NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP

[Jim Saunders]

Canon started doing that fairly early on in the digital 2k and 4k cinema industry. There are competitors, but none of them were extremely well established like the MFD companies. If Canon or Nikon try to break into MF, they have to produce not only a sensor or a camera, but an entire photographic system while concurrently fighting against a LONG established set of companies and very strong customer loyalties. To really compete, they would need to make their system digital-back compatible with the existing brands...who knows what the hurdles there would be (assuming the existing MFD competitors don't hold all the rights and have the ability to block such a move from Canon.)

I honestly don't see that as the same thing as what they did with Cinema. They already had a lot of the technology they needed to move into Cinema...they had been doing both video DSLR and Camcorders for a long time before they started building their Cinema EOS line.

A digital back with Canon's menu format and functionality to use RT flashes? In principle it could work, but it probably would have happened by now if it was going to do so.

Jim

 

[jrista]

Canon started doing that fairly early on in the digital 2k and 4k cinema industry. There are competitors, but none of them were extremely well established like the MFD companies. If Canon or Nikon try to break into MF, they have to produce not only a sensor or a camera, but an entire photographic system while concurrently fighting against a LONG established set of companies and very strong customer loyalties. To really compete, they would need to make their system digital-back compatible with the existing brands...who knows what the hurdles there would be (assuming the existing MFD competitors don't hold all the rights and have the ability to block such a move from Canon.)

I honestly don't see that as the same thing as what they did with Cinema. They already had a lot of the technology they needed to move into Cinema...they had been doing both video DSLR and Camcorders for a long time before they started building their Cinema EOS line.

A digital back with Canon's menu format and functionality to use RT flashes? In principle it could work, but it probably would have happened by now if it was going to do so.

Jim

If they just made a digital back, that might work. Then they wouldn't have to build a whole MF ecosystem. It's the building of an entire MF ecosystem that could compete that I think is a stretch.

 

[Orangutan]

I don't even believe Canon could develop an MF system. For exactly the same reasons

Isn't that almost exactly what they've been doing with the cinema line? Entirely new bodies and entirely new lenses. They won't do it before cinema is solidly profitable, but they certainly could if they decided to make it a 5-7 year project. The sensor is the main obstacle here.

Canon started doing that fairly early on in the digital 2k and 4k cinema industry. There are competitors, but none of them were extremely well established like the MFD companies. If Canon or Nikon try to break into MF, they have to produce not only a sensor or a camera, but an entire photographic system while concurrently fighting against a LONG established set of companies and very strong customer loyalties. To really compete, they would need to make their system digital-back compatible with the existing brands...who knows what the hurdles there would be (assuming the existing MFD competitors don't hold all the rights and have the ability to block such a move from Canon.)

I honestly don't see that as the same thing as what they did with Cinema. They already had a lot of the technology they needed to move into Cinema...they had been doing both video DSLR and Camcorders for a long time before they started building their Cinema EOS line.

Hmmm...I don't find that entirely persuasive. While I don't know the MFD marketplace (or its customers), I see photographers in the digital age as very pragmatic: if Canon offered a product that met their needs at a price that met their budget it would sell. One of Canon's cinema strategies was to "fit it," using PL-mount lenses. Likewise, they could "fit in" by starting with a body and lenses that are compatible with one or more of the current market players, while slowly developing sensors that compete. You are correct, however, that certain patents may make that challenging.

 

[kphoto99]

Hopefully someone with better attention to detail, too. In removing the left side of the camera, the lens release was also removed. A buyer would need to think carefully about which lens to mount first...

You don't need a button on the camera. You can do it the way FD lenses did it with a button on the lens.
I'm not talking about the early lenses that had the silver ring, I'm talking about the later lenses that had a button on the lens.

I prefer that to the EF mount button on the camera.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

Face it, either Nikon or Canon (or Fuji or Samsung) could build a medium format system if the marketing case could be made for a profitable venture. Technology is advancing at a rate that a 4x6 or 6x6 or 6x7 sensor is not only possible but potentially "affordable". These sensors could easily reach 75, 100 or 150 megapixels at the same
density of current "full frame" sensors. Then again, could anything larger than the current 24x36 sensor be
considered "medium format"? The Leica S is not "standard" sized, I'm not sure about the Pentax 645 or the
various backs for Mamiya, Contax and Hasselblad, but it would appear that any "medium format" standards are
at best in question. But no matter, the camera design and build is the easy part - what about the family of lenses?
And when that is done, even in a timely fashion, will it be significantly better than the then available full frame
offerings. Any camera company executive looking at today's marketplace would have a tough decision to move
forward on a completely new system - medium format or not.

 

[johnhenry]

One person hit it one the head: buy out someone who has a long established line of medium format lens/backs/equipment so that ALL THEY HAVE TO BUILD IS A DIGITAL BACK.

If you bought the right to use Hassleblad's body/back/lenses and just built a body/back for it

 

[JumboShrimp]

I have always thought that 6x7 Pentax should have jumped into the MFD foray by developing a digital back/camera for their excellent (and affordable) line of 6x7 lenses. Any one else have thoughts on why they chose not to? As far as the Nikon rumors go, don't really care one way or the other, but it sounds like a disaster in the making.

 

[surapon]

Dear Friends.
I might recommend Canon to use this old camera design, for New Canon 300 MP Super Full Frame Camera ( No, Not Medium format). Well It might work and cheap too. It might use the Great EF Canon Lens too= just pull the accordion back about a foot distant from the lens. ;D
Have a great weekend.
Surapon

 

[Click]

Ha Ha Ha ;D

Dear Mr. Surapon,

I would like to see that camera hang-on to you while on your next photo expedition. ;D

Have a great weekend Sir.

 

[surapon]

Ha Ha Ha ;D

Dear Mr. Surapon,

I would like to see that camera hang-on to you while on your next photo expedition. ;D

Have a great weekend Sir.

Yes, Ha, Ha, Ha, Dear Friend Click.
If I have this Camera, I must hire the Strong/ Beautiful Helper, who can help me carry this big camera.
Good day, Sir.
Surapon

 

[Policar]

Ha Ha Ha ;D

Dear Mr. Surapon,

I would like to see that camera hang-on to you while on your next photo expedition. ;D

Have a great weekend Sir.

Yes, Ha, Ha, Ha, Dear Friend Click.
If I have this Camera, I must hire the Strong/ Beautiful Helper, who can help me carry this big camera.
Good day, Sir.
Surapon

There are a lot of photographers still using 8X10. Of course all the great landscape photographers were 4x5 or 8x10.

I saw a few stills from this photographer:

http://www.lauramcphee.com

Great stuff! Worth the extra effort for sure.

Fwiw, Canon won't do this because they don't have lenses for it. Yes they made a PL mount C300 for some reason (they also sell PL mount lenses), but the C300 was VERY expensive because they weren't necessarily going to push lenses with it. And they only entered the market once the EF mount become a competitive "cinema" mount and now Arri and Red are building (very expensive, since they don't sell lenses to subsidize the cost) EF mount cameras.

Besides, FF is pretty much on par with 6x7 in everything except "film look." MFDB is more competitive with large format, especially the tech and view cameras... and that is a much smaller market even than 645/6X6/6X7 was.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I don't even believe Canon could develop an MF system. For exactly the same reasons

Isn't that almost exactly what they've been doing with the cinema line? Entirely new bodies and entirely new lenses. They won't do it before cinema is solidly profitable, but they certainly could if they decided to make it a 5-7 year project. The sensor is the main obstacle here.

Canon's cinema lenses are just adaptations of existing lenses, in some cases, just a different body. Their $50K cinema lenses are new, but even there, they use technology that is existing in the canon line. They are not MF. lenses.

However, the fact that Canon could technically build a MF system does not mean that its a good idea financially. They have had the opportunity to acquire a MF company in the past, and decided against it. That was a good move, since the economy has really hurt sales of high end cameras.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Yes at this years Photokina NIKON is reported as releasing a medium format camera with the same sensor as Hasselblad, Phase one , and Pentax, but mirror less and with a new type of shutter, will this put the damper on our new 7D

That depends on how good someone else is with Photoshop between now and Photikina.

Hopefully someone with better attention to detail, too. In removing the left side of the camera, the lens release was also removed. A buyer would need to think carefully about which lens to mount first...

Maybe Nikon is responding to our earlier discussion about loose lens release buttons.

 

[Orangutan]

I don't even believe Canon could develop an MF system. For exactly the same reasons

Isn't that almost exactly what they've been doing with the cinema line? Entirely new bodies and entirely new lenses. They won't do it before cinema is solidly profitable, but they certainly could if they decided to make it a 5-7 year project. The sensor is the main obstacle here.

Canon's cinema lenses are just adaptations of existing lenses, in some cases, just a different body. Their $50K cinema lenses are new, but even there, they use technology that is existing in the canon line. They are not MF. lenses.

However, the fact that Canon could technically build a MF system does not mean that its a good idea financially. They have had the opportunity to acquire a MF company in the past, and decided against it. That was a good move, since the economy has really hurt sales of high end cameras.

I think you meant that Canon's bodies are adaptations of existing bodies. I don't have a clear basis for comparison since I haven't used their cinema bodies. They do have a completely different physical layout and ergonomics, and presumably optimized video processing hardware. I wouldn't be surprised if their cinema sensors are little different from their DSC sensors.

Again with lenses I'm out of my element since I'm not a video guy. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the lenses "use technology that is existing in the canon line." While I'm sure some of the optical design can be borrowed the result must be parfocal, and it's my understanding that a lot has to change regarding the chassis in which the optics are mounted: it must be optimized for manual focus and to eliminate focus breathing, etc.

I don't pretend any expertise, just enjoying the speculative conversation. It seems to me there's a bigger difference between a still lens design and cinema design than between FF and MF.

I agree entirely that the questions of whether they could build an entire MF line from scratch is entirely separate from the question of whether it would be a good business decision.

 

[Antono Refa]

I'm far from an expert, so feel free to correct me.

My [mis?]understanding of the motivation behind film MF was the limitation on how much film could be enlarged. MF lenses weren't as sharp as FF lenses, because MF film wasn't enlarged in printing as much as FF film.

As example, FF film was always enlarged 16x area just to get 4"x6" from 24x36 (mm) film, while 8x10 film (large format, I know, just illustrating) was printed 8x10.

So, how useful would MF lenses from the film era for digital MF sensors? Wouldn't the manufacturer have to make an all new line of sharp-as-FF lenses for the new sensor anyway?

 

[Bennymiata]

Pentax had the 645D and now the 645Z, which is basically a Pentax K3 in a bigger body housing with Sony's 50MP 4X3 sensor.
I think it would be very wise of both Canon and Nikon to check on the sales of this camera, as I believe it is the most affordable way of getting into digital MF photography.
Even though I believe it is very good value for what it is, especially when Hasselblad and Phase One use the same sensor but charge many times more than Pentax does, I don't see the 645Z's running out of the stores.
Really, these days, there is very little reason for going MF when the full frame cameras of today are so good and indeed, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference even if you pixel peep.
Why have a removable back on the digital cameras of today? All they do is invite the bare sensor to get scratched.
In the days of film cameras, it was a godsend, as you needed to change film so often, but how often do you need to change sensors? Memory cards yes, but sensors? Never.
Pentax makes the 645Z because it has the legacy of all those old lenses to fall back on, but for Canon or Nikon to get into MF, it would just be a losing proposition, as it is for Hasselblad and Phase One.

 

[Policar]

Again with lenses I'm out of my element since I'm not a video guy. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the lenses "use technology that is existing in the canon line." While I'm sure some of the optical design can be borrowed the result must be parfocal, and it's my understanding that a lot has to change regarding the chassis in which the optics are mounted: it must be optimized for manual focus and to eliminate focus breathing, etc.

I don't pretend any expertise, just enjoying the speculative conversation. It seems to me there's a bigger difference between a still lens design and cinema design than between FF and MF.

The Canon CN-E primes appear to be VERY similar optically (if not identical in some cases) to their L counterparts. The cinema zooms are obviously dramatically different designs, however.

Medium format lenses have to cover a much, much larger area (while still autofocusing...) so while the optical designs might resemble scaled up stilll lens designs more than they resemble cinema zooms, they would have to be pretty much all new.

My [mis?]understanding of the motivation behind film MF was the limitation on how much film could be enlarged. MF lenses weren't as sharp as FF lenses, because MF film wasn't enlarged in printing as much as FF film.

As example, FF film was always enlarged 16x area just to get 4"x6" from 24x36 (mm) film, while 8x10 film (large format, I know, just illustrating) was printed 8x10.

So, how useful would MF lenses from the film era for digital MF sensors? Wouldn't the manufacturer have to make an all new line of sharp-as-FF lenses for the new sensor anyway?

Sort of.

Film enlargements might be based more on grain and film sharpness than on lens sharpness, but lens sharpness had to be sufficient for enlargements, too. In my experience, fine grain 135 ("FF film") can be enlarged to about 8''X10'', maybe a bit larger; 8X10, while often contact printed to 8''X10'' can flawlessly be enlarged to about 80''X100''... The ratio is always about 10 times in each axis for irreproachable quality, but it's a little smaller for smaller prints due to the viewing distance. Black and white grain looks nice and scales up nicely, however, to larger sizes. I think FF digital can easily scale to 11X17 and I am sure soon MUCH larger; it is on par with good 6x7 medium format in terms of sharpness but with less grain and also less resolution.

The thing is, those 6x7 lenses had to be adequately good wide open for film... meaning they are often stellar stopped down. The 50mm f1.4 Nikon AI lens is not great wide open on digital (the Otus is surely better), but by f5.6 it is still good enough for digital, especially for APS-C. 6x7 lenses stopped down will be perfectly sharp for high pixel density digital. Large format lenses are a bit softer.

Irrelevant... Canon will never go in this direction!

 

[Lawliet]

Even though I believe it is very good value for what it is, especially when Hasselblad and Phase One use the same sensor but charge many times more than Pentax does, I don't see the 645Z's running out of the stores.

The interesting part here would be: why does one want to go medium frame?
For raw sensor size/resolution the D8x0, A7r are, compared to the new CMOS-sensor, almost there. To make the step worthwhile one of the full 645 sized sensors would be helpful.
LS-lenses are an actual added value, at least with HBlad and POne; that can make sense from a bookkeeping point of view.
Some legacy stuff? Would be a reason, but tough to capitalize on for a new manufacturer.
And then there is the factor "prestige", either to impress someone or to caress ones own ego.

 

[Policar]

Even though I believe it is very good value for what it is, especially when Hasselblad and Phase One use the same sensor but charge many times more than Pentax does, I don't see the 645Z's running out of the stores.

The interesting part here would be: why does one want to go medium frame?
For raw sensor size/resolution the D8x0, A7r are, compared to the new CMOS-sensor, almost there. To make the step worthwhile one of the full 645 sized sensors would be helpful.
LS-lenses are an actual added value, at least with HBlad and POne; that can make sense from a bookkeeping point of view.
Some legacy stuff? Would be a reason, but tough to capitalize on for a new manufacturer.
And then there is the factor "prestige", either to impress someone or to caress ones own ego.

It helps to impress clients, sure, but the same way 24MP full frame looks a lot sharper, especially int he center, because the lenses only need (1/1.6) times the MTF to produce a certain amount of sharpness for a given print size, lenses don't have to behave as well on a tiny scale for a larger sensor. So a good lens stopped down on MF will look amazing, substantially sharper with much better micro contrast than on FF or APS-C.

But is it work it? Probably not. Look at the sales figures.

 

[Lawliet]

So a good lens stopped down on MF will look amazing, substantially sharper with much better micro contrast than on FF or APS-C.

That's a point where the relatively low overall turnover rates for MF come into play. Some of the current lenses for small frame have leveled the playing field quite a bit, and we won't see many MF lenses that benefit from the same technological advancements.