# Medium Format Dreams



## Ozarker (Apr 23, 2019)

Wouldn't it be nice if there were a medium format camera from Canon along the lines of the RP? Just call it the Canon MFR.  Nothing fancy, just a basic camera in MF that would come in at < $2,500. I don't mean MF size like the Pentax 645Z. More a sensor the size of the one found in Phase One's 100MP XF camera (53.7×40.4mm). Then just a couple of really good zooms. Anyway, I know Canon would probably never do this, but it is nice to dream.  (I have no idea what a sensor that size costs.) Never mind. I just looked it up. I need a permanent roof over my head first.  Stupid dreams.


----------



## Bennymiata (Apr 23, 2019)

You're not the only one.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Apr 24, 2019)

It would be nice indeed. I have personally taken one photo with a medium format (film) camera. I was out shooting with a photographer friend a few years ago and in addition to our digital SLR's he had I think a Mamiya 6x7? He had one roll (which is ten shots I think) and he let me take the last one. It was at the downtown train depot with a small monument in the foreground. Not a ground-breaking photo, but when I looked at the developed print it just had a depth that was more than I would see with a comparable shot on my 35mm size equipment. Hard to describe until you see it for yourself. If someone made a good digital medium format for less than 5K (pro zoom lens included) then I might jump into it.


----------



## Boudreaux&Thibodeaux (Apr 24, 2019)

The thing with film is that the "sensor" part of the equation remained essentially invariable as the format size increased. Therefore, you might think of it as 2-1/4 or 4x5, but should realize that Tri-X pan was essentially the same Tri-X as you'd have in your Canon Snappy. With digital sensors, this is not usually the case as sensor size increases. You might like the great sensor on your 5D4, but if it was essentially scaled up to 54 x 40.5 it would be really close to the difference between 35mm film and 127 film (which is 46mm wide). In digital, it would be about 70mp's worth of sensor, if all the rest was the same. I can't see Canon doing that any time soon.


----------



## Pookie (Apr 24, 2019)

Dunno, not a dream if you really want it... I shoot the 645z still to this day and had the GFX. I also still shoot tons of analog MF (Mamiya RZ67 Pro II, Rollei 2.8f, GSW690III, Mamiya 7II) and large format in film... The prices have come down especially on used digital bodies and film bodies can be had for much cheaper. Granted, you're not going to be shooting a Hassy but you could pick up any of these above for cheap. Even a used GFX now.

My question though is why? Why do you need to shoot MF?


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 24, 2019)

Pookie said:


> Dunno, not a dream if you really want it... I shoot the 645z still to this day and had the GFX. I also still shoot tons of analog MF (Mamiya RZ67 Pro II, Rollei 2.8f, GSW690III, Mamiya 7II) and large format in film... The prices have come down especially on used digital bodies and film bodies can be had for much cheaper. Granted, you're not going to be shooting a Hassy but you could pick up any of these above for cheap. Even a used GFX now.
> 
> My question though is why? Why do you need to shoot MF?


Honestly, need has nothing to do with it.


----------



## st jack photography (Apr 24, 2019)

I wish Canon had MF.

There will never be a Canon medium format sensor under the price of their cheapest full frame 35mm, i.e. you would NEVER see a Canon MF body for less than a 6dm2, and likely not less than a 5dm4. I would guess that a 6d-equivalent medium-format would cost at least $1500 more than a 5dm4. Of course, these are all just wild guesses, what the hell do I know? My tastes are not mainstream, case in point below:

I like the idea of modular systems, like you have several body frames to choose from, and you build your camera from there, based on budgets and your needs. For example, you could build a fixed medium format compact into a 35mm full frame skeleton, or a interchangeable lens/leaf shutter/full frame/with no viewfinder, just a large waist level touchscreen. This could be done on some level, although mixing ff with mf may not work. I would like to see more options though. Or maybe a still camera built just for a still shooter, something with a massive buffer, but no video, and all the video electronics filled instead with goodies that make the still shooting mo' better. (Because if I want to do video, I go buy a video camera. WTH is wrong with people wanting a camera to do both?). I guess I am just crazy, but I like the idea of a custom camera, just like a custom PC. You buy the sensor, and you choose a 100mp full frame, with on-chip adc, BSI, Canon has it all, or go cheap and stick with the crap sensors they currently build, whatever. I get it, some people hate dynamic range, and that is why they made 6d. Some people hate ISO, so they made 5DSr. Anyway, getting back to the modular idea, next you add a hybrid VF that snaps into that body, and to save money, you choose not to add the video processors so you can maximize the buffer of still shooting. Then, instead of adding a standard battery box, you add a modular double battery to the bottom.

Also, why are all cameras in a native 3:2 ratio? This is idiotic. A lens is circular. At the very least, the sensor should be a square that you can crop, OR the sensor should be a circle that you crop, thereby using the maximum best sharpest parts of the glass in the lens. That long rectangle has always been a stupid design IMO, and I often tend to buy cameras that do cool stuff like let me shoot a square through the viewfinder without having to use Live View to do it. (The 5DSr and I think the 7dm2 lets you shoot a square image of about 32mp, and it crops through the viewfinder. Damn Canon for not putting this in every camera, especially 5dm4 and 6dm2.)

I think Canon will eventually get it all sorted and be the top dog, but it is going to take time. I am still pretty sour that I feel my dozen or so L lenses are obsolete. I stopped buying all Canon stuff when the R came out, just on a holding pattern right now.


----------



## Pookie (Apr 24, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Honestly, need has nothing to do with it.



Honesty  that's a good answer... You know I'm not raggin on ya Charles. Just wondering why? With a few exceptions I know why I still like MF but the reasons are getting slimmer as time goes by. Just picked up the Leica Q2, tiny camera with a huge sensor. I'm getting closer and closer to my perfect carry.


----------



## st jack photography (Apr 24, 2019)

Pookie said:


> Honesty  that's a good answer... You know I'm not raggin on ya Charles. Just wondering why? With a few exceptions I know why I still like MF but the reasons are getting slimmer as time goes by. Just picked up the Leica Q2, tiny camera with a huge sensor. I'm getting closer and closer to my perfect carry.


Canon needs to make a full frame pro fixed compact. I had to go buy a Sony to get my dream street camera (the q2 was not out then!).


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 24, 2019)

Pookie said:


> Honesty  that's a good answer... You know I'm not raggin on ya Charles. Just wondering why? With a few exceptions I know why I still like MF but the reasons are getting slimmer as time goes by. Just picked up the Leica Q2, tiny camera with a huge sensor. I'm getting closer and closer to my perfect carry.


Oh I know you ain't raggin'!  My answer really is, "Because someday I could, and would like to say I did."  I can't even afford an RP right now.  The wife won't let me sell the Olympus... which should never have been bought. Still, I would love a Pentax 645Z.


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 2, 2019)

I just checked Adorama and it looks like all Fuji GF lenses currently have $500 instant savings. So tempting...


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 2, 2019)

The $500 lens rebates (on Fuji GF lenses) are apparently for the month of May. Also I found this really nice chart comparing the Fuji GF focal lengths to their full frame 35mm equivalents: https://shuttermuse.com/fujifilm-gf...ens-35mm-full-frame-equivalent-focal-lengths/ . I think it lists every lens except the 100-200, which was released after the article was written. I knew about the focal length difference but I did not realize the effective aperture is also different. According to the chart, the Fuji f4 lenses are the equivalent of f3.2 in full frame 35mm terms.


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 2, 2019)

Also one of the reviewers on Adorama said he shot with Canon 5DSR (which is 50MP just like the Fuji GFX medium format) and then got Fuji GFX and the Fuji is far superior. Just food for thought (or mainly aimed at myself to talk myself into getting one).


----------



## stevelee (May 2, 2019)

F-stop equivalence makes sense if you know in what way it is equivalent. I trust this means the amount of light falling upon the whole sensor. A larger sensor will have more light fall on it. That doesn’t change the optical properties of the lens, exposure, DOF, and such.


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 31, 2019)

Pookie said:


> My question though is why? Why do you need to shoot MF?


There is no need, but the special look of real MF formats (beginning with 6x4.5) can be really beautiful, as you know as a MF user. I use my (New) Mamiya still frequently, e.g. for street, because of that. 

Btw the optical secret of this "MF look" isn't hidden in a higher resolution because of a bigger image size. The reason is the tele construction of the standard lenses, since a, say 80 mm lens equals a normal 40-50mm lens in the 35mm world (depending on the exact MF image size).


----------



## LDS (May 31, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> ust a basic camera in MF that would come in at < $2,500



There'was and there is no market for a cheap MF camera - there was a reason why 35mm cameras quickly replaced 70mm ones, and most people never looked back - but those who really needed 70mm film.

A larger sensor will require lenes with a larger image circle. That alone will make them more expensive. And a larger sensor will make the camera larger as well. Most users interested in MF cameras have specific, high-end needs. For them usually price is not an a big issue if the camera can deliver results they can't achieve otherwise. While consumer users can't see the need for larger cameras that can yield results they don't need (and today can even prefer their phones).


----------



## LDS (May 31, 2019)

st jack photography said:


> you build your camera from there, based on budgets and your need



It would require a lot of engineering effort to design a proper "composable" camera and make it sturdy, reliable (and weather resistant). And it would become quickly expensive.


----------



## Don Haines (May 31, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Wouldn't it be nice if there were a medium format camera from Canon along the lines of the RP? Just call it the Canon MFR.  Nothing fancy, just a basic camera in MF that would come in at < $2,500. I don't mean MF size like the Pentax 645Z. More a sensor the size of the one found in Phase One's 100MP XF camera (53.7×40.4mm). Then just a couple of really good zooms. Anyway, I know Canon would probably never do this, but it is nice to dream.  (I have no idea what a sensor that size costs.) Never mind. I just looked it up. I need a permanent roof over my head first.  Stupid dreams.


And then there are those of us who think about digital backs for the 8X10! Unless I win several lotteries, it isn’t going to happen.......


----------



## Kit. (May 31, 2019)

stevelee said:


> F-stop equivalence makes sense if you know in what way it is equivalent. I trust this means the amount of light falling upon the whole sensor. A larger sensor will have more light fall on it. That doesn’t change the optical properties of the lens, exposure, DOF, and such.


The amount of light passing through the lens from a given angle of view is also the property of the lens: namely, the size of the lens' entrance pupil and the transparency of the lens.

These lens properties being equal, the MF has a bigger image circle, but its illuminance is proportionally lower.


----------



## Ozarker (May 31, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> And then there are those of us who think about digital backs for the 8X10! Unless I win several lotteries, it isn’t going to happen.......


Yeah, but MFR sounds about right.


----------

