# More Medium Format Talk [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 13, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href=""></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>This and that

</strong>A few people have written in to confirm that Canon is exploring the possibilities of entering into the medium format segment.</p>
<p>We’re told nothing is imminent, but things could change quickly in the next few months. How long this has been going on is unknown, but it does sound like it’s a real possibility.</p>
<p>No one has confirmed or denied that Phase One is the medium format company in question.</p>
<p>Over at <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon_medium_format_2ff.html" target="_blank">NL</a>, they received an outright dismissal to the concept. However, a second source said Canon is going to be all in, and will announce in a big way some time in 2014.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## niklasR (Aug 13, 2013)

"No one has confirmed or denied that Phase One is the medium format company in question."

………
But mentioned? 8)


----------



## deleteme (Aug 13, 2013)

Sorry, count me as a skeptic.

What seems to be driving this is a wishful thought or utterance by someone that then gets circulated in the net gaining "credibility" by repetition.
Someone at Canon can inadvertently stoke this fire by saying "We have no comment".

This is mother's milk conspiracy theorists that are convinced that this is a peek under the cloak of silence on Canon's MF plans and aspirations.

When they unveil their MF world domination tour I will then have egg on my face. Until then I call baloney.


----------



## Ricku (Aug 13, 2013)

I hope they make it affordable.

How about it Canon? World's first affordable MF-system? That would get it to world dominating levels in no time.

The only reason to why me and everyone I know haven't bought MF, is because it is too damn expensive.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 13, 2013)

Normalnorm said:


> When they unveil their MF world domination tour I will then have egg on my face. Until then I call baloney.


Egg.... Baloney.... Now I'm hungry for the truth.... Or at least a fried egg and bologna sandwich....


----------



## rumorzmonger (Aug 13, 2013)

It would be really great if Canon could purchase the tooling, etc., from Kyocera (or whoever it now belongs to) and revive the Contax 645 line...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 13, 2013)

Interesting. One known source says 100% no way and the other known source says 100% yes in a big way. ;D


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 13, 2013)

Someone was just dying to put the Canon logo onto a MF body weren't they?


----------



## chauncey (Aug 13, 2013)

Price is a minor concern...an inability to utilize my collection of canon glass has been a deciding factor.


----------



## Aaron78 (Aug 14, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Interesting. One known source says 100% no way and the other known source says 100% yes in a big way. ;D



So,i guess it's 50/50 ;D


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Aug 14, 2013)

This WILL happen. I'm no expert, but the writing is on the wall IMO...

Canon needs growth. But where? Mirrorless, DSLR is flat. Point & Shoot is declining due to Smartphones. I think FF is going to get MUCH cheaper because APS-C will compete with smartphones. It's only a matter of time when you'll be able to set aperture/iso and shutter on them. So I think APS-C will die in 5 years. There is growth potential in video as more photographers are adding it to their arsenal. But that won't be too much growth really.

Medium Format. But how to do this is tricky. They can buy let's say Phase One. And that will show growth. But only for a year or two because they are only buying already established customers. Or, they can build their own MF cam and gear. This is a longer term, better route. But there is an initial big investment in infrastructure. So they may show a loss the first 2 - 3 years to recoup cost, but may have good growth for another 7 - 10 years. Taking Phase One/Hasselblad/Leica users. This is of course, that their option is equally if not better and with a good cost savings. Which I think Canon would do. I would say they would price one around $15k. That could kill the big MF players.


----------



## Zv (Aug 14, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> This WILL happen. I'm no expert, but the writing is on the wall IMO...
> 
> Canon needs growth. But where? Mirrorless, DSLR is flat. Point & Shoot is declining due to Smartphones. I think FF is going to get MUCH cheaper because APS-C will compete with smartphones. It's only a matter of time when you'll be able to set aperture/iso and shutter on them. So I think APS-C will die in 5 years. There is growth potential in video as more photographers are adding it to their arsenal. But that won't be too much growth really.
> 
> Medium Format. But how to do this is tricky. They can buy let's say Phase One. And that will show growth. But only for a year or two because they are only buying already established customers. Or, they can build their own MF cam and gear. This is a longer term, better route. But there is an initial big investment in infrastructure. So they may show a loss the first 2 - 3 years to recoup cost, but may have good growth for another 7 - 10 years. Taking Phase One/Hasselblad/Leica users. This is of course, that their option is equally if not better and with a good cost savings. Which I think Canon would do. I would say they would price one around $15k. That could kill the big MF players.



I doubt sports photographers will be using smartphones to cover field sports or wildlife photographers for that matter. APS-C is here to stay for a while. It offers a high quality vs low price option to those who need the reach. Yeah you can can use 1DX but that isn't always an option for regular people who still want fast fps. And then there's the photographers who have an APS-C body as a back up. Just look at the anticipation and demand for the 7D2. 

This MF thing will likely amount to nothing. I don't thing there is a huge market for it right now though perhaps Canon are making some enquiries about it as part of their R&D program. Why wouldn't they? They are in the imaging business after all and need to explore all their options.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Aug 14, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> This WILL happen. I'm no expert, but the writing is on the wall IMO...
> 
> Canon needs growth. But where? Mirrorless, DSLR is flat. Point & Shoot is declining due to Smartphones. I think FF is going to get MUCH cheaper because APS-C will compete with smartphones. It's only a matter of time when you'll be able to set aperture/iso and shutter on them. So I think APS-C will die in 5 years. There is growth potential in video as more photographers are adding it to their arsenal. But that won't be too much growth really.
> 
> Medium Format. But how to do this is tricky. They can buy let's say Phase One. And that will show growth. But only for a year or two because they are only buying already established customers. Or, they can build their own MF cam and gear. This is a longer term, better route. But there is an initial big investment in infrastructure. So they may show a loss the first 2 - 3 years to recoup cost, but may have good growth for another 7 - 10 years. Taking Phase One/Hasselblad/Leica users. This is of course, that their option is equally if not better and with a good cost savings. Which I think Canon would do. I would say they would price one around $15k. That could kill the big MF players.



I have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Aug 14, 2013)

I would like to see an affordable MF system by Canon.
I had several analog, and loved the IQ.
BUT: its a very small market, making profit would be difficult.
And Canon is not known for non- profit thinking or strategy.


----------



## Pitbullo (Aug 14, 2013)

If Canon buys a MF company, it could be to get their tech and patents, and still have the option to make a MF camera relatively cheap (dont need to develop everything in house, as lenses) if they want to get into that market later on.


----------



## pedro (Aug 14, 2013)

ignoring all other posts, this would at least give justice to all the fuzz about big MP sensors being tested in the wild...So, is the new 1Ds the 1MF?


----------



## Bruce75 (Aug 14, 2013)

*idea from metabones?*

Maybe we are going to have the equivalent of metabones to adapt L lenses on the canon medium format...


----------



## dryanparker (Aug 14, 2013)

pedro said:


> ignoring all other posts, this would at least give justice to all the fuzz about big MP sensors being tested in the wild...So, is the new 1Ds the 1MF?



My question is why they'd really need to go all-in MF when they can produce pretty solid FF technology approaching 50MP? That alone may pull a few MF users back to FF.



Ricku said:


> I hope they make it affordable.
> 
> How about it Canon? World's first affordable MF-system? That would get it to world dominating levels in no time.
> 
> The only reason to why me and everyone I know haven't bought MF, is because it is too damn expensive.



Well, as long as you don't mind shooting film (like me), the Mamiya RZ67 system is quite affordable these days.  Honestly though, flawless RZ gear sells for about 15-20% of its original cost. Pretty incredible.


----------



## Caps18 (Aug 14, 2013)

It all depends on how many MP they can get into a FF camera compared to how many MP they could get into a MF camera.

I'm sure there are professional phtographers that will buy a high megapixel Canon MF, especially if they can use some of their existing lenses.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 14, 2013)

dryanparker said:


> pedro said:
> 
> 
> > ignoring all other posts, this would at least give justice to all the fuzz about big MP sensors being tested in the wild...So, is the new 1Ds the 1MF?
> ...



Maybe they plan on bigger for MF ---something in the 80mp range. If they can make 50 mp FF sensors, then 80 + mp mf sensors shouldn't be that hard. 

My guess is it will be pricey though. If the 1 series bodies are in the 7k range, then expect over 10k - more $$$ than pentax, but less than hasslebad/leica...just guessing


----------



## dryanparker (Aug 14, 2013)

Caps18 said:


> It all depends on how many MP they can get into a FF camera compared to how many MP they could get into a MF camera.
> 
> I'm sure there are professional phtographers that will buy a high megapixel Canon MF, especially if they can use some of their existing lenses.



Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but pros won't be able to use their FF lenses on an MF body. It's an issue of the narrower image circle in FF lenses. My guess is if Canon made an EF mount on an MF body, you'd get some serious vignetting, which negates the value of an MF sensor. Bottom line: MF lenses are built differently than FF lenses.

Perhaps the TS-E lenses would show better results since they have larger image circles?


----------



## dryanparker (Aug 14, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Maybe they plan on bigger for MF ---something in the 80mp range. If they can make 50 mp FF sensors, then 80 + mp mf sensors shouldn't be that hard.
> 
> My guess is it will be pricey though. If the 1 series bodies are in the 7k range, then expect over 10k - more $$$ than pentax, but less than hasslebad/leica...just guessing



Phase One IQ and Leaf Credo backs both come in 80MP versions...they're roughly $40k. That puts a new Phase One system at 80MP in the neighborhood of $65k.


----------



## cayenne (Aug 14, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> This WILL happen. I'm no expert, but the writing is on the wall IMO...
> 
> Canon needs growth. But where? Mirrorless, DSLR is flat. Point & Shoot is declining due to Smartphones. I think FF is going to get MUCH cheaper because APS-C will compete with smartphones. It's only a matter of time when you'll be able to set aperture/iso and shutter on them. So I think APS-C will die in 5 years. There is growth potential in video as more photographers are adding it to their arsenal. But that won't be too much growth really.
> 
> Medium Format. But how to do this is tricky. They can buy let's say Phase One. And that will show growth. But only for a year or two because they are only buying already established customers. Or, they can build their own MF cam and gear. This is a longer term, better route. But there is an initial big investment in infrastructure. So they may show a loss the first 2 - 3 years to recoup cost, but may have good growth for another 7 - 10 years. Taking Phase One/Hasselblad/Leica users. This is of course, that their option is equally if not better and with a good cost savings. Which I think Canon would do. I would say they would price one around $15k. That could kill the big MF players.



Ok, I'm still a noob and learning my way around my first DSLR, the 5D3.

Aside from hearing the term Medium Format camera, I don't know much about it...just that it has higher resolution.

Why would a MF camera, especially if put out in a more main stream market like Canon would be doing...cost fscking $15K or more?!?

I was guessing they are pricey due to being a low sales niche type camera, but if it went main stream production why would it not cost closer to the ballpark price of a higher end DSLR?

What makes them so expensive?

Cayenne


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 14, 2013)

My dream camera is a high iso 22mp medium format one.

*Throws money at screen*


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 14, 2013)

cayenne said:


> What makes them so expensive?
> 
> Cayenne



The relatively huge (by comparison) sensor, and everything that goes along with that.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Aug 14, 2013)

The digital MF is too small to make money out of it.
And I dont see this as a growing market..... even our FF are a minority in the world of fotography.
Even Canon will not persuade too many to buy a MF.


----------



## LDS (Aug 14, 2013)

MF market is a small one, but it's a professional one - where users can spend a lot if they can see a real benefit in a product. MF is all about quality for demanding users in fields like fashion, advertising, arts, etc - images that may be shown at much larger sizes than the A4/A3 format, or reproduced carefully in very high quality prints.
A "cheap" MF line would find almost no customers, MF cameras are bulkier and less comfortable to use, and their lenses as well, DSLRs are better for most users, while professionals won't accept less quality.
If Canon will ever decide to target that market, of course the only way to get its market share is to deliver state-of-the-art sensors (60M+), cameras, and lenses. Not a simple jump for a company with little or no experience in the field, IIRC Nikon produced lenses for MF and LF cameras, while Canon never did.


----------



## gmrza (Aug 15, 2013)

alexanderferdinand said:


> The digital MF is too small to make money out of it.
> And I dont see this as a growing market..... even our FF are a minority in the world of fotography.
> Even Canon will not persuade too many to buy a MF.



I think you have hit the nail on the head here - MF is a tiny niche. A very large proportion of the film MF market moved to FF DSLRs when they became a viable alternative. MF digitial has really become a niche for those who have a business need for very specific image qualities.

Canon would probably only go into MF digital if that entry somehow enhanced its ability to sell DSLRs or to cover the cost of developing technology for DSLRs. As a standalone business unit, it makes no sense. An acquisition in this space would somehow need to be integrated with the rest of Canon's imaging business, and help to drive the business as a whole forward. That is no small challenge.


----------



## V8Beast (Aug 15, 2013)

Ricku said:


> The only reason to why me and everyone I know haven't bought MF, is because it is too damn expensive.



.....and the size, bulk, weight, and lethargic focusing and frame rates makes them unsuitable for anything that moves. I suppose that doesn't matter, though, for the hoards of landscape photographers on there ;D

Stuff an MF sensor in a 35mm body and I'm game


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Aug 15, 2013)

V8Beast said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > The only reason to why me and everyone I know haven't bought MF, is because it is too damn expensive.
> ...



The Leica S2.

I played with one at one of my local camera shops. When all the reps from all the companies were there showing off all their gear. Leica was represented. I tell ya... I played with the Canon 1DX, 5D3 and a Nikon D4... But the Leica S2 impressed me the most. I took some stupid, simple picture in the store with it.. And I was BLOWN AWAY by the image. The colors were so rich and detailed.

When I become a full time fashion/commercial photographer, I'll be picking one up an MF camera. The technological limitations of digital MF make it too limiting and expensive for most other types of photography that I have to make money on like portraits for regular people and events. 

But if Canon were to come out with something that is REALLY close to MF.... :-D


----------



## ahab1372 (Aug 15, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Maybe they plan on bigger for MF ---something in the 80mp range. If they can make 50 mp FF sensors, then 80 + mp mf sensors shouldn't be that hard.


Reminds me of the guy from Top Gear saying "How hard can it be?" before they go out and build amphibious cars that all sink elegantly in the lake 

But I don't know much about sensor production, so maybe you right.


----------



## Pi (Aug 15, 2013)

It makes sense. With the old sensor technology Canon are using, the only way to increase the pixel count and not hurt the IQ is to keep the pixels the same size and increase the size of the sensor.


----------



## KAS (Aug 15, 2013)

Maybe, the image circle would be big enough on some EF lenses (maybe just the TS-E lenses). I've played around with a RZ67, and it's really a pretty huge MF system. The film plane in 60mm x 70mm. The current digital MF offerings from Pentax (645D) and the new Leica S are both 30mm x 45mm give or take. Although it's bigger than FF's 24mm x 36mm, it's not THAT much bigger. Is it?

A 67 MF sensor would be astronomical to be sure, but maybe the 30x45 sensors won't be too much trouble. After all, the Pentax 645D is about the same price as the 1DX.

Historically, I believe, the benefit of MF wasn't just the megapickles. It was the increased dynamic range, lower noise, smoother gradations, aspect ratio, and that sort of thing. So, we might not see a huge increase in MPs compared to current offerings.

That being said, my hope is that Canon does come out with a MF system or a proper 1Ds replacement that has higher dynamic range (e.g., 16bit).


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 15, 2013)

I've always said that if there was a high iso performing MF solution I'd be all in for my wedding photography.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Aug 15, 2013)

According to dxo comparisions the MF sensors are quite behind the best FF and APS sensors, so there would be a chance to put the best technology form FF Cameras into a new MF syste, including Low Light and AF Performance, maybe on the cost of Frame rate.

If one of the major players in Imaging, maybe Sony or Canon this camera could avoid many of the current MF disadvantages, a way the Leica S&Pentax 645 go. But with more funds of the big companies even more should be possible.

But don't expect this would be a affordable system, i would expect this in the top range of MF systems. So almost all of us dreamerd would stay outside. So i think in forseeable future FF will stay the limit for most hobbyists


----------



## Pi (Aug 15, 2013)

wockawocka said:


> I've always said that if there was a high iso performing MF solution I'd be all in for my wedding photography.



I do not believe that this would help you. Larger sensor are better in high ISO (low light) only when you get shallower DOF (which you may not want), with faster lenses in equivalent terms. But MF lenses are not really faster in equivalent terms (they have larger f-numbers than, say, f/1.4; I think that f/2.8 is considered quite fast already). Also, right now larger sensors are quite inefficient but this might change.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 15, 2013)

Pi said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > I've always said that if there was a high iso performing MF solution I'd be all in for my wedding photography.
> ...


 ???

:-\

:


----------



## Pi (Aug 15, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > wockawocka said:
> ...



?

It is all about TOTAL LIGHT.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 15, 2013)

Or even TAKEN LIGHT


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2013)

hendrik-sg said:


> According to dxo comparisions the MF sensors are quite behind the best FF and APS sensors, so there would be a chance to put the best technology form FF Cameras into a new MF syste, including Low Light and AF Performance, maybe on the cost of Frame rate.



According to dxo comparisons, the sun rises in the west.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 15, 2013)

To me, it's about the lenses.... MF has a much wider field of view than Ff, which has a much wider field of view than APSC. If yow want wide, MFN has it best, if you go long, crop sensors, and FF somewhere in the middle.

Look at sport photography.....see all those people with the FF cameras and the 600mm lenses? With an APSC camera you can get the same field of view with a 400mm lens, but at the cost of image quality. A MF shooter would need a 1500mm lens to get the same field of view, but would have superior image quality. Obviously, this is not practical and MF will never fit this segment of the market.

Studio work is a different story... The lenses are more normal sized and you can put more pixels and/or better pixels on the subject, but for higher cost. It's not for me, but I can certainly see the market for it.

To my mind, use the most appropriate tool you can afford for the job..


----------



## dryanparker (Aug 15, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Look at sport photography.....see all those people with the FF cameras and the 600mm lenses? With an APSC camera you can get the same field of view with a 400mm lens, but at the cost of image quality. A MF shooter would need a 1500mm lens to get the same field of view, but would have superior image quality. Obviously, this is not practical and MF will never fit this segment of the market.



Regarding the field of view, you are spot-on. But readers should bear in mind, a 600mm lens is still 600mm regardless of platform. With MF, you get the FF field of view, plus a great deal more, so that 600mm appears to be a shorter focal length. (You may have been making this point.)

As for practicality, I shoot the RZ. It is HIGHLY impractical for most stuff you might use a FF to shoot. It's heavy and awkward. It's made for slow, methodical tripod work. That said, I absolutely love it.

My longest lens is currently a 210mm, which offers the field of view of 102mm on FF. The resolving power of the lenses is pretty incredible, and with a 60x70mm negative, my desktop scans are north of 65MP. Pretty cool!


----------



## Pi (Aug 15, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> To me, it's about the lenses.... MF has a much wider field of view than Ff, which has a much wider field of view than APSC.



How can a format (without a specified lens) have FOV? Does MF has something wider than 12mm on FF?


----------



## V8Beast (Aug 15, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> I played with one at one of my local camera shops. When all the reps from all the companies were there showing off all their gear. Leica was represented. I tell ya... I played with the Canon 1DX, 5D3 and a Nikon D4... But the Leica S2 impressed me the most. I took some stupid, simple picture in the store with it.. And I was BLOWN AWAY by the image. The colors were so rich and detailed.



Touche. The only medium format files I've had a chance to play with are files I hunted down online, but the tonal range and latitude in those files are astounding to say the least. 

Cost aside, I have to wonder how many printing mediums exist that can take advantage of what medium format has to offer over 35mm? Car mags, at least in America, are printed on terrible paper with terrible ink. I know an independently wealthy car photog that shoots with a D800 and a Hassleblad. I'm sure the color, DR, and tonal gradations look incredible on his monitor, but by the time they're printed on paper, those medium format images are indistinguishable from what you'd get out of a lowly 35mm Canon sensor. 

Obviously, there's much more budget and far superior printing in high-end fashion photography, but how many other forms of photography does that apply to that makes it practical to dish out the extra bucks for medium format? Even if I worked in an industry with the caliber of printing required to take advantage of medium format files, I'd never make enough money to justify the expense.


----------



## dryanparker (Aug 15, 2013)

Pi said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > To me, it's about the lenses.... MF has a much wider field of view than Ff, which has a much wider field of view than APSC.
> ...



Well, you use FF as a benchmark. The FOV is basically the crop factor...so APS-C is 1.6x compared to FF, so a 17-55mm zoom on a 7D is kinda like the 24-70mm on a 5D. This is because the APS-C sensor is physically smaller than FF, so the area of view it records is similarly reduced. This has the effect of cropping the FOV into what appears to be a longer focal length.

On the MF Mamiya RZ that I use, the "crop factor" is 0.48 because the 6x7cm film negative is so much larger than a FF sensor. This makes my 65mm fairly wide, with a 32mm FF equivalent FOV.


----------



## LDS (Aug 15, 2013)

V8Beast said:


> Cost aside, I have to wonder how many printing mediums exist that can take advantage of what medium format has to offer over 35mm? Car mags, at least in America, are printed on terrible paper with terrible ink.



Don't think about magazines - think about high-end catalogues (people in their own field - i.e. fashion, textiles, etc. have a really trained eye, you need high quality images), art reproduction, museum collections imaging, old photo copies, and so on. This images may be printed carefully on high-end paper, maybe in limited batches at high prices. That's where MF (and LF) has been always used, and still has some edge. Sure, it's a different market than the wedding/wildlife/sport one where other formats rules, it's almost all work with camera on a tripod and carefully designed images, but it exists, and it is paid well.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 16, 2013)

* HOW MUCH?*


----------



## dryanparker (Aug 16, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> * HOW MUCH?*



* A LOT.*


----------



## JoseB (Aug 16, 2013)

How about one Yashica TLR with it's negatives scanned at 4800 dpi? That gives about >128 MP doesn't it? 
I don't know the price...


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 16, 2013)

JoseB said:


> How about one Yashica TLR with it's negatives scanned at 4800 dpi? That gives about >128 MP doesn't it?
> I don't know the price...



All hi resolution scans of film do is give you lots of detail of the grain structure. A 21MP FF digital sensor has far more subject detail than a 50MP scanned 135 format film image.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 16, 2013)

I'm pretty convinced that the latest FF sensors have left MF film behind - in everything IQ wise. Some people still argue about more colours from film, but how are you going to view it ? As a transparency on a lightbox ? As soon as you scan, print, view on a monitor etc that ephemeral difference has been taken out anyway.


----------



## Pi (Aug 16, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> I'm pretty convinced that the latest FF sensors have left MF film behind - in everything IQ wise. Some people still argue about more colours from film, but how are you going to view it ? As a transparency on a lightbox ? As soon as you scan, print, view on a monitor etc that ephemeral difference has been taken out anyway.



In the good old times, people printed with enlargers and projected slides to big screens (bigger than our monitors). I agree that digital surpasses film, same format, at least, but I still remember how my jaw dropped when I saw landscape Velvia slides projected on a high quality screen. Today's digital projectors are much worse than that, even the high end home theater ones. I still have the slides but not the screen and the projector, and the digital scans are nothing exciting. Maybe because I scanned them with a Nikon film scanner?


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 16, 2013)

Pi said:


> In the good old times, people printed with enlargers and projected slides to big screens (bigger than our monitors). I agree that digital surpasses film, same format, at least, but I still remember how my jaw dropped when I saw landscape Velvia slides projected on a high quality screen. Today's digital projectors are much worse than that, even the high end home theater ones. I still have the slides but not the screen and the projector, and the digital scans are nothing exciting. Maybe because I scanned them with a Nikon film scanner?



I'm with you 100% on the wonder of well projected film transparencies. It's something that has been lost to the digital generation actually. 

I remember when I was a young lad at school we had Nick Estcourt visit, a famous mountaineer who was tragically killed two years later in an avalanche whilst climbing K2 in 1978. 

His lecture on the climb - I think it was the Matterhorn - was based upon slides taken by the climbers, and they were fantastic, especially projected to around 10 m wide. At the time I decided - right I want to produce pictures like that !!

I often wonder what happened to his wonderful collection of slides.


----------



## dryanparker (Aug 16, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> All hi resolution scans of film do is give you lots of detail of the grain structure. A 21MP FF digital sensor has far more subject detail than a 50MP scanned 135 format film image.



Hmm...that simply has not been my experience. You mean your 4000px digital image at 100% has more detail than my 8000px film scan at 50%? At that size, I'm really not sure if it matters! The truth is a well-shot, well-scanned film negative offers a phenomenal level of detail, provided you've done your job behind the lens.

As for the grain structure, that's only an issue for people who think images have to be perfectly noise-free to be great. (I don't happen to be one of those folks.)


----------



## unfocused (Aug 16, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> The investments are huge, profitability is low with MF
> 
> WHY????
> 
> ...



Exactly why I don't believe we will be seeing a general purpose medium format Canon any time soon. As I said before, I can see it for military, police or security purposes, but general use? Nope. 

I put it in the same category as a new APS-H camera or a full frame mirrorless camera. That is, they are about as likely to materialize as they are to be delivered by bigfoot riding a unicorn.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 16, 2013)

dryanparker said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > All hi resolution scans of film do is give you lots of detail of the grain structure. A 21MP FF digital sensor has far more subject detail than a 50MP scanned 135 format film image.
> ...



When I compare 24"x36" Cibachromes from Velvia direct optical prints, or Lightjet prints from drum scans, they don't compare in detail to the same sized images printed from 21MP 135 format digital cameras. That is why I don't use my low use 1VHS's and went 1Ds MkIII's.

As for noise, my eyes see no noise, my digital camera records effectively zero noise at the iso's I use (sub 400, the same as the film I shot), why should I accept the compromise of noise/grain in film prints? Noise and grain are not "natural" looking, they are defects that we became accustomed to due to technological inadequacies, those inadequacies are no longer there so why accept them?

I am in the camp that firmly believes noise and grain do not add detail, as so many seem to misunderstand, they are comparatively crude devices that can be used to some stylish effect, if that is what is desired. Further, it is a lot easier to add the effect than take it away, I'll take the time and skill to shoot noise/grain free whenever possible and add in post if I want the style.


----------



## PVS (Aug 16, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> dryanparker said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Have you checked corners or periphery of your eyes recently, I'm pretty much sure you don't get that much blur and lack of sharpness with any of the lens you might be using on that 1Dsmk3? Also the flare, when was the last time you were looking at the sun? Flare, blurry corners and other abberations are quite natural things yet most of the photogs try to avoid them.. Sorry, that 'natural' talk was the most invalid argument I heard recently. 
People should just stick with their own preferences without giving any further explanations otherwise when someone writes a nonsense like the mentioned one it just gives a ground for suspicion other arguments in their posts might be corrupted as well.
I have yet to see architecture/landscape print shot with MF/35mm DSLR which could rival depth and DR most of the stuff shot on 120s or bigger.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 17, 2013)

dryanparker said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > * HOW MUCH?*
> ...



Ok...count me *out *


----------



## Inst (Aug 18, 2013)

Canon's point of view is that they have a ton of 500nm fabs. These are extremely old fabs working on ancient processes, but they've been fully paid for, are relatively cheap, and produce sensors at high yield.

It is also the reason Canon can't compete with Sony with regards to sensors; most of Nikon's high DR sensors are produced on a 180nm process, allowing for more pixels as well as a more sophisticated / advanced A2D converter architecture that allows for lower read noise.

It's not a matter of design choice; Canon literally could not make a D800E if they tried: they simply do not have the technology.

Now, Canon currently IS working on its own 180nm technology, but first, Sony has already begun to move to 90nm for their P&S / Smartphone sensors, and second Canon only uses its 180nm right now for its own P&S, instead of larger format sensors.

===

So on a technology basis, what is correct for Canon to do? On one hand, it needs to chase Sony with higher megapixel and finer-architectured equipment; it's working on that, but on the other hand, it has all this technology and capital invested in its high-yield / low-cost 500nm production process.

What it can do with its 500nm fabs is to move them to medium format. The fabs are now essentially free; they've paid off themselves through years of arduous work producing APS-C and FF sensors. The fabs have extremely reliable technology; manufacturing experience has allowed them to drastically reduce the flaw rate in both APS-C and FF; they probably make more profit per FF or APS-C camera produced than Sony/Nikon, since Sony/Nikon needs to use a more advanced and thus less mature profit. It stands to reason that Canon has a reasonable shot at cheaply producing Medium Format sensors at a price none of the other producers can compete at, with better technology and higher quality than the existing producers.

With regards to the medium-format industry, Canon would likely be able to dominate the industry as its technology seems to be more advanced / mature than existing medium format technology. If you look at existing medium format cameras, many of them, while having far superior resolution to Nikon and other FF devices, they are lacking in high-iso performance and dynamic range. Simply by moving Canon's technology in, you would have something that is drastically superior to existing medium-formats.

On the other hand, by entering the medium-format market with an affordable but extremely capable 3k camera, Canon would then take the performance crown from Nikon. A Canon medium-format would automatically be the best-performing camera in the industry, and the halo effect from having Canon super-medium formats would aid sales in the rest of Canon's industry.

The best part? Sony and Nikon can't chase Canon into the medium-format market. With the 180nm technology, the likely flaw rate will be excessive, so they can't economically compete with Canon in MF. They might be able to produce a MF camera that outperforms Canon's variant due to its superior read-noise at low ISOs, but that MF would likely cost at least twice as much as Canon's offering.

As for the bodies; if Canon opts to buy Phase-One or some other producer, it can easily inherit that company's existing line of lenses. If the body system it supports has a longer flange distance than the EOS system, then that's great; because then Canon can use .5x wide-converters mounted between the lens mount and the EOS lens to adapt the lens for the MF camera.

It won't necessarily be that easy; afaik, you need a different wide converter for each lens, or otherwise need an adjustable wide converter, and there will be image quality degradation as a result, but a Canon MF system would then be supplied with a full range of lenses.


----------



## Inst (Aug 19, 2013)

What I'm suggesting is that Canon move its APS-C work and some of its FF work from the 500nm foundries to their 180nm foundries. In that case, the sensor lines are freed up for MF.

Stiching them together; I'm not sure how much it would cost; MF is 4x the area of FF on 6x7 and maybe 2x the area on 64.5.

With regards to DR; a larger sensor automatically translates into more signal, improving the DR by providing a larger sensor size; hence the DR difference between APS-C and FF. Your shadows will still be just as noisy as on FF, but you have a lot more pixels that can be burnt off to reduce noise.

Or, you could do the Magic Lantern-style dual ISO trick where every other line of pixels is adjusted for high / low ISO, giving you greater DR at the cost of effectively losing half your pixels to improper exposure. With 75+ MP, you can do that and still have 37.5 effective MP.


----------



## Pi (Aug 19, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> NO
> it depends on the read out noise=DR , and make a pixel binning etc at base iso destroy the resolution
> stitched sensors is time consuming and the cost is much higher



He was not taking about stitching sensors or pixel binning. If you have a larger sensor with "pixels of the same size and quality" (same readout noise per pixel), at base ISO, the noise on image level will drop. This is equivalent to stitching images, indeed, but stitching is just a mental exercise. 

EDIT: your post is hard to read for the lack of punctuation, I may not understand it well.


----------



## KyleSTL (Aug 19, 2013)

Bruce75 said:


> Maybe we are going to have the equivalent of metabones to adapt L lenses on the canon medium format...





Inst said:


> As for the bodies; if Canon opts to buy Phase-One or some other producer, it can easily inherit that company's existing line of lenses. *If the body system it supports has a longer flange distance than the EOS system, then that's great; because then Canon can use .5x wide-converters mounted between the lens mount and the EOS lens to adapt the lens for the MF camera.*


Impossible, a wide-converter inherently requires a shorter flange distance than is native to the lens (unless someone knows differently). That is the reason that the Metabones uses only SLR lenses with only mirrorless cameras (not APS DSLR cameras).

Also, there are multiple digital medium format sizes:

44 x 33mm (Pentax 645D, Hasselblad - multiple, Mamiya Aptus 8 & Credo 40)
45 x 30 mm (Leica S2)
48 x 36 mm (Mamiya Aptus 5 & 7)
49.1 x 36.7 mm (Hasselblad - multiple)
53.7 x 40.2 mm (Hasselblad H4D-60, Mamiya Aptus 12 & Credo 60 & 80)
56 x 36 mm (Mamiya Aptus 10)
*56 x 41.5 mm - Film '645' Format*
*70 x 56 mm - Film '6x7' format*

Essentially, digital has not yet quite made it to the medium formats everyone refers to from the film days. The Pentax 645D doesn't have nearly the same advantage over FF cameras as 645 film did over 35mm.

Size and weight comparison:

Canon 1D X Canon 5D Mark III Leica S2
1540g 950g 1410 g
158 x 163 x 84 mm 152 x 116 x 76 mm 160 x 120 x 80 mm

So the Leica S2 is slightly larger than the 5D Mark III (although almost 50% heavier), and lighter than the 1D X (and much smaller). Medium format doesn't have to be huge like a 120/220 camera as Leica has shown (although, again the sensor is smaller and can therefore have a smaller mirror and a shorter flange distance than the film formats).


----------



## Inst (Aug 20, 2013)

I suppose I mean shorter, I guess.

I'm looking at Mamiya Press and other Rangefinder 6x9 systems.

I think if Canon opts to use a rangefinder-style MF system with wide-adapters for EF lenses and EVF, it would have a winner.

Such a rangefinder-style MF would then be a competitor not only to existing MF systems, but also to Canon's own 1DX line and Nikon's D4.

===

Of course, the big question is whether or not Canon would be able to produce an economical 6x4.5, 6x7, or even 6x9 sensor.


----------



## KyleSTL (Aug 20, 2013)

Inst said:


> I suppose I mean shorter, I guess.
> 
> I'm looking at Mamiya Press and other Rangefinder 6x9 systems.
> 
> ...


Ah, I see what you are saying, but your thinking is backwards.

The Metabones wide adapter only works by making the image circle smaller with a higher intensity of light per unit area of image sensor plane (i.e. FF -> APS-C), hence the aperture advantage of 0.7x. A tele-converter (like Canon's 1.4x and 2x) works by enlarging the image circle to increase the 'reach' of a lens which inherently has an aperture penalty equivalent to its focal length multiplier.

In theory (depending on the native flange distance of the proposed Canon MF system), Canon could produce an adapter to use their MF lenses on FF DSLRs with an aperture advantage. I doubt Canon would produce a teleconverter to enlarge the image circle for FF lenses to fill a MF image sensor.


----------



## Inst (Aug 21, 2013)

I think I've thoroughly confused myself as to what I mean.

I mean that if Canon releases an MF camera in the rangefinder / EVF format, what Canon can do is to just release a 2x teleconverter specialized for their unit.

The point is that the MF camera instantly gains access to all of the EOS EF mount line-up, so that you don't need to miss out on any of the versatility of an FF camera lens range, only perhaps the best possible image quality, since pushing the light from an FF lens through a teleconverter to fit a MF camera will likely, at the very least, degrade resolution, and in the worst case scenario give you pea soup.


----------



## ragmanjin (Aug 21, 2013)

I seriously hope they don't buy out Phase One. Phase and Dalsa have a beautiful thing going, and throwing Canon's now-outdated sensor tech into the mix would only turn gold to straw — not to mention it would have to be heavily AA-filtered and video-optimized to meet Canon standards. When Phase moved from Kodak to Dalsa, they lost the long exposures but gained worldwide acclaim for their colour accuracy and huge dynamic range. And, finally, after years of co-research and development between the two companies, they've brought hour-long exposures back on a Dalsa sensor, mixing the company's class-leading patented high-ISO pixel binning with Kodak's drool-envoking long exposures from yesteryear. Canon has nothing to add to either side of that; lobster-red skin tones and three less stops of dynamic range with all kinds of noise at any exposure longer than 30 seconds. Which is garbage for us stills-only photographers.
I keep reading posts from users asking Canon to bring in the first affordable medium format system. Look at the Pentax 645D. At the time of writing this, its price is about on par with that of the 1D X. And in true Pentax style, any MF Pentax lens you find in any pawn shop will absolutely work with the system. That, my friends, is cheap glass. Can't be beaten for price. A close second is second-hand Leaf backs attached to Mamiya AFD bodies. You can actually get yourself a whole 20+ MP kit with a couple lenses for less than $5000 if you're looking in the right places, and it allows you to switch between film and digital. I've got the DF+, but my Phase digital back pretty much lives on my Mamiya AFD. Kill the backup before you challenge the master, right? But if Canon buys Phase, they'd be killing the master to become the backup. That just won't do.


----------



## Pi (Aug 21, 2013)

ragmanjin said:


> ... and three less stops of dynamic range...



As far as DR is concerned - if Canon just "stitches" a few existing sensors, it would have the same DR, and Nikon would have higher DR. Format matters.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Aug 21, 2013)

why all this discussion about sensor size? "medium format" appears to be whatever the vendor says it is as long as it's "bigger" than 24x36.. aps-c size sensors often take equivalent photos to full frame sensors for everyone but maniac pixel peepers. Who's to say that canon won't come out with a roughly 32X32 sensor - gain the square format appeal of medium format,
gain approximately 10-15 % more sensor space with resultant megapixel increase and define it as "medium format" all the while within the normal 35mm image circle.


----------



## Inst (Aug 22, 2013)

That's why the 500nm process matters and MF matters; for all DSLR sensors Canon uses 500nm, which imposes a minimum pixel size (limits max MP) and limits the size of microfeatures like the A/D converter architecture Sony uses to achieve higher DR.

Canon literally CANNOT produce the same technology Sony is using, not until they move onto a 180nm process.

Even then, when they move onto a 180nm process, what do they do with the existing 500nm fabs?

Hence, start producing MF on the 500nm process fabs and move the rest of the DSLR to the 180nm.


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 28, 2013)

KyleSTL said:


> Bruce75 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe we are going to have the equivalent of metabones to adapt L lenses on the canon medium format...
> ...



Good info and comparisons. I was aware that none of the digital sensors were as large as 6x7 film.

If Canon does their own MF cameras and lenses, why would the price be any less than Phase One?


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 28, 2013)

ragmanjin said:


> I seriously hope they don't buy out Phase One. Phase and Dalsa have a beautiful thing going, and throwing Canon's now-outdated sensor tech into the mix would only turn gold to straw — not to mention it would have to be heavily AA-filtered and video-optimized to meet Canon standards. When Phase moved from Kodak to Dalsa, they lost the long exposures but gained worldwide acclaim for their colour accuracy and huge dynamic range. And, finally, after years of co-research and development between the two companies, they've brought hour-long exposures back on a Dalsa sensor, mixing the company's class-leading patented high-ISO pixel binning with Kodak's drool-envoking long exposures from yesteryear. Canon has nothing to add to either side of that; lobster-red skin tones and three less stops of dynamic range with all kinds of noise at any exposure longer than 30 seconds. Which is garbage for us stills-only photographers.
> I keep reading posts from users asking Canon to bring in the first affordable medium format system. Look at the Pentax 645D. At the time of writing this, its price is about on par with that of the 1D X. And in true Pentax style, any MF Pentax lens you find in any pawn shop will absolutely work with the system. That, my friends, is cheap glass. Can't be beaten for price. A close second is second-hand Leaf backs attached to Mamiya AFD bodies. You can actually get yourself a whole 20+ MP kit with a couple lenses for less than $5000 if you're looking in the right places, and it allows you to switch between film and digital. I've got the DF+, but my Phase digital back pretty much lives on my Mamiya AFD. Kill the backup before you challenge the master, right? But if Canon buys Phase, they'd be killing the master to become the backup. That just won't do.



What are you shooting with an hour long exposure?


----------



## ragmanjin (Sep 7, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> ragmanjin said:
> 
> 
> > I seriously hope they don't buy out Phase One. Phase and Dalsa have a beautiful thing going, and throwing Canon's now-outdated sensor tech into the mix would only turn gold to straw — not to mention it would have to be heavily AA-filtered and video-optimized to meet Canon standards. When Phase moved from Kodak to Dalsa, they lost the long exposures but gained worldwide acclaim for their colour accuracy and huge dynamic range. And, finally, after years of co-research and development between the two companies, they've brought hour-long exposures back on a Dalsa sensor, mixing the company's class-leading patented high-ISO pixel binning with Kodak's drool-envoking long exposures from yesteryear. Canon has nothing to add to either side of that; lobster-red skin tones and three less stops of dynamic range with all kinds of noise at any exposure longer than 30 seconds. Which is garbage for us stills-only photographers.
> ...



Light painting. Star trails. Lower than low light shots. Having the option to flick the shutter, go for dinner and come back to end the exposure offers a lot of freedom and opens a lot of creative doors.


----------

