# Nikon goes Medium Format?



## duydaniel (Sep 11, 2013)

Nikon release patents of MF lens
http://nikonrumors.com/2013/09/10/the-latest-nikon-patents-100mm-f2-5-medium-format-lens-rgbw-ae-array.aspx/#comments


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 11, 2013)

Times are sad for Nikon, their Mirrorless camera has lost them huge amounts of money, their P&S sales like everyone's is tanking, their DSLR sales is better but not wonderful.


Like everyone else, they are casting around for something to bring in more $$$, but MF is not it. The economy is the root of the camera sales issues, along with the camera phones. The solution they should be looking at is to concentrate on their core competency, improve customer service, and keep loyal customers coming back.

I really hope that their sales pickup.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 11, 2013)

I feel like I did MY part for Nikon over the last year+; 5 bodies, some flashes and a pile of glass.
If they bring out an MF digital I will consider it.
And I likely WILL wait to see how it'll compare to an MF Canon and maybe even Pentax will get around to updating the 645D in the next year or 2.
_Affordable_ MF will be great if there's more to choose from.
But.. I'm pretty sure I don't NEED an MF system at this time, d800 was a huge leap in the right direction for some of my shooting.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Sep 11, 2013)

Interesting ... thanks for sharing


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 11, 2013)

Didn't Nikon make lenses for early Bronicas and a folding MF camera too at one point?


----------



## AmbientLight (Sep 11, 2013)

Oh, this is getting rather interesting.

Based on rumors it may look like both Nikon and Canon are kind of retreating from the shrinking point-and-shoot market towards medium format. Could this be a deliberate move to distance themselves from the smart phone camera market?


----------



## MrFotoFool (Sep 11, 2013)

If the patent is only for a lens (and no cameras), maybe they will start making lenses for existing MF systems. As someone mentioned above, they used to make some for Bronica. Considering the huge investment, I would be very surprised if they came up with an all new MF system. Remember, the Canon MF rumors are that they will buy an existing company.


----------



## LewisShermer (Sep 11, 2013)

Jaguar Landrover basically survived by cutting out the bottom end of the market totally and only catering for the Luxury market. It's the way forward.


----------



## AmbientLight (Sep 11, 2013)

LewisShermer said:


> Jaguar Landrover basically survived by cutting out the bottom end of the market totally and only catering for the Luxury market. It's the way forward.



That's a pretty good example. I believe this is what will happen in a similar way to the photography market. The only way forward is for Canon and Nikon to put some serious distance between themselves and smart phone vendors catering to the mass market. Basically the traditional vendors need to give up on the point-and-shoot consumer market, which promises only minimum margins in sales revenue. Even in the mirrorless market net margins in sales are not counting so much toward profitability as the fate of Nikon's 1 system has shown in a pretty ghastly picture. Nikon calculated with higher prices to get back their investment in R&D, but now the system has failed, so they go down to low prices to cut their losses. Canon can look forward to a brighter future with their EOS-M-system, at least after their success with the 70D's autofocus.


----------



## LewisShermer (Sep 11, 2013)

If DSLR's started at the prosumer level of the XXD and £1500 / $1999 then it'd sort the men from the boys so to speak. because they cost more they'd have better technology in them, less complaints about something like a 500D not being as good as a 5Diii and therefore the company has deliberately crippled them.

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

do away with the manufacture of EF-s Lenses

You'd have the XD range of full frame sensors from £2500 / $3000 (6D / 5D / 1Dx ranges)

Then on top of that would be the high end medium format camera with a fitting much like the EF-s where (lets call the new range of super lenses S-EF) they're not forward only backward compatible. you can use the S-EF on an EF mount but not the EF on an S-EF mount. It'd probably take a couple of years but Jaguar didn't do it in one day. Jaguar are now one of the largest manufacturing successes during the economic downturn.

All this would also bring a much needed affluence back into the pro-photographic world.

you either then have your smartphone or a high-end DSLR leaving a much bigger gap for people to aspire to. you'll still have all your old XXXXD XXXD XXD knocking around for years and they'll do as great a job as they've always done. but the 1Dx won't be the be all and end all of this side of the market.

I'm sure Mr. Nikon and Mr. Canon have had this discussion on their weekly meet up to discuss what their plans for the future are. Do you think they flip a coin to see who can have the better sensor / higher frame rate for the coming generation of cameras or they just take it in turns?


----------



## Sith Zombie (Sep 12, 2013)

The race is on! I doubt the MF market could support 2 new players, so it would be a question of who provides first. I'm still unsure on wether it's a good market to get into anyway, sure you can sell the gear for a premium but how many are buying? Some MF shooters might even consider 'downgrading' to FF once we start seeing 50+ mp?


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 12, 2013)

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.


----------



## sdsr (Sep 12, 2013)

LewisShermer said:


> If DSLR's started at the prosumer level of the XXD and £1500 / $1999 then it'd sort the men from the boys so to speak. because they cost more they'd have better technology in them, less complaints about something like a 500D not being as good as a 5Diii and therefore the company has deliberately crippled them.
> 
> for cannon the entry level may be a APS-H 7Dii and the 70D would be the last in the APS-C cameras.
> 
> ...



I think "invite, with fingers crossed" might be more accurate than "bring". Shades of Gourmet Night at Fawlty Towers - "No riff-raff"....


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Sep 12, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> 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 think that with enough volume, there is space in the market for a continuum of sensor sizes. From MF, through FF, APS-C, MFT, to 1 inch. Anything that is larger than sensor in mobile phones. Also, we'll see new unusual form factors example of which is Sony QX10 and QX100, which use mobile phone as a viewfinder. personally, if not for my intense dislike of EVF, I would be quite tempted with MFT cameras due to availability of excellent and very light and small lenses for these cameras.

Specifically for MF, I would see it as niche market for fashion, product and landscape photography. For these applications a classical DSLR design is not necessary. External computer or tablet may be used as a viewfinder. This would make these cameras cheaper to manufacture. The old lenses from Hasselblad, Bronica etc. would be able to be reused through an adapter, as the new mount would have much shorter flange distance. This will allow plenty of time to develop new lenses for the new MF mount.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 12, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> 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.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 12, 2013)

AmbientLight said:


> LewisShermer said:
> 
> 
> > Jaguar Landrover basically survived by cutting out the bottom end of the market totally and only catering for the Luxury market. It's the way forward.
> ...



agreed....cell phones are for sure killing the P&S markets. And to make a P&S that really stands out from cell phones, one that people would buy and remember to take with them when they go out...it's too much R&D for a product that can charge at max $500 for. I would have no issues with both Canon and Nikon phasing out the bulk of the P&S lines and pushing those resources to 35mm...i guess MF is alright too, but unless they are going to put out a pentaxlike MF rig, the price point will be too high for most of us....


----------



## LewisShermer (Sep 12, 2013)

9VIII said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## AmbientLight (Sep 12, 2013)

LewisShermer said:


> Do I have to point out that the whole point of a DSLR is the mirror??



;D ;D ;D This is really funny. As if you would suddenly get better image quality with smaller sensors and possibly without optical viewfinders.

No wild marketing claims please regarding the mirrorless future displacing DSLRs. If you take a look at mirrorless sales volumes you will find that's just a dead horse to ride on:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/08/09/weak-demand-for-mirrorless-cameras-hurting-manufacturers

What this market development shows pretty clearly is that moving upwards from producing point-and-shoot cameras to producing mirrorless cameras didn't really work out for many vendors.

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.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 12, 2013)

9VIII said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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...



Don Haines said:


> 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 agree on most points, but, for wedding work, i don't see MF taking off in the wedding world until a few things get retooled:

1) processors need to be faster and more robust - because the current burst rate for MF bodies is like 1 shot every second. With a larger sensor, you get a larger mirror, and I'd say it may be a while before we get full MF with decent MP's that can do any kind of burst mode...

2) related to the above, buffer size. Even if you can squeeze out 2 fps...each image is going to be huge - For a wedding shooter this may be an issue

3) ISO range - most MF rigs cap out at ISO 1600, and most of what I have read says that you really don't want to go past ISO 400. both Canon and Nikon would probably be interested in pushing the ISO's and processors and buffer limits - but I am betting on a slower progression because ---if the quality falls off after iso 800 then wouldn't it just be more sensible to use a 35mm?

summing it up IMO - I can really only see high end wedding photographers snagging a full digital MF rig. Shot in the dark guess at cost would be in the 10-20K range (*and who knows what the cost of the glass would be). All that $$$$ for a body that is pretty much going to sit in the bag for 90% of the day. I think the tech surrounding the sensor has a lot of catching up to do to take on more than the posed formal shots of weddings. For ceremonies, you need more ISO (most ceremony venues don't allow flash, so your depending on aperture and ISO). For receptions, you need more ISO, or, your using way more external light that you should to keep any of the ambient lighting in play. this would just be an unfeasible investment for the majority of wedding photographers. The high end ones, the ones whose packages start at 10K, the ones who draw in clients that want huge canvas prints and are willing to shell out the dough for it --- those guys can justify the cost. If your average wedding is 2k, with maybe $300-600 in print sales, then MF makes absolutely no sense - that $$$ is better spent in advertising, taking courses, etc, etc....


----------



## AmbientLight (Sep 12, 2013)

Let's assume that sales into the professional market only will not cover R&D investment in new medium format systems.

What I expect instead is that Canon and Nikon might go after hobbyists with some disposable income shooting landscapes or shooting models in studios. This is not a huge market, but it should be highly lucrative. This would imply that sales volumes will be intended to be significantly higher compared to today's rather specialized medium format offerings, resulting in higher price tags compared to full frame photo gear, but lower price tags compared to existing medium format offerings. If this can be combined with offering high quality products showing significant advances in technology, existing medium format vendors not being somehow cooperating with one of the big vendors will suffer.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 12, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



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 (Sep 12, 2013)

LewisShermer said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



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).



AmbientLight said:


> 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 (Sep 12, 2013)

9VIII said:


> 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 (Sep 13, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> ...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 (Sep 17, 2013)

LewisShermer said:


> 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 (Sep 17, 2013)

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


----------



## caruser (Sep 17, 2013)

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 (Sep 17, 2013)

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 (Sep 17, 2013)

9VIII said:


> 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 (Sep 18, 2013)

pharp said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


----------



## pharp (Sep 18, 2013)

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 (Sep 18, 2013)

pharp said:


> 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 (Sep 18, 2013)

LewisShermer said:


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



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


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 18, 2013)

LewisShermer said:


> 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 (Sep 18, 2013)

9VIII said:


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



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 (Oct 2, 2013)

9VIII said:


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



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 (Oct 2, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > LewisShermer said:
> ...



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 (Oct 2, 2013)

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


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 2, 2013)

Alrik89 said:


> 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 (Oct 2, 2013)

Alrik89 said:


> 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...


----------



## duydaniel (Oct 4, 2013)

maybe not necessarily MF
but something like crop factor of 0.8 or something would be nice


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 4, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> maybe not necessarily MF
> but something like crop factor of 0.8 or something would be nice



Why ?


----------



## duydaniel (Oct 4, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> duydaniel said:
> 
> 
> > maybe not necessarily MF
> ...



I think MF would discourage users due to its size.
FF size camera is perfect and I think you can squeeze in a larger sensor without compromising the size.


----------

