Medium Format

[Click!]

Just a thought ... "Canon releases (affordable) Medium Format camera". Wouldn't that be something?

 

[foobar]

Even if the camera would be affordable, the lenses wouldn't.

 

[NormanBates]

* I think a square 36x36mm sensor is much more likely than a medium format one; because it allows you to keep using your current canon glass

* vintage medium format glass is cheap, and usually good too (e.g. carl zeiss jena for pentacon six)

 

[justicend]

MF market is not that big as of DSLRs, changing the system from one brand to another is always expensive. So if new MF camera are released in future around 8-10K range, and glass extra. yeah pentax came with 645D, i don't think canon will soon be planning to design new MF Camera, but sony is likely to do first .

 

[Heidrun]

* I think a square 36x36mm sensor is much more likely than a medium format one; because it allows you to keep using your current canon glass

* vintage medium format glass is cheap, and usually good too (e.g. carl zeiss jena for pentacon six)

I would love a 36x36 sensor in a Canon camera. I think my picture in my style would benefit from this

 

[Loswr]

* I think a square 36x36mm sensor is much more likely than a medium format one; because it allows you to keep using your current canon glass

Really? Is this the new math? Have the basic principles of geometry changed when I wasn't looking?

The largest square that can be inscribed inside the image circle of an EF lens (43.2mm diameter) is a 30.6mm square, not 36mm. So, if you then pull a 3:2 rectangle out of a 30.6mm square sensor (30.6 x 20.4 mm), you get a resulting image that only slightly larger than APS-H.

Alternatively, they could put in a 36mm square sensor and you'd just waste most of the corners...so, would you pay $12K for a camera with the build quality of a 5DII (cost increase based on the number of 36mm square sensors that could be pulled from a silicon wafer, compared to FF sensors)?

 

[akiskev]

neuroanatomist is right again.
My suggestion would be: make a 36x30mm sensor. Use 36x24 for 3:2 images and 30x30 for 1:1 images. So much win!!!

 

[NormanBates]

aaaaaaand I was crushed

 

[akiskev]

I'll share with you my imaginary sensor. It is very efficient. Only 3.3% of its surface is never used. Canon, this one is free of charge.

 

[ecka]

I'll share with you my imaginary sensor. It is very efficient. Only 3.3% of its surface is never used. Canon, this one is free of charge.

It's not like you invented it or something . Panasonic did it in their LX P&S for years. I don't think they would make a larger much more expensive sensor and waste those precious 3.3%.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

As a sensor gets larger, the cost increase is not linear. Right now, a FF sensor is very expensive to make, a 36 X 36 might cost 10 - 20X the price. The number of pixels on it are not the factor, its the area.

Then, the lenses will start at $3500 and go up, - way up.

Heres a somple 35-90mm f/4.5-5.6 MF zoom, imagine the price of a f/2.8.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/613798-REG/Hasselblad_3023590_35_90mm_f_4_5_6_HCD_Aspherical.html