Off Brand: Sony Readying Branded Medium Format System?

[CarlTN]

I don't think this Hasselblad camera will sell well, because it only shoots 1.5 frames per second, and the rear screen is only 460,000 pixels...and only 3 inches...doesn't even swivel! I mean, a Canon Rebel is better than this camera, and costs less too! All this expense for only 8 bit TIFF files? What gives?? In another thread I'm chastised for saying I think Canon will eventually replace "full frame" with a medium format sensor about this size (perhaps within the next decade)...and their EF lenses will become this format's lenses...And yet in this thread we're talking about how viable and useful medium format is? Why? Because Sony makes the sensor, suddenly that has legitimized medium format? I thought you all were saying medium format is dying?? Is this the twilight zone, or is it just wrong when I say it?

 

[vscd]

The rules of sensor size and resolving power are different between digital and film! FF digital like the D800e can out resolve 645 film,and on landscape magazine ran a great test that compares formats,the IQ180 can easily match 5x4 film

If you just rely on Resolution or resolving power you're maybe right. Just maybe, because a APS-C FoveOn outperforms a D800E eighter. But Medium Format has more advantages, as higher Pixelpitch (better colors, less noise), and technical advantages in Depth of Field or mostly central shutter (not MF related, but more in common).

But I must admit, they should finally build a *real* 645 Sensor, not a fake one like to Leica S2. Back in old days even the 645 Format was called MF-Crop, like today APS-C is a Fullformat-Crop :

 

[CarlTN]

The rules of sensor size and resolving power are different between digital and film! FF digital like the D800e can out resolve 645 film,and on landscape magazine ran a great test that compares formats,the IQ180 can easily match 5x4 film

If you just rely on Resolution or resolving power you're maybe right. Just maybe, because a APS-C FoveOn outperforms a D800E eighter. But Medium Format has more advantages, as higher Pixelpitch (better colors, less noise), and technical advantages in Depth of Field or mostly central shutter (not MF related, but more in common).

But I must admit, they should finally build a *real* 645 Sensor, not a fake one like to Leica S2. Back in old days even the 645 Format was called MF-Crop, like today APS-C is a Fullformat-Crop :

I'm fine with calling it medium format crop...

 

[roby17269]

I keep hearing of these rumours of Sony and / or Canon getting into MF but I cannot see the point for them to do so.

It is a shrinking market, for various reason, and it would stay a niche market in the best of cases. Plus it would require a new lens mount and new lenses. AFAIK, in Canon land only TS lenses have a big enough image circle to cover a MF sensor. If I am wrong please let me know. But I think most FF lenses in any of the major mounts just barely cover a FF-sized sensor. And Sony has already what? 4 different lens lines. Would they add a 5th one for a niche market?

I use a 1D X for fashion photography. It is a wonderful camera in many aspects but I do miss more mp in many cases. I have rented a H5D and a PhaseOne a couple of times and I was completely blown away by the image quality (at ISO 100). The viewfinder is amazing. The colours are beautiful. The details insane.
But they are also big slow awkward bodies that make sense in controlled environments. AF and other functions are primitive. Battery life is short. No movies. No shadow recovery. No high ISO. Limited lens selection. Insane prices.
They make sense in fashion, product and perhaps landscape photography. Not for wildlife, sports, street and pretty much anything else.
Because I do fashion photography (hobby), I would get one if I could afford it (but the CCD version, not the new CMOS one - I'll take CCD colours any day)

So... unless they come up with something completely different from what current MF is, I see this only as pure rumour fodder :

 

[Maui5150]

Sony developed the 36MP sensor that graces the D800/D800E, Nikon rebadged it, but it was a sony designed sensor.

Sony have recently dropped that sensor into one of their own cameras, the A7R, which seems to have done well, not on CR of course, but they have brought the Camera to Market, it's doing well even though Sony hamstrung the thing with poor support regards available lenses etc.

Sony designed the 50MP CMOS Sensor now in the phase One IQ250, and Haselblad 50MP systems, I imagine it's no stretch of anyones imagination to think Sony will do with the 50MP sensor what they have done with the 36MP sensor, i.e., drop it into a Sony DSLR.

I believe that will be a wonderful thing to do, the Camera may or may not be successful, but it should prompt both Nikon & Canon to lift their game.

Canon have to a large degree taken the "safe" path with their Camera systems since the introduction of the 5DMK II, yes the 1Dx is a wonderful camera and system but it's not exactly cutting edge sensor science by a long shot, it's incremental adjustments to a tried & true system.

Sony at least are pushing the envelope, that's got to be good for us, the consumers.

Reminds me of BetaMax - Superior quality, no movie titles... easily predicted death

Sony MF, no lenses? History Repeats

 

[vscd]

It is a shrinking market, for various reason, and it would stay a niche market in the best of cases. Plus it would require a new lens mount and new lenses.

There are already 3 EOS-Mounts out there (EF,EF-S,EF-M), so why should a EOS-L bother? In Mediumformat, normally, you don't need the whole bunch of different lenses (no one really does in APS-C eighter). A good 40mm (24mm KB Equiv), a 75mm (ca. 42mm) and a 150mm Portrait. What else do we need? If the Cam would have T/S possibilities, you can even get those with every focallength. And furthermore you just need a Converter to a major brand bayonett (mamiya, pentax or hasselblad) to get alle the old glass to work.

If it will ever happen, they will start with a build in fixed lense like the RX1. I would like to see a (smaller) Canon 1DXs with fixed 75mm 2.0

 

[roby17269]

There are already 3 EOS-Mounts out there (EF,EF-S,EF-M), so why should a EOS-L bother? In Mediumformat, normally, you don't need the whole bunch of different lenses (no one really does in APS-C eighter). A good 40mm (24mm KB Equiv), a 75mm (ca. 42mm) and a 150mm Portrait. What else do we need? If the Cam would have T/S possibilities, you can even get those with every focallength. And furthermore you just need a Converter to a major brand bayonett (mamiya, pentax or hasselblad) to get alle the old glass to work.

If it will ever happen, they will start with a build in fixed lense like the RX1. I would like to see a (smaller) Canon 1DXs with fixed 75mm 2.0

Don't get me wrong, I am not against, at all ;D

But I just cannot see it happen. And how long did it take Canon to come up with a very limited set of M lenses? and mirrorless is supposed to be mass-market compared to MF...
I do agree that MF systems don't need a lot of lenses (although whether it's a cause or a consequence of MF's limitations...)
But I do also think that Canon right now would be better served to invest more in their current lines rather than in a new one. And I disagree on EF-S: I think saying that crop users should be fine because of all the FF lenses out there is doing them a disservice.

Having said that, I'd love to be surprised... in my lifetime :

 

[Khufu]

Am I the only person looking at the sensor dimensions and thinking "they get away with calling THAT medium format these days?... and people pay what?!"

Really, I'd just assumed "dMF" was worthwhile and comparable to MF (120/220). Are these figures for real?

I agree.

This shouldn't be called anything more than a FF+, it isn't even 2" wide. Not good enough.
While I don't think I'd ever want an 8x10, a digital 4x3" sounds just about right. Though they should probably design the lenses for a 5x4" sensor and then just use the largest sensors available (kind of like ten years ago).

Leica uses a similar sized sensor in the S system and they call it "Pro Format",It's not a replacement for a Phase/Hasselblad FF sensor.

The rules of sensor size and resolving power are different between digital and film!FF digital like the D800e can out resolve 645 film,and on landscape magazine ran a great test that compares formats,the IQ180 can easily match 5x4 film .. see this article.. http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html

Oh, I'm actually thinking Physics here... I can show people photographs of my MF negs on my iPod screen and say "that's about actual size of the negatives, I've just inverted the colours" - and it's true, for anyone wondering what the standard SMALLEST MF frame's size is... That's 4.5 x 6cm, though 6 x 6 is the square standard, and 6 x 9cm or 6 x ~12cm for mechanical/panoramic negs... anything smaller than my 4.5 x 6cm sounds kinda' silly and unnecessary to me when we've got 35mm films and equivalent sensors knocking about, relatively for peanuts.

I'm by no means a clueless amateur, I'd just assumed digital Medium Format was a real luxury that was currently financially out of my reach - I've shot (still do for wildlife) APSc, moved to full frame and personal preference has me shooting sharp, fast primes... I appreciate the physics and look at APSc/FF as crops/expansions of the same projected image, DoF and all (hence my thread on the possibility of low MP, low light
APSc sensor shooters that all went a bit silly) ...

So I'm genuinely shocked that in my ignorance I believed there was a proper step up in sensor real estate to be lusted after, alas, er... this.

Also, "proper" MF lenses are relatively massive for SLR models' flange distance - and as such, primes are around f/2.8 max, if they don't push much beyond this for these tiny crops it really seems to me they're just playing with people's fad-lusting and I'm much happier saving a few dozen grand and shooting 35mm at ~f/1.4 and slapping some 120 in the back of my Bronica for kicks!

dMF, eh? I'll put that in the pile of not-for-mes with m43...

Though if I get rich quick, I might give that "cheap" Pentax a go

So no, I wasn't even stepping into IQ territory, just mere "Composition Quality", how naive of me

Bonus thoughts: asides from mass-production set-up costs, what would reeeally be the financial and practical restrictions of seamlessly sticking 2x 6D sensors worth of pixels next to eachother to create a 36 x 48cm or similar sensor? Yeah, I went there...

 

[Lawliet]

So I'm genuinely shocked that in my ignorance I believed there was a proper step up in sensor real estate to be lusted after, alas, er... this.

You always could go for backs like the IQx60/IQx80 or some of the newer HBlads - those have sensors that are roughly the size of the usable area of 6x4,5.
But then there is more then raw sensor size, like design goals or the lenses. A bit of extra resolution, but mostly the lenses and the leaf shutter for me.

 

[9VIII]

Bonus thoughts: asides from mass-production set-up costs, what would reeeally be the financial and practical restrictions of seamlessly sticking 2x 6D sensors worth of pixels next to eachother to create a 36 x 48cm or similar sensor? Yeah, I went there...

That was one thought I had as well.
If MF digital sensors are prohibitively expensive (if not impossible) to make because of yields, maybe they could stick four 35mm sensors together and get something that's nearly 3x2". They would have to do a fantastic job sticking it together, but it's possible that there's no way around it (yields of MF sensors will never be high enough).
For that matter that's probably how they arrived at the current size being implemented: How big can your sensor be without throwing out more than 50% of the wafers?

 

[bbasiaga]

Well, whatever it is it will be a disappointment. If for no other reason than expectations are so high and so varied. I mean, this thing is going to cost $5k, even though it should only cost $2.5k, so it had better have so much DR that it doesn't even have to have any shutter speed settings. Just take a frame and get the exposure set in post, right? Total fail if it can't deliver. I'm being reasonable though, as I am already admitting that they either are too greedy or aren't smart enough to figure out an good way to select DOF in post, so they will need to include an aperture setting in the lens/body system. We'll have to wait at least two more generations for them to get that right and release a worthwhile system....sheesh this world is a tough one.

In this very thread there are folks who desire a mirrorless/compact system, a full sized MF sensor, and the ability to use 35mm lenses (which probably don't have a large enough image circle nor enough outer edge correction if they did). So this thing is doomed to a flame war like all the rest of the camera releases.

Sigh,
Brian

 

[Haydn1971]

Thinking aloud, re a compact medium format system, could something along the lines of an EOS-M be done in that Sony brings a compact medium format mirror less camera out, bespoke mount with 3-4 bespoke compact lenses and a series of adaptor units for mounting medium format lenses at the correct flange distances.

 

[CarlTN]

Well, whatever it is it will be a disappointment. If for no other reason than expectations are so high and so varied. I mean, this thing is going to cost $5k, even though it should only cost $2.5k, so it had better have so much DR that it doesn't even have to have any shutter speed settings. Just take a frame and get the exposure set in post, right? Total fail if it can't deliver. I'm being reasonable though, as I am already admitting that they either are too greedy or aren't smart enough to figure out an good way to select DOF in post, so they will need to include an aperture setting in the lens/body system. We'll have to wait at least two more generations for them to get that right and release a worthwhile system....sheesh this world is a tough one.

In this very thread there are folks who desire a mirrorless/compact system, a full sized MF sensor, and the ability to use 35mm lenses (which probably don't have a large enough image circle nor enough outer edge correction if they did). So this thing is doomed to a flame war like all the rest of the camera releases.

Sigh,
Brian

It might cost that much initially, but if you wait until between Christmas and New Year's, perhaps 15 months after the initial release, it'll probably sell for less than half the initial street price...especially if they decide to abandon developing anymore lenses for it. About that time, suddenly it will be seen as a cool camera, and you'll see a lot more people shouting how great the IQ is, in a grandiose manner. Lots of cityscape shots, children in the parks, street shots, family shots, rainbows, yellow moons, green clovers, purple horseshoes..."look how sharp her eyes are", "check out the amazing dynamic range...don't you wish Canon could yada yada", etc.

 

[sanj]

It'll certainly be something "completely different" from other digital MF: it won't exist. Even though Sony appears to be trying the 'scatter gun' approach to camera systems I cannot believe they will want to develop a system that's in a segment of ever decreasing market share and something of a niche area now. They havent been able to make much inroads into the Nikon/Canon upper end of the DSLR market let alone MF.

I think this rumour's about as credible as the Canon MF one - CR 0.

The only reason the Full Frame vs Crop sensor debate isn't a Medium Format vs Full Frame is because of accessibility.

If Canon were to release a Medium Format solution, complete with new lenses many would drop full frame like a stone. As someone who shoots a H4D50 I can tell you there's no comparison between the two.

It's not even about MP for me either, 18mp is fine. Just massive pixels, large sensor please.

How much ever superior MF may be to full frame, which it must be, I cannot imagine dropping my 1dx. I love its fps and portability compared to MF.

 

[CarlTN]

It'll certainly be something "completely different" from other digital MF: it won't exist. Even though Sony appears to be trying the 'scatter gun' approach to camera systems I cannot believe they will want to develop a system that's in a segment of ever decreasing market share and something of a niche area now. They havent been able to make much inroads into the Nikon/Canon upper end of the DSLR market let alone MF.

I think this rumour's about as credible as the Canon MF one - CR 0.

The only reason the Full Frame vs Crop sensor debate isn't a Medium Format vs Full Frame is because of accessibility.

If Canon were to release a Medium Format solution, complete with new lenses many would drop full frame like a stone. As someone who shoots a H4D50 I can tell you there's no comparison between the two.

It's not even about MP for me either, 18mp is fine. Just massive pixels, large sensor please.

How much ever superior MF may be to full frame, which it must be, I cannot imagine dropping my 1dx. I love its fps and portability compared to MF.

Good point. But what if, in the future, perhaps in the second generation after the 1DX (not the next one coming in 2016, but the one after that), Canon has produced a lens lineup for an approximately 45mm wide sensor, that is similar to the current EF lineup...and this future "1DX" uses this sensor, and those lenses? (Those lenses in the same focal length, but not the same FOV...need not be much heavier than the current EF lenses, because the image circle is not that much larger.) What if you could get different resolutions of sensor in that same body (with the high MP version limited in its fps at that resolution...but able to shoot in sensor crop mode...and the lower MP versions able to shoot at 16 fps with servo AF tracking)? And what if this camera body, is smaller than current MF cameras such as Phase One, and Hasselblad, but only slightly larger than the current 1DX...and weighing only ounces more, if that (and definitely lighter than the Leica S2). And what if it didn't cost much more in current dollars (adjusted for inflation and other factors), than the current 1DX? What then? Would you say "no I am still going to stick to 'full frame', because that's what 35mm film used to be"?

A decade from now, not too many people will remember film. Kind of like how now, people don't seem to remember or care, what happened in the 1990's and early 2000's.

 

[vscd]

How much ever superior MF may be to full frame, which it must be, I
cannot imagine dropping my 1dx. I love its fps and portability compared
to MF.

Yeah, it's all about 12 Frames per seconds. And without ISO 204800
there is no way out. Damn, the 2 Cardslots are always full...

Did you ever make a photo planned in 2 hours, build up in 15 minutes,
loved for years? No? Think so.

MF is not for snapshooting but all about photography.

 

[Sporgon]

The only reason the Full Frame vs Crop sensor debate isn't a Medium Format vs Full Frame is because of accessibility.

If Canon were to release a Medium Format solution, complete with new lenses many would drop full frame like a stone. As someone who shoots a H4D50 I can tell you there's no comparison between the two.

It's not even about MP for me either, 18mp is fine. Just massive pixels, large sensor please.

I disagree with your first two sentences. Firstly the choice between MF and FF isn't just about accessibility. The larger sensor and equipment create their own restrictions on the photographer, something where the size of the 35mm has proved itself to be highly versatile, and MF, even in the castrated guise of 645 and most digital sizes have never been able to match.

Digital has given a massive IQ boost to this highly versatile 35mm size, and the IQ/Versatility/Ease of use/Costings mean that there are now a lot less people who would be prepared drop FF and jump on MF, because there is not the need as there once was.

There are enough people out there to purchase really expensive kit for the sake of it being 'unique'. I'm amazed at how many S2 units Leica sells: having stated earlier that Sony needs MF expenditure like a hole in the head, I suppose I can see the route of losing a load of taxable profit in MF development in the aim of giving the rest of their imaging products more credibility - a little like the F1 in car manufacturers case, because although Moodies gave Sony's stock junk status they still have a load of cash floating about. There are enough well heeled amateurs to buy a few units.

Regarding night and day of the H4 to FF it depends on application IMO. Yes the larger sensor is better, but so much of it depends upon the final print size, and the demand for the size and dpi, intended viewing distance etc is limited.