More Medium Format Talk [CR1]

[dryanparker]

It all depends on how many MP they can get into a FF camera compared to how many MP they could get into a MF camera.

I'm sure there are professional phtographers that will buy a high megapixel Canon MF, especially if they can use some of their existing lenses.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but pros won't be able to use their FF lenses on an MF body. It's an issue of the narrower image circle in FF lenses. My guess is if Canon made an EF mount on an MF body, you'd get some serious vignetting, which negates the value of an MF sensor. Bottom line: MF lenses are built differently than FF lenses.

Perhaps the TS-E lenses would show better results since they have larger image circles?

 

[dryanparker]

Maybe they plan on bigger for MF ---something in the 80mp range. If they can make 50 mp FF sensors, then 80 + mp mf sensors shouldn't be that hard.

My guess is it will be pricey though. If the 1 series bodies are in the 7k range, then expect over 10k - more $$$ than pentax, but less than hasslebad/leica...just guessing

Phase One IQ and Leaf Credo backs both come in 80MP versions...they're roughly $40k. That puts a new Phase One system at 80MP in the neighborhood of $65k.

 

[cayenne]

This WILL happen. I'm no expert, but the writing is on the wall IMO...

Canon needs growth. But where? Mirrorless, DSLR is flat. Point & Shoot is declining due to Smartphones. I think FF is going to get MUCH cheaper because APS-C will compete with smartphones. It's only a matter of time when you'll be able to set aperture/iso and shutter on them. So I think APS-C will die in 5 years. There is growth potential in video as more photographers are adding it to their arsenal. But that won't be too much growth really.

Medium Format. But how to do this is tricky. They can buy let's say Phase One. And that will show growth. But only for a year or two because they are only buying already established customers. Or, they can build their own MF cam and gear. This is a longer term, better route. But there is an initial big investment in infrastructure. So they may show a loss the first 2 - 3 years to recoup cost, but may have good growth for another 7 - 10 years. Taking Phase One/Hasselblad/Leica users. This is of course, that their option is equally if not better and with a good cost savings. Which I think Canon would do. I would say they would price one around $15k. That could kill the big MF players.

Ok, I'm still a noob and learning my way around my first DSLR, the 5D3.

Aside from hearing the term Medium Format camera, I don't know much about it...just that it has higher resolution.

Why would a MF camera, especially if put out in a more main stream market like Canon would be doing...cost fscking $15K or more?!?

I was guessing they are pricey due to being a low sales niche type camera, but if it went main stream production why would it not cost closer to the ballpark price of a higher end DSLR?

What makes them so expensive?

Cayenne

 

[wockawocka]

My dream camera is a high iso 22mp medium format one.

*Throws money at screen*

 

[CarlTN]

What makes them so expensive?

Cayenne

The relatively huge (by comparison) sensor, and everything that goes along with that.

 

[alexanderferdinand]

The digital MF is too small to make money out of it.
And I dont see this as a growing market..... even our FF are a minority in the world of fotography.
Even Canon will not persuade too many to buy a MF.

 

[LDS]

MF market is a small one, but it's a professional one - where users can spend a lot if they can see a real benefit in a product. MF is all about quality for demanding users in fields like fashion, advertising, arts, etc - images that may be shown at much larger sizes than the A4/A3 format, or reproduced carefully in very high quality prints.
A "cheap" MF line would find almost no customers, MF cameras are bulkier and less comfortable to use, and their lenses as well, DSLRs are better for most users, while professionals won't accept less quality.
If Canon will ever decide to target that market, of course the only way to get its market share is to deliver state-of-the-art sensors (60M+), cameras, and lenses. Not a simple jump for a company with little or no experience in the field, IIRC Nikon produced lenses for MF and LF cameras, while Canon never did.

 

[gmrza]

The digital MF is too small to make money out of it.
And I dont see this as a growing market..... even our FF are a minority in the world of fotography.
Even Canon will not persuade too many to buy a MF.

I think you have hit the nail on the head here - MF is a tiny niche. A very large proportion of the film MF market moved to FF DSLRs when they became a viable alternative. MF digitial has really become a niche for those who have a business need for very specific image qualities.

Canon would probably only go into MF digital if that entry somehow enhanced its ability to sell DSLRs or to cover the cost of developing technology for DSLRs. As a standalone business unit, it makes no sense. An acquisition in this space would somehow need to be integrated with the rest of Canon's imaging business, and help to drive the business as a whole forward. That is no small challenge.

 

[V8Beast]

The only reason to why me and everyone I know haven't bought MF, is because it is too damn expensive.

.....and the size, bulk, weight, and lethargic focusing and frame rates makes them unsuitable for anything that moves. I suppose that doesn't matter, though, for the hoards of landscape photographers on there ;D

Stuff an MF sensor in a 35mm body and I'm game

 

[RGomezPhotos]

The only reason to why me and everyone I know haven't bought MF, is because it is too damn expensive.

.....and the size, bulk, weight, and lethargic focusing and frame rates makes them unsuitable for anything that moves. I suppose that doesn't matter, though, for the hoards of landscape photographers on there ;D

Stuff an MF sensor in a 35mm body and I'm game

The Leica S2.

I played with one at one of my local camera shops. When all the reps from all the companies were there showing off all their gear. Leica was represented. I tell ya... I played with the Canon 1DX, 5D3 and a Nikon D4... But the Leica S2 impressed me the most. I took some stupid, simple picture in the store with it.. And I was BLOWN AWAY by the image. The colors were so rich and detailed.

When I become a full time fashion/commercial photographer, I'll be picking one up an MF camera. The technological limitations of digital MF make it too limiting and expensive for most other types of photography that I have to make money on like portraits for regular people and events.

But if Canon were to come out with something that is REALLY close to MF.... :-D

 

[ahab1372]

Maybe they plan on bigger for MF ---something in the 80mp range. If they can make 50 mp FF sensors, then 80 + mp mf sensors shouldn't be that hard.

Reminds me of the guy from Top Gear saying "How hard can it be?" before they go out and build amphibious cars that all sink elegantly in the lake

But I don't know much about sensor production, so maybe you right.

 

[Pi]

It makes sense. With the old sensor technology Canon are using, the only way to increase the pixel count and not hurt the IQ is to keep the pixels the same size and increase the size of the sensor.

 

[KAS]

Maybe, the image circle would be big enough on some EF lenses (maybe just the TS-E lenses). I've played around with a RZ67, and it's really a pretty huge MF system. The film plane in 60mm x 70mm. The current digital MF offerings from Pentax (645D) and the new Leica S are both 30mm x 45mm give or take. Although it's bigger than FF's 24mm x 36mm, it's not THAT much bigger. Is it?

A 67 MF sensor would be astronomical to be sure, but maybe the 30x45 sensors won't be too much trouble. After all, the Pentax 645D is about the same price as the 1DX.

Historically, I believe, the benefit of MF wasn't just the megapickles. It was the increased dynamic range, lower noise, smoother gradations, aspect ratio, and that sort of thing. So, we might not see a huge increase in MPs compared to current offerings.

That being said, my hope is that Canon does come out with a MF system or a proper 1Ds replacement that has higher dynamic range (e.g., 16bit).

 

[wockawocka]

I've always said that if there was a high iso performing MF solution I'd be all in for my wedding photography.

 

[hendrik-sg]

According to dxo comparisions the MF sensors are quite behind the best FF and APS sensors, so there would be a chance to put the best technology form FF Cameras into a new MF syste, including Low Light and AF Performance, maybe on the cost of Frame rate.

If one of the major players in Imaging, maybe Sony or Canon this camera could avoid many of the current MF disadvantages, a way the Leica S&Pentax 645 go. But with more funds of the big companies even more should be possible.

But don't expect this would be a affordable system, i would expect this in the top range of MF systems. So almost all of us dreamerd would stay outside. So i think in forseeable future FF will stay the limit for most hobbyists

 

[Pi]

I've always said that if there was a high iso performing MF solution I'd be all in for my wedding photography.

I do not believe that this would help you. Larger sensor are better in high ISO (low light) only when you get shallower DOF (which you may not want), with faster lenses in equivalent terms. But MF lenses are not really faster in equivalent terms (they have larger f-numbers than, say, f/1.4; I think that f/2.8 is considered quite fast already). Also, right now larger sensors are quite inefficient but this might change.

 

[Sporgon]

I've always said that if there was a high iso performing MF solution I'd be all in for my wedding photography.

Larger sensor are better in high ISO (low light) only when you get shallower DoF

???

:-\

:

 

[Pi]

I've always said that if there was a high iso performing MF solution I'd be all in for my wedding photography.

Larger sensor are better in high ISO (low light) only when you get shallower DoF

???

:-\

:

?

It is all about TOTAL LIGHT.

 

[Sporgon]

Or even TAKEN LIGHT

 

[Loswr]

According to dxo comparisions the MF sensors are quite behind the best FF and APS sensors, so there would be a chance to put the best technology form FF Cameras into a new MF syste, including Low Light and AF Performance, maybe on the cost of Frame rate.

According to dxo comparisons, the sun rises in the west.