More Medium Format Talk

[Sporgon]

"Maybe Canons intention is to produce an 'affordable' MF system for those that really do need that amount of pixel power. "

That is a funny statement. Prices for any medium format lenses or bodies will be obsene. Just look at what happens when they update a lens like the EF 24mm f2.8 IS, prices double at the very least.

And in that case they would sell very few units, relatively speaking, which is why this 'Canon MF' rumour doesn't seem to make commercial sense - unless Canon have something up their sleeve on producing a cheaper MF.

If they built a new system that was contemporary with Hassleblad and Leica and you were in the market for a MF system which would you choose ? But if Canon could offer similar sensor size at substantially lower cost they might open a larger market.

Still think the whole thing's a pink elephant.
Mercian

 

[bchernicoff]

What is the significance of calling it a larger EF mount? Does that imply electronic compatibility...as-in you can mount one of these lenses to an EOS body with an adapter and maintain full functionality?

I think there are two parameters here - mount diameter and flange distance. I guess both would be larger, making an EF to EF-medium-format problematic.

I think you have that backwards. A lens with a larger flange diameter shouldn't be a problem mounting to an adapter that reduces to EF diameter. Sure, the full light circle wouldn't be projected, but that's fine since the 35mm sensor is smaller than MF. And the greater flange distance is fine too, the length of the adapter ensures it is positioned the correct distance from the 35mm sensor.

EDIT: To be clear, my original comment NOT talking about mounting an existing EF lens on a medium format camera. That makes NO sense at all. The original CR post says "A larger version of the EF lens mount will be created ". I wondered why would they bother calling it that unless they intend that the new lenses would remain electronically compatible with the existing EF mount, so that you could mount a medium format lens on an EF body with a simple adapter.

 

[LDS]

with a sensor that is completely surpassed by small cameras every 3 years. Except this one will be firmware crippled just like Canon's cinema line.

If the camera had separate backs you could upgrade the sensor just upgrading the back and not the whole body. For some professional photographers is some specific fields being able to change just the back and get a sensor suitable for a given task could be a plus.

 

[JoeDavid]

Maybe it'll be a real medium format: 6x7 ;D

You mean 6x6, right? :

He probably means 6x7. There used to be 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, and 6x12 panorama...

 

[RLPhoto]

MF video? Hello IMAX. 8)

 

[LDS]

I think if Canon prices and specs the camera well enough this could be very interesting.

I can't really see the business case for a low end MF camera. Most "prosumers" would just find it too bulky, slow and expensive compared to a good FF DSLR for most of their photos. It was true in the days of film and it is still true. Moreover I wouldn't call a 5-7k camera a "prosumer" one, at the prices you can buy a 6D/5D MkIII and two/three very good lenses.
Moreover most LF users AFAIK prefer high quality primes to zooms. After all when working with the camera mostly on a tripod in a controlled environment framing can be done moving the camera and/or changing the lenses.
Also MF usually lack supertelephoto because they would be really big and heavy, while many lenses has a leaf shutter because of faster flash synch speed, especially when using studio flash lamps and not dedicated strobes.
If Canon really wish to enter this market it has to do with the right specs for the existing market, not try to create a new one that could never materialize.

 

[bchernicoff]

He probably means 6x7. There used to be 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, and 6x12 panorama...

I don't think the innovation would come in sensor size, but rather a medium format CMOS sensor with BIG photosites and unheard of low-light capabilities. Aren't all current MF sensors CCDs that can't shoot past ISO 1600?

 

[LDS]

I think there are two parameters here - mount diameter and flange distance. I guess both would be larger, making an EF to EF-medium-format problematic.

Unless EF lenses have a image circle large enough to cover properly a larger sensor, such kinf of adapter would be totally useless. Unless it has additional optics like an extender to enlarge the image, but then mount diameter and flange distance are not a big problem - although you get all the extender disadvantages.
As someone else wrote it may have more sense to mount an high-end LF lens on a 1Dx (or a future high megapixel FF), for example, to get a better quality due to the use of just the inner part of the image circle at the expense of a bulkier (and more expensive) lens.

 

[untitled10]

He probably means 6x7. There used to be 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, and 6x12 panorama...

I don't think the innovation would come in sensor size, but rather a medium format CMOS sensor with BIG photosites and unheard of low-light capabilities. Aren't all current MF sensors CCDs that can't shoot past ISO 1600?

I think this would be really good, its a gap in the market, if they price it right

and think about the industrial and scientific applications if they do!

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

What is the significance of calling it a larger EF mount? Does that imply electronic compatibility...as-in you can mount one of these lenses to an EOS body with an adapter and maintain full functionality?

I think there are two parameters here - mount diameter and flange distance. I guess both would be larger, making an EF to EF-medium-format problematic.

<snip>

EDIT: To be clear, my original comment NOT talking about mounting an existing EF lens on a medium format camera.

That is exactly what I was talking about - adapting an existing EF lens to on medium format camera.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

I think there are two parameters here - mount diameter and flange distance. I guess both would be larger, making an EF to EF-medium-format problematic.

Unless EF lenses have a image circle large enough to cover properly a larger sensor, such kinf of adapter would be totally useless.

I think Nikon knows why it allows mounting DX lenses on FX bodies.

 

[deleteme]

What is the significance of calling it a larger EF mount? Does that imply electronic compatibility...as-in you can mount one of these lenses to an EOS body with an adapter and maintain full functionality?

It would be neat to see that, but I agree with most of the sentiment in this thread. Going to be crazy expensive.

My opinion for the mention of the larger mount is the need to add credibility to this noise so the life of the rumor is continued.
There is no real business or technical argument that justifies the development or acquisition of MF capability.
As to the comment of introducing a show stopper....that is a "quote" from unattributed sources that, if true, could mean anything from a magical Foveon sensor to a new logo in the fevered imagination of a sled person.

Sorry, but this seems to be the weakest rumor with the weakest "facts" to support it.

 

[RGomezPhotos]

For Canon to grow their camera division, they either has to buy an MF maker, build an MF camera or have a new generation sensor that will keep sales going for another 5 - 7 years on the top-end. Each one of my theories has it's pros and cons. Different levels of possibilities. Camera sales are flat, if not dropping all over the place. They have to figure out a way to grow.

Really, DSLRs at every level are so good. I still think that APS-C sensors will eventually be replaced by FF. You can get a NEW FF camera for $1600. That was UNHEARD of just three years ago. I think the 70D was the beginning of this revolution and it's bigger brothers are going to replace the typical FF sensor. Sensor may be the same size. But the tech will be a whole new generation.

I have two reasons why I think Canon's next big MP camera is going to be something super-incredible:

* Filter Down Technology. The tech in the big MP camera will be so amazing, it's technology will eventually filter down to the lower-end cameras over time. Like what happened with the 1DX. While the 1DX is pretty darn amazing, it's sensor isn't. It's all the other tech in that camera that make it so amazing. But it won't stay the leader for very long. It's an evolution camera.

* Zeiss 55mm Lens. Have you seen this lens? It's freakin' crazy the resolution this thing has. The only camera that will even remotely takes advantage of it is the Nikon D800. But that one camera is nowhere near enough to warrant the research, design and production of this lens. You gotta know Canon filled them in on something. The new Zeiss lens is a WHOLE OTHER LEVEL to any other FF lens out there. From what I've seen, images from it are MF quality. Damn impressive. As big as the 55mm lens is, you gotta know a 90mm or 130mm lens is going to be monstrous in it's size. Beefier EF mount you say?

The beefier EF mount for use in Cine Lenses? Possibly if the new cam is going to be a kick-ass video machine as well. Those Cine lenses are HUGE. When I was chatting with a Canon rep at a local camera store, we put a Cine Lens on a 1DX. Yes, the image was beautiful. But the lens size was totally impractical for the camera to use with stills.

I think 2014 is going to be a very exciting year for Canon. I can't wait!

 

[Inst]

Hey, I'm the guy trucking around a RB67 to do (bad) street photography; so no, an MF as a walkaround camera is theoretically doable, albeit inconvenient.

Also, look up this camera and similar systems.

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Fujica_G690

If the issue is the MF portability, I think there's no reason t assume it would be impossible for Canon to produce an EVF MF rangefinder-style camera. Imagine the image quality on the unit!

 

[gbchriste]

Really, DSLRs at every level are so good. I still think that APS-C sensors will eventually be replaced by FF. You can get a NEW FF camera for $1600. That was UNHEARD of just three years ago. I think the 70D was the beginning of this revolution and it's bigger brothers are going to replace the typical FF sensor. Sensor may be the same size. But the tech will be a whole new generation.

I don't agree. I believe there will always be a need/market for a crop sensor to sell to the masses. Every time I find myself hanging around the DSLR displays at places like Best Buy, et al, I see the same thing - an uneducated consumer looking for long reach. So they buy a fairly expensive camera and mate that up with a really cheap and crappy 300mm kit-level zoom. And what are they after? Getting shots of little Johnny on Little League field, or little Suzy on stage in her tutu, etc. For the present, they don't know that the noise on the consumer-level sensor they just bought and coupled up to a variable f4/5.6 lens is going to totally undercut their goal of taking those shots under less-than-optimal lighting conditions. But all they are thinking about is the reach of the lens. So the sales guy pulls out a crop sensor body, puts that 300mm zoom on it, gives it to the customer, who then marvels that they can look through the view finder and read the numbers on the wrist watch of someone standing on the opposite side of the store. Sale made...KaChing!!!

 

[moreorless]

"Maybe Canons intention is to produce an 'affordable' MF system for those that really do need that amount of pixel power. "

That is a funny statement. Prices for any medium format lenses or bodies will be obsene. Just look at what happens when they update a lens like the EF 24mm f2.8 IS, prices double at the very least.

Not a good example there, the 24mm 2.8 is Canon replacing one of its own(25 year old) products with a new one, compare it to say a Leica M mount 24mm 2.8 lens and the price is obviously a lot lower.

A digital MF camera is never going to be "cheap" but just look at MF prices today, a new IQ 180 + camera will set you back what $35K? I very much doubt that the production costs make up much of that price, rather Phase One have choosen a business model that targets limated high end sales to offset R&D.

The main argument against it seems to be Canon devolping a high resolution FF sensor, if they were considering MF it would seem to make more sense to leave the high resolution market to it.

 

[grahamsz]

A digital MF camera is never going to be "cheap" but just look at MF prices today, a new IQ 180 + camera will set you back what $35K? I very much doubt that the production costs make up much of that price, rather Phase One have choosen a business model that targets limated high end sales to offset R&D.

The main argument against it seems to be Canon devolping a high resolution FF sensor, if they were considering MF it would seem to make more sense to leave the high resolution market to it.

Canon may have the expertise in image processing. It seems more likely to me that they might partner with an existing MF company to provide large sensors and the digic 6 to them. That would be a revenue stream for them that wouldn't cannibalize any of their existing market. It also wouldn't commit them to building a new line of of LargeEF lenses to run on it, which would likely have a very long ROI.

I already worry that Canon's lineup is such a mess it'll be unsustainable without some sizeable cutbacks. They've currently got 3 lines of full frame EOS, 3 lines of crop sensor EOS, Mirrorless stuff in the works, Cinema EOS and probably some others. Adding another imaging sensor and then trying to support a whole new line of lenses seems like madness.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

I already worry that Canon's lineup is such a mess it'll be unsustainable without some sizeable cutbacks. They've currently got 3 lines of full frame EOS, 3 lines of crop sensor EOS, Mirrorless stuff in the works, Cinema EOS and probably some others. Adding another imaging sensor and then trying to support a whole new line of lenses seems like madness.

Aren't there 4 lines of crop sensor EOS? and three lines of compacts?

I wonder whether the cinema line sells that much better than MF.

 

[Kelt0901]

Hey, I'm the guy trucking around a RB67 to do (bad) street photography; so no, an MF as a walkaround camera is theoretically doable, albeit inconvenient.

Also, look up this camera and similar systems.

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Fujica_G690

If the issue is the MF portability, I think there's no reason t assume it would be impossible for Canon to produce an EVF MF rangefinder-style camera. Imagine the image quality on the unit!

I love my MF Mamiya gear, it's a pity about the low technology digital backs available. I have a ZD back and is 22 Mpxls @ 36X48mms, great image quality, but very old technology, Canon could do it much better. Canon should adapt to the Mamiya system, it's the most popular system in MF, make compatible CMOS backs to start with and then the bodies and lenses.

 

[moreorless]

A digital MF camera is never going to be "cheap" but just look at MF prices today, a new IQ 180 + camera will set you back what $35K? I very much doubt that the production costs make up much of that price, rather Phase One have choosen a business model that targets limated high end sales to offset R&D.

The main argument against it seems to be Canon devolping a high resolution FF sensor, if they were considering MF it would seem to make more sense to leave the high resolution market to it.

Canon may have the expertise in image processing. It seems more likely to me that they might partner with an existing MF company to provide large sensors and the digic 6 to them. That would be a revenue stream for them that wouldn't cannibalize any of their existing market. It also wouldn't commit them to building a new line of of LargeEF lenses to run on it, which would likely have a very long ROI.

Just because it wouldn't have a Canon brand on it doesn't mean it wouldn't be in competision with them. I very much doubt they'd take that route anyway as a lot of the reason for investing in MF would IMHO be the glamour it would bring to the brand, the idea that Canon plays second fiddle to nobody when it comes to the best in photography.

I already worry that Canon's lineup is such a mess it'll be unsustainable without some sizeable cutbacks. They've currently got 3 lines of full frame EOS, 3 lines of crop sensor EOS, Mirrorless stuff in the works, Cinema EOS and probably some others. Adding another imaging sensor and then trying to support a whole new line of lenses seems like madness.

I don't see a "mess" so much as products that are targeted at specific markets. The larger and more profitable Canon become the more they obviously have to invest in R&D(including buying on existing companies) as well so its not an "either or" situation.

My guess would be if Canon take someone over it'll be Mamiya, they have the knowhow with medium format but the brand itself isn't as valuable as something like Hassleblad so rebranding it Canon would be less of a loss.