format camera is allegedly in the works and could be announced soon.

I'd be amazed if this was true. Sony need a MF system like a hole in the head. MF is shrinking fast and becoming more niche based on the sales volume of MF units. They may have the sensor tech but to date have been unable to meet Nikon & Canon head on with the volume gear, in fact generally not accepted yet at that level, so I can't see where they intend to be with MF.

Larger sensors also create their own issues from a user point of view; 35mm proved itself to be by far the best balance between IQ and flexibility, that has now been given a massive IQ boost with digital, so I personally don't see a trend in sensors larger than 'FF'.

 

[unfocused]

Like I said, it just seems to me, that professional cameras, will all move to even larger sensors in the future.

Why?

Because not enough consumer level cameras will sell...because those people use smartphones and tablets (or whatever the fad will be at the time) to take pictures. Again I'm not saying Canon will replace 35mm format sensors, with something 50 to 60mm, or larger in width. I'm saying it seems like it would be between 36mm and 50mm...like 40 to 45mm. And it won't be in widespread use...for quite a while...8 to 10 years is my prediction. But I'm not predicting the demise of Sony in the meantime...Nikon might be another story, though!

You keep repeating this assertion. People keep saying they disagree. They give their reasons...which are well thought out and logical. You consistently reject their views, but don't offer any evidence to support your position.

You say if Canon offers this amazing super camera at a fraction of the cost of its competitors it will create the market and suddenly everyone will want this imaginary camera. What makes you so sure Canon could offer such a camera at a fraction of the cost of its competitors? And, what makes you so sure moving to a larger sensor would suddenly become the end-all and be-all of all photographers, when so many people on this forum are saying "no thanks."

If anything, the trend has been toward smaller sensors. Full frame sells only a small fraction of APS-C and even then, one of the main reasons why full frame is popular is because it is consistent with the traditional size of 35mm film cameras. It's a size that has been tested and proven in the marketplace. Why would the world suddenly want a new size with all the compromises and additional costs it would entail?

It's fun to debate these sort of esoteric issues for entertainment purposes, but really, just repeating the same assertion time and time again without anything to back it up gets a little tedious.

 

[jrista]

I wrote 0.005mm^2
the ^2 means square
1mm^2 = 1 mm² = 1 000 000 μm²

http://www.aqua-calc.com/what-is/area/square-millimeter

Ah, yes, I do understand what ^2 means. ;P I've been spitting out this kind of math on these forums for years now.

After all these years of spitting out math on these forums, one would think you understood the basics….

BTW, 0.005mm^2 is 5µm^2. Same thing, it's just a scale factor of 1000.

It seems to me you don’t understand the basics, so let me explain.

A square with sides of 1 millimeter has a surface area of 1mm * 1mm = 1mm²
Agreed?
1mm = 1,000μm (no ^2 in this, that’s important)

A square with sides of 1,000μm (=1mm) has a surface area of…
1,000μm * 1,000μm = 1,000,000μm² (here we do have the ^2)

So 1mm² = 1,000,000μm² (a factor of a million, not a thousand due to the ^2)
Once you understand this basic concept you know that 0.005mm² = 5000μm² (and not 5μm²)

One side of a square of 5000μm² is equal to the de square root of 5000μm² which is just over 70μm.
you reached that conclusion already yourself in a very complex way in your previous post, but failed to see the relation with the 0.005mm² surface area.

Oh, sorry, you are correct. I pretty much always work with just linear pixel pitch. I guess I implicitly dropped the square when running the math.

 

[RGF]

Like I said, it just seems to me, that professional cameras, will all move to even larger sensors in the future.

Why?

Because not enough consumer level cameras will sell...because those people use smartphones and tablets (or whatever the fad will be at the time) to take pictures. Again I'm not saying Canon will replace 35mm format sensors, with something 50 to 60mm, or larger in width. I'm saying it seems like it would be between 36mm and 50mm...like 40 to 45mm. And it won't be in widespread use...for quite a while...8 to 10 years is my prediction. But I'm not predicting the demise of Sony in the meantime...Nikon might be another story, though!

You keep repeating this assertion. People keep saying they disagree. They give their reasons...which are well thought out and logical. You consistently reject their views, but don't offer any evidence to support your position.

You say if Canon offers this amazing super camera at a fraction of the cost of its competitors it will create the market and suddenly everyone will want this imaginary camera. What makes you so sure Canon could offer such a camera at a fraction of the cost of its competitors? And, what makes you so sure moving to a larger sensor would suddenly become the end-all and be-all of all photographers, when so many people on this forum are saying "no thanks."

If anything, the trend has been toward smaller sensors. Full frame sells only a small fraction of APS-C and even then, one of the main reasons why full frame is popular is because it is consistent with the traditional size of 35mm film cameras. It's a size that has been tested and proven in the marketplace. Why would the world suddenly want a new size with all the compromises and additional costs it would entail?

It's fun to debate these sort of esoteric issues for entertainment purposes, but really, just repeating the same assertion time and time again without anything to back it up gets a little tedious.

FF and crop sell for different reasons. Crop sensor camera are generally less expensive. FF have better signal to noise.

It would be interesting if there were comparable FF and crop sensor cameras with the only difference the sensory size (and related factors such as S/N). Frame rate, build, controls, features would otherwise be identical. Which would sell better? Better S/N or a reduction in angle of view (effectively increasing focal length)?

 

[CarlTN]

Like I said, it just seems to me, that professional cameras, will all move to even larger sensors in the future.

Why?

Because not enough consumer level cameras will sell...because those people use smartphones and tablets (or whatever the fad will be at the time) to take pictures. Again I'm not saying Canon will replace 35mm format sensors, with something 50 to 60mm, or larger in width. I'm saying it seems like it would be between 36mm and 50mm...like 40 to 45mm. And it won't be in widespread use...for quite a while...8 to 10 years is my prediction. But I'm not predicting the demise of Sony in the meantime...Nikon might be another story, though!

You keep repeating this assertion. People keep saying they disagree. They give their reasons...which are well thought out and logical. You consistently reject their views, but don't offer any evidence to support your position.

You say if Canon offers this amazing super camera at a fraction of the cost of its competitors it will create the market and suddenly everyone will want this imaginary camera. What makes you so sure Canon could offer such a camera at a fraction of the cost of its competitors? And, what makes you so sure moving to a larger sensor would suddenly become the end-all and be-all of all photographers, when so many people on this forum are saying "no thanks."

If anything, the trend has been toward smaller sensors. Full frame sells only a small fraction of APS-C and even then, one of the main reasons why full frame is popular is because it is consistent with the traditional size of 35mm film cameras. It's a size that has been tested and proven in the marketplace. Why would the world suddenly want a new size with all the compromises and additional costs it would entail?

It's fun to debate these sort of esoteric issues for entertainment purposes, but really, just repeating the same assertion time and time again without anything to back it up gets a little tedious.

You're putting words in my mouth, and you like to argue for no good reason. What evidence do you offer that 8 or 10 years from now, things will remain as they are? Because that's how things have always been? Except, that they haven't. 10 years ago film was still in widespread use.

I guess you're saying you will never buy a Sony medium format camera, because it's going to be too expensive? According to the latest rumors, it probably won't be too expensive (as compared to Phase One and Hasselblad). And that is NOW, 2014. I was talking about 2022.

Or are you arguing that Canon will be bought by Sony, or otherwise be put out of business by them? It seems you are ignoring many of the current rumors of this website. I am simply interpreting them and speculating about the future.

In the future, I'm sorry but professional photographers will not be shooting weddings with smartphones...There will still be a market for professional photography, and they will use the best equipment they can get. They don't even use Rebels all that much, even now. Most pro Canon shooters seem to use the 5D3, or 1DX. Are you saying these will be going away because Canon doesn't sell enough of them? Get real...

 

[wickidwombat]

maybe canon are just gonna skip FF mirrorless and go straight for Full Medium format Mirrorless ;D
that should give everyone a hardon

 

[Don Haines]

Like I said, it just seems to me, that professional cameras, will all move to even larger sensors in the future.

Why?

Because not enough consumer level cameras will sell...because those people use smartphones and tablets (or whatever the fad will be at the time) to take pictures. Again I'm not saying Canon will replace 35mm format sensors, with something 50 to 60mm, or larger in width. I'm saying it seems like it would be between 36mm and 50mm...like 40 to 45mm. And it won't be in widespread use...for quite a while...8 to 10 years is my prediction. But I'm not predicting the demise of Sony in the meantime...Nikon might be another story, though!

You keep repeating this assertion. People keep saying they disagree. They give their reasons...which are well thought out and logical. You consistently reject their views, but don't offer any evidence to support your position.

You say if Canon offers this amazing super camera at a fraction of the cost of its competitors it will create the market and suddenly everyone will want this imaginary camera. What makes you so sure Canon could offer such a camera at a fraction of the cost of its competitors? And, what makes you so sure moving to a larger sensor would suddenly become the end-all and be-all of all photographers, when so many people on this forum are saying "no thanks."

If anything, the trend has been toward smaller sensors. Full frame sells only a small fraction of APS-C and even then, one of the main reasons why full frame is popular is because it is consistent with the traditional size of 35mm film cameras. It's a size that has been tested and proven in the marketplace. Why would the world suddenly want a new size with all the compromises and additional costs it would entail?

It's fun to debate these sort of esoteric issues for entertainment purposes, but really, just repeating the same assertion time and time again without anything to back it up gets a little tedious.

You're putting words in my mouth, and you like to argue for no good reason. What evidence do you offer that 8 or 10 years from now, things will remain as they are? Because that's how things have always been? Except, that they haven't. 10 years ago film was still in widespread use.

I guess you're saying you will never buy a Sony medium format camera, because it's going to be too expensive? According to the latest rumors, it probably won't be too expensive (as compared to Phase One and Hasselblad). And that is NOW, 2014. I was talking about 2022.

Or are you arguing that Canon will be bought by Sony, or otherwise be put out of business by them? It seems you are ignoring many of the current rumors of this website. I am simply interpreting them and speculating about the future.

In the future, I'm sorry but professional photographers will not be shooting weddings with smartphones...There will still be a market for professional photography, and they will use the best equipment they can get. They don't even use Rebels all that much, even now. Most pro Canon shooters seem to use the 5D3, or 1DX. Are you saying these will be going away because Canon doesn't sell enough of them? Get real...

The great FF/APS-C debate is very emotional and logic has no place in it....

FF will always be superior in image quality to APS-C because the sensor is bigger.....
APS-C will always be more popular than FF because it is smaller/lighter/less expensive....
Where you sit in the debate depends on your needs...

MF... same thing as going from APS-C to FF.... better sensor, more expensive glass, not as portable.
Cell phones cameras... drop the image quality down but the convenience factor goes way up....

This is a debate without answers, as it depends on your needs at the moment. If I am shooting a wedding I am NOT going to whip out my ipad for the trip down the isle... but if I am scouting a location I am going to use it to take a quick snapshot, draw in some arrows, and include the picture in a chat about "is this where you were thinking of taking the bridal party pictures"...

As to sizes.... It has not been that long that FF has been affordable.... It once was as esoteric as MF is now. My bet is that MF will increase in popularity, particularly for studio work, that FF will remain the dominant seller in the quality DSLR world, and that APS-C and micro 4/3 will outsell all other DSLR's combined, because in the mass marketplace low cost and portability beats image quality and expensive for the vast majority of buyers.

 

[CarlTN]

I can't disagree with either of you there, well except for what causes hardons...

 

[StudentOfLight]

I can't disagree with either of you there, well except for what causes hardons...

Yeah, different strokes for different folks :-[

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I'll bite on this...

MF is only a niche market now because of the cost and design. Most reputable systems cost well over 10K, and, they are much bigger than an slr and the range of use is fairly limited. If your shooting MF now your either in the upper 5% of photographers, and your working mostly in a studio, or on location with a team of assistants and a lot of lights. Or your shooting epic landscapes (but come on now, how many landscape photogs are making 300K+ a year, not many. Most using MF are working with large scale ad agencies.

Limited function - most MF rigs max their ISO at like 1600, and I have never read anything from a MF shooter that promotes using an ISO over 400. I don't think there is an MF rig that has a burst mode. You aren't busting out the MF body to shoot a wedding reception. Your not busting out the MF to go shoot live music. Your not busting out the MF rig to shoot sports. Wedding, Event, portrait, and art shooters fill out that remaining 95% of pro photogs.

Last I checked the average yearly salary for a working photographer in the US is $29,000 a year (of course this is an average). MF is way out of the range for any of us at or near that average.

MF will continue to be a niche product as long as both the cost and design of MF is what it is. Now with that said, I'd think that canon/nikon/sony would differentiate from the current MF offerings - which may mean compromises - less IQ than current MF but better AF, burst modes and increased ISO also offered a a substantially lower cost. Again, there are only so many working photogs that can afford even making the leap into something like a 1dx. So even if it's priced at 1dx levels there will still be many who say no because the investment doesn't make sense financially

From a wedding photographers perspective - a MF rig would probably only be seeing use for the formal portraits of the bride and groom (or,yes, the first dance but you're only if your in the upper crust where you have more advanced lighting and multiple assistants with monopods so you can keep that ISO low). And you better be selling Large prints - or catering to a clientele that either would notice the difference or shooting for the extremely rich. Mind you, even if sony/nikon/canon did enter the MF market and offered cheaper ---let's say 6K - that's just the body! Lenses will be costly. this narrows the potential market down a lot when you consider that many of us would have to devote a a good portion of your yearly salary to the investment!

As I see it, those are the bottlenecks to MF becoming more than a niche. It's just too costly to be a reality for the bulk of the market.

In 10 years though.... Yeah, I can see the future phasing out APS-C in all DSL bodies, all FF. By that point the cost to make FF sensors will have been streamlined to a point to make that happen - and if that research is added to MF sensors, you could see a cost reduction and I could see some amazing things happening...

But ---- there is one other factor that adds or subtracts time from any of the above - the global economy needs to turn around. More costly systems can't fly when disposable income is low. Less on hand money for the average person means less purchases of things like...photography. People aren't buying all over the place so it's a ripple effect. If the economy turns around then I think we'll see another boom in tech offerings. Without that companies are bound to be more pragmatic.