Nikon goes Medium Format?

[9VIII]

The photography world is not going to abandon FF for MF. Yes, bigger sensor makes for better quality images, but the size of everything grows to the point where it becomes unwieldy for many uses. Studio work... Yes. Weddings.... Yes. Architecture and landscape, yes. But for wildlife photography, sports, and anything else requiring long lenses, forget it.

MF is probably a viable market... FF will remain a viable market... But APSC? Right now, APSC offers two advantages, price and reach. As ability to make larger sensors at a reasonable price improves, the cost advantage disappears. As pixel counts grow, FF. sensors could put the same number of pixels on target as a crop camera, and destroy the reach advantage. I thing they will be around for several more years, but ten years down the road Many FF shooters will be MF, rebels will be FF, and there will still be high end FF cameras.

I hope they make the new MF cameras mirrorless. If they were you would have no size increase from current SLR cameras, and using on-sensor focusing would get rid of faulty AF issues, and it would mean wide angle lenses wouldn't need to be retrofocusing.
It would be cool to see if they started with both SLR and mirrorless cameras and an equal set of lenses for both, then the market could decide which system is better.

Others have said other things regarding this, but I will take the other road of --- while the tech surrounding EVF is getting better, it's a night and day difference between OVF. The few mirrorless camera's I have tried out, the EVF is horrid. I would much rather stick with the classic mirror!

size - no way around it, when push comes to shove if you want access to everything, the size will go up. The 6d is a good example of what happens when you cram a large sensor in a small body, you loose a lot of buttons! So, unless you want a gimped body, then the overall size and weight will increase...

If you're doing really DOF sensitive stuff, like macro, then live view is the only way to go. I just figured that with the larger sensor maybe dead accurate focusing would be a more prominent issue.

The 6D does not have less buttons because it's full frame.

 

[9VIII]

The photography world is not going to abandon FF for MF. Yes, bigger sensor makes for better quality images, but the size of everything grows to the point where it becomes unwieldy for many uses. Studio work... Yes. Weddings.... Yes. Architecture and landscape, yes. But for wildlife photography, sports, and anything else requiring long lenses, forget it.

MF is probably a viable market... FF will remain a viable market... But APSC? Right now, APSC offers two advantages, price and reach. As ability to make larger sensors at a reasonable price improves, the cost advantage disappears. As pixel counts grow, FF. sensors could put the same number of pixels on target as a crop camera, and destroy the reach advantage. I thing they will be around for several more years, but ten years down the road Many FF shooters will be MF, rebels will be FF, and there will still be high end FF cameras.

I hope they make the new MF cameras mirrorless. If they were you would have no size increase from current SLR cameras, and using on-sensor focusing would get rid of faulty AF issues, and it would mean wide angle lenses wouldn't need to be retrofocusing.
It would be cool to see if they started with both SLR and mirrorless cameras and an equal set of lenses for both, then the market could decide which system is better.

Do I have to point out that the whole point of a DSLR is the mirror?? You don't deserve MF if you haven't got a clue what it's for. The whole point it's for a professional market. Not a mirrorless market & not a rebel market...

"oh no, Canon/Nikon are abandoning me and I've invested all my money.." $500 in a rebel and $150 in a lens isn't investment, it's a plaything.
"ohhh, i don't want a big camera like a 5D because of my weak weedy arms..." the 5D is quite a small camera if you've ever used a Cambo 5x4 on a job. more so if you've shot 10x8.

some folk seem to not understand which side of the fence they fall. FF (as was 35mm) is a compromise on MF (Mamiya/hasselblad) but because of the ridiculous price of the hasselblad system it renders the 1Dx as what is perceived as the top end of the market. It's no where near. Sure I love my 5Diii and the IQ it gives me but imagine that tech (or the 1Dx) in medium format with more amazing glass? and if it comes in at half the price of a hasselblad it'd be brilliant news for the industry. not for the hasselblad users though. Hasselbladrumours.com will be up in arms

The point of the mirror was to be able to frame your subject without switching the back plate, saving a lot of time and hassle. With digital sensors and live view the whole SLR concept is kind of a moot point (except in action shots where the small amount of delay is detrimental).
I'm pretty sure a lot of people would appreciate not having to haul around something the size of a small microwave oven if they don't have to. Even professionals (especially professionals? The people who would use it most).

The best mirrorless options are those providing image quality similar to a DSLR such as the EOS-M or large format sensor SONY and Fuji models. Their advantage is size, not better image quality. The idea is to have similar/almost equal to a DSLR image quality despite the smaller size.

Agreed, the advantage is size.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

The 6D does not have less buttons because it's full frame.

I didn't imply that ---the 6d has less buttons...nothing at all on the left side (look at the 5d or 7d, and as an owner of both the 6d and the mk3, yeah, I do sometimes wish i had those buttons on the 6d)). the body is scaled down, but with a FF sensor and a large preview screen - scale he body down and you end up with less real estate to place other buttons and controls.. or you end up putting tiny buttons on the camera which would be a problem for most with normal human sized fingers...lol

And --

"The point of the mirror was to be able to frame your subject without switching the back plate, saving a lot of time and hassle. With digital sensors and live view the whole SLR concept is kind of a moot point (except in action shots where the small amount of delay is detrimental).
I'm pretty sure a lot of people would appreciate not having to haul around something the size of a small microwave oven if they don't have to. Even professionals (especially professionals? The people who would use it most)."

I think there's more to it than just that. With most lenses, the most stable position is with the camera up to the eye. Live view is useful for tripod shooting, but for actual shooting...I don't want to be hand holding anything 1 foot in front of me staring at an LCD screen. I get it and understand it for video, but for stills, the most stable position is not handheld live view....

And again, the view from an EVF just looks disgusting IMO - I kind of hated the few moments I had with one of the sony models...its the same feeling i get when doing cell phone shots too... EVF is trying its best to give you a reproduction of the real world...where a mirror simply reflects the real world back up through the viewfinder...

this is not to say EVF tech won't improve, but at least for right now...EVF is vastly inferior to OVF...

another issue to bring up...and another area for tech to catch up -- battery capacity, battery drain and battery life ---EVF and live view suck down power like there's no tomorrow. I can shoot all day at a wedding and use a negligible amount of battery power. I go out for an hour at night using live for only for manual focusing...i come home with a dead battery. Yes, EVF uses less power than live view, but still...it's an issue

 

[9VIII]

...what happens when you cram a large sensor in a small body, you loose a lot of buttons!

Personally, I would love an SL1 with all the features of the 1Dx. I always enjoyed fiddling with very small things. Really it would be best if they had a row of wheels instead of buttons up by the top LCD.
Having a wheel dedicated just to adjusting white balance would be awesome (not that it's necessary, but tuning WB on the fly may be more accurate than adjusting it by memory later)
And there's another advantage, the EVF actually shows you what your picture will look like, not just what's in-front of you. So you can set your white balance, zoom in for precision DOF, actually see which highlights are clipping, take pictures as fast as the electronics will allow (not to mention your "shutter" life is nearly infinite if they only use electronic curtains, which also means less vibrations).
You probably don't need to worry about battery life either, since they just stick a proximity sensor in the EVF so it only turns on when you hold the camera up to your face.

Now they just need to work on making it look better.

 

[wickidwombat]

for cannon the entry level may be a APS-H 7Dii and the 70D would be the last in the APS-C cameras.

stop teasing me

 

[LewisShermer]

How much more attractive is MF than the normal DSLR design?

 

[caruser]

Flash news, Nikon and Canon both introduce new medium-format camera systems with a single joint open-standard lens mount. Now THAT would be COOL!

 

[emag]

Some comments from what is admittedly a niche market.....(astro)

The 60Da hasn't sold tremendously well because it was (IMHO) poorly implemented. More expensive and not as good for astro as modifying a 60D.

Okay, I don't know enough about sensor technology, so if I'm completely out to lunch on this, a virtual slap is acceptable. How about a MF body with more densely packed region for imaging in FF or APS-C crop mode and still having a lot of pixels on target? Provides a selectable imaging area (crop mode) for when I want to work with a smaller file size rather than cropping a large image. In MF mode, mayhaps those pixels can be binned?

Peltier cooling for long exposures.

IR cut filter that is either easily removeable or can be swung out of the light path....like the mirror.
For that matter, something similar for the Bayer filter (okay, I figure that's nigh on to impossible to implement).

A modular design so that if the photographer needs all the bells and whistles sports/weddings/wildlife requires, s/he can install an accessory in battery grip fashion that provides the required processors. Maybe the Peltier cooling could be a module.

I don't think such a camera is too much of a stretch, and the market might be larger than some people think. I'd buy one....don't need two kidneys.

 

[pharp]

I hope they make the new MF cameras mirrorless. If they were you would have no size increase from current SLR cameras, and using on-sensor focusing would get rid of faulty AF issues, and it would mean wide angle lenses wouldn't need to be retrofocusing.
It would be cool to see if they started with both SLR and mirrorless cameras and an equal set of lenses for both, then the market could decide which system is better.

+1, a MF mirrorless might actually make alot of sense, even more so than an APS-C one. Picture an interchangeable lens Hassleblad SWC with large, (re)moveable LCD. Could be a great landscape/architecture camera.

 

[LewisShermer]

I hope they make the new MF cameras mirrorless. If they were you would have no size increase from current SLR cameras, and using on-sensor focusing would get rid of faulty AF issues, and it would mean wide angle lenses wouldn't need to be retrofocusing.
It would be cool to see if they started with both SLR and mirrorless cameras and an equal set of lenses for both, then the market could decide which system is better.

+1, a MF mirrorless might actually make alot of sense, even more so than an APS-C one. Picture an interchangeable lens Hassleblad SWC with large, (re)moveable LCD. Could be a great landscape/architecture camera.

 

[pharp]

http://p45plus.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54f92ffec88330120a871a1bd970b-popup

Something like this might be a real winner especially with the short back plane - could make smaller lenses. The larger the format, the less need there is for a mirror. Even a fixed lens model might find some takers - this could be made even smaller without the removeable back and in lens shutter. All this despite the sarcastic, unhelpful "comment" from LewisShermer.

 

[LewisShermer]

http://p45plus.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54f92ffec88330120a871a1bd970b-popup

Something like this might be a real winner especially with the short back plane - could make smaller lenses. The larger the format, the less need there is for a mirror. Even a fixed lens model might find some takers - this could be made even smaller without the removeable back and in lens shutter. All this despite the sarcastic, unhelpful "comment" from LewisShermer.

It wasn't sarcasm, it was a proper double facepalm moment. one for each of you.

 

[pharp]

http://p45plus.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54f92ffec88330120a871a1bd970b-popup

Something like this might be a real winner especially with the short back plane - could make smaller lenses. The larger the format, the less need there is for a mirror. Even a fixed lens model might find some takers - this could be made even smaller without the removeable back and in lens shutter. All this despite the sarcastic, unhelpful "comment" from LewisShermer.

It wasn't sarcasm, it was a proper double facepalm moment. one for each of you.

Regardless of what you think that means - still unhelpful and better kept to yourself.

 

[9VIII]

It wasn't sarcasm, it was a proper double facepalm moment. one for each of you.

I'm still struggling to find logical reasons that the flappy mirror box is so necessary.

I understand that for someone lugging around multiple bags full of gear the size of the camera isn't a big deal, but if it's unnecessary, and even inferior, why do you still want it?

 

[pharp]

It wasn't sarcasm, it was a proper double facepalm moment. one for each of you.

I'm still struggling to find logical reasons that the flappy mirror box is so necessary.

I understand that for someone lugging around multiple bags full of gear the size of the camera isn't a big deal, but if it's unnecessary, and even inferior, why do you still want it?

We may yet get one from Canon mostly because the mirror is of no value for video work and that seems to be what they are emphasizing now - which would be great for us still photographers, especially if they gave it a really good EVF.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

It wasn't sarcasm, it was a proper double facepalm moment. one for each of you.

I'm still struggling to find logical reasons that the flappy mirror box is so necessary.

I understand that for someone lugging around multiple bags full of gear the size of the camera isn't a big deal, but if it's unnecessary, and even inferior, why do you still want it?

the thing of it is --- EVF tech is still inferior to OVF. EVF is great for live view nighttime shooting. But for regular purposes...no way is it ready for full time professional work. Lots of kinks and bugs to work out

 

[Don Haines]

It wasn't sarcasm, it was a proper double facepalm moment. one for each of you.

I'm still struggling to find logical reasons that the flappy mirror box is so necessary.

I understand that for someone lugging around multiple bags full of gear the size of the camera isn't a big deal, but if it's unnecessary, and even inferior, why do you still want it?

the thing of it is --- EVF tech is still inferior to OVF. EVF is great for live view nighttime shooting. But for regular purposes...no way is it ready for full time professional work. Lots of kinks and bugs to work out

Or you could go large format (8x10) and use the latest NoVF technology..... (NoVF is NO viewfinder)

The optical viewfinder is a mature technology, it is about as good as it is going to get... It has advantages and it has disadvantages. EVF's are still immature. They are steadily getting better and have their own set of advantages and disadvantages. Right now, I'd pick OVF over EVF because the OVF is generally better... but I can see the day coming when the EVF comes out on top.

If we are discussing possible future bodies, as part of that discussion we should assume that this future body will have to decide between future EVF technology and an OVF, not current technology.... and this makes it a much harder decision.

 

[Alrik89]

If Canon goes MF, why do they waste money and capacities for inventing a high-Megapixel-FF-Sensor?

 

[Sporgon]

If Canon goes MF, why do they waste money and capacities for inventing a high-Megapixel-FF-Sensor?

Because they thought they'd out sell Canon. Marketing gamble. Didn't work.

I'm actually really surprised that Nikon went down that route in what is clearly a more 'consumer' rather than 'pro' camera. Think the Nikon marketing boys lost their bonus that year.

 

[Don Haines]

If Canon goes MF, why do they waste money and capacities for inventing a high-Megapixel-FF-Sensor?

In 5 or so years, they will ALL be "big megapixel" cameras...