# Canon medium format...



## Dylan777 (Sep 21, 2016)

Hi guys,
Just for fun 

Let's say tomorrow Canon releases medium format in DSLR and mirrorless, would you:

1. Jump on it and sell your current FF or crop gear
2. Add to your current FF or crop gear

*Big questions:* why? or Why not?

Look forward to hear your feedbacks.
Dylan


----------



## Haydn1971 (Sep 21, 2016)

Why not ?

Because Canon would be asking Hasselblad money for it !


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 21, 2016)

No and no. Lenses get bigger with larger sensor sizes, and a bag of FF lenses are heavy enough and take enough space. Plus, the larger the format, the fewer zooms there are, so it's a lot more lens changes...

If I made a living from photography, then it might be different...


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 21, 2016)

Already said, they would ask Hasselblad money for it.

If I were going to spend that kind of money I would buy Hasselblad, not a Johnny come lately mf camera.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 21, 2016)

I already have 5DSR a slew of sharp lenses ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 21, 2016)

Less and less likely to be interested in MF enough to actually buy it. The idea is always intriguing whenever anybody comes out with anything but the traditional strengths aren't there too often.

The main technical reasons are less and less compelling and not in several newer MF options anyway.

Give me a 5dsr with 50mp, dual pixel raw, a global shutter that syncs at any speed and true 16 bit raw file depth in color and dr and nobody with a brain would ever buy a MF digital.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 21, 2016)

mackguyver said:


> I already have 5DSR a slew of sharp lenses ;D



Good to see you again. Hope everything went well


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 21, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Less and less likely to be interested in MF enough to actually buy it. The idea is always intriguing whenever anybody comes out with anything but the traditional strengths aren't there too often.
> 
> The main technical reasons are less and less compelling and not in several newer MF options anyway.
> 
> Give me a 5dsr with 50mp, dual pixel raw, a global shutter that syncs at any speed and true 16 bit raw file depth in color and dr and nobody with a brain would ever buy a MF digital.



Really?


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 21, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Given that none of your EF lenses would work, if you wanted to go MF today, you might as well do it now, sell all of your EOS/EF equipment and choose from the vendors already offering MF.



I will keep an eye on both Has x1d and this Fuji. I like the thinner look on x1d over Fuji at this moment. Never own MF before, always want to own one. Will see how these MF will perform in real life situation. Not sure how much lower, rumors said GFX will be lower than x1d.

Native 35mm f2ish + 100mm f2 will cure the itch


----------



## l_d_allan (Sep 21, 2016)

I'd have zero interest in a what is now misleadingly called a "medium format camera". In fact, I'd have less than zero interest and instead be annoyed that the manufacturer was wasting time on a camera incorporating a sensor that just isn't all that much larger than a full frame sensor.

Back in the film days, "medium format" was typically 6x6 or 6x7. I had a Mamiya C33 TLR that used 120 or 220 film. The frame size was ~ 60mm x 60mm, or 3600 sq.mm.

Doing the math, a full frame sensor is ~ 36mm x 24mm = 864 sq.mm. A "real" medium format 6x6 had > 4x more surface area.

Now ... the Pentax 645 series gets it's model name because it can use the old 645 lenses. However, the Sony "medium format" sensor is actually 44mm x 33mm = 1452 sq.mm.

So, it really isn't that much of an increase in sensor size to go from f.f. to m.f. My impression is that you have to at least double the sensor area to see a real, dramatic difference. Instead, you pay a LOT of $$$ for less than 70% increase.

That's about equivalent of going from m43 (225 sq.mm) to Nikon APS-C (368 sq.mm) = +64%

However, man EF lenses might have some "extra coverage" of the m.f. image circle, with edge softness and significant vignetting.

No thanks.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 21, 2016)

Dylan777 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Less and less likely to be interested in MF enough to actually buy it. The idea is always intriguing whenever anybody comes out with anything but the traditional strengths aren't there too often.
> ...



Yep. Global shutters are going to be much more useful than leaf shutters and most digital medium format cameras don't have leaf shutter lenses anyway, or very few old designs that fit.

Canon are already getting 13.6 stops of DR out of 14 bit files so are going to have to move to 16 bit in time. Once they do that what does MF have to offer over 135 format? And don't say 'look' that is utter nonsense if you work to equivalence, around 0.7 for most MF digital at this point. Lets be honest, none of these new 'medium format' cameras are close to actual medium format, they all use the same 50MP Sony sensor too! 

So 135 offers greater lens choice, equivalency, nearly the same DR, nearly the same color depth the single shot resolution at a fraction the size, weight and price.

135 became 'the standard' because it became that perfect balance between size/price/quality, because of this unmatched systems were built to compound the advantage. Now 135 offers higher quality than ever and is easily within reach of MF in many situations, it won't take much effort (16 bit and global shutter both of which are available in current cameras) and any choices outside 135 format have to be made for esoteric reasons than the need for any particular image.


----------



## chauncey (Sep 22, 2016)

What in the name of gawd would be gained...larger images, use photomerge...more DR, use PS CC HDR...yadda/yadda/yadda.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 22, 2016)

Absolutely no interest. In fact, as smaller sensors keep getting better, FF offers less and less advantage over crop, so going even larger is completely out of the question. I may replace my FF 6D with the new crop M5. Will have to test them out and compare. My other camera is already an MFT Olympus. Smaller is the future (at least for me).


----------



## scyrene (Sep 22, 2016)

I'd never be able to afford it. If money was no object, I'd already have bought a 645z, but it could never be a main camera for most of what I do.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 22, 2016)

Medium format is pretty specialized, those with jobs that require it, know what they are doing, but for 99+% it would be wasted money, because the advantages are not needed for what most of us do.


----------



## Pookie (Sep 22, 2016)

scyrene said:


> I'd never be able to afford it. If money was no object, I'd already have bought a 645z, but it could never be a main camera for most of what I do.



I think I'm one of two here on the forum owning this camera. Great images but I'd have to agree with l_d_allan it's barely considered a MF camera. If you're a working photographer then I guess you're in the 1% on this site. I use mine for commercial work and wedding photography, it's been in heavy rotation this year. 

I was never that impressed with the 5Ds/r (let's not get our panties bunched over this comment, just my opinion). I'm most interested in the new Fuji MF that just been announced. When that comes out I will sell the 645z most likely unless it really negatively surprises me. Loved the X100S images but sold it after a couple years because the quirks with it were too much to handle. Hopefully none of that transfers to the new camera.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 22, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Medium format is pretty specialized, those with jobs that require it, know what they are doing, but for 99+% it would be wasted money, because the advantages are not needed for what most of us do.



Cleaner image at higher ISO is almost never considered as waste.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 22, 2016)

I have played with this idea many times. The turn offs for me is to establish a new workflow, to drag two systems around, the cost and the size of the sensor. The only MF sensor I find really interesting is the new 100MP used in the new Hasselblad and PhaseOne, which is approaching true MF size. As Privatebydesign pointed out, the 50MP Sony sensor is a lot smaller. 

However, even with my poor character, I am not doing this for a living and I just can't justify a $75k investment in a 100MP system (for now anyway). The IQ I am getting from the 5DSR with the best Canon and Zeiss lenses is so good that it is obvious that the weakest link is me.


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 22, 2016)

Dylan777 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Medium format is pretty specialized, those with jobs that require it, know what they are doing, but for 99+% it would be wasted money, because the advantages are not needed for what most of us do.
> ...



Yes, if the shallow depth of field is not an issue. If it's not, you can get much faster lenses for full frame. The vast majority of medium format lenses are f/2.8 or slower. If shallow depth of field is a problem, then one must stop down more and increase the ISO more, so the advantages then become negligible. Either that or use tilt-shift lenses to put that depth of field where you want.


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 22, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



+1! Due to faster lenses on FF than medium format, neither depth of field or low light performance will be strong reasons to buy medium format. I guess the main reason would be the possibility to get sharper images, due to larger pixels. However, my impression is that many of the best L lenses (and Zeiss) outperform many medium format lenses in regards to sharpness. If I remember correctly, there were comparisons between 5Dsr and Pentax 645, where the 5Dsr had sharper images due to better optics. 

I'm sure the best medium format lenses are better/sharper than 5Dsr on let's say a Phase 1, but also bigger and way more expensive.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Sep 22, 2016)

low light capability and shallow DOF are not better on MF because the lenses are smaller. with a crop factor of 0.6 (minimum) a 85 1.4 lens would be approx 140mm f2.3. As far as i know, such a lens does not exist.

What is crearly better is overall resolution, like dpp or like them not, but there you can compare a 5dsr against a Phase one IQ180. The Phase One playes in a completely different league, but there are very few places where pictures in this quality can be seen. 

Other point is, for a portrait shooting no model at all will meet the (quality) requirements, at least before hours of work for a really good makeup artist. And even then the pics can be used to judge the work of the makeup artist . Maybe even on a porn site, you will not want to see this level of details.

So MF can be clearly better than FF, but the whole workflow must be there and i can not do this. If i could afford such equipment, the money would be better invested by taking photography (workflow) lessons for 1 year 

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii/6


----------



## scyrene (Sep 22, 2016)

Dylan777 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Medium format is pretty specialized, those with jobs that require it, know what they are doing, but for 99+% it would be wasted money, because the advantages are not needed for what most of us do.
> ...



That's what interested me most about the 645z. I would have enjoyed trying it out for astrophotography


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 22, 2016)

hendrik-sg said:


> low light capability and shallow DOF are not better on MF because the lenses are smaller. with a crop factor of 0.6 (minimum) a 85 1.4 lens would be approx 140mm f2.3. As far as i know, such a lens does not exist.
> 
> What is crearly better is overall resolution, like dpp or like them not, but there you can compare a 5dsr against a Phase one IQ180. The Phase One playes in a completely different league, but there are very few places where pictures in this quality can be seen.
> 
> ...



When comparing 5Dsr to Phase IQ180 in your link, I must say that the Phase isn't really that impressive. It has higher resolution and shows more details, but the details aren't crisp, compared to the 5Dsr and the aging 85 f1.8 lens. In my mind this comparison speeks in favor of FF compared to MF, when price, lens selection and general usability is taken into account.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 22, 2016)

It's nice to see each of us approve to photography in different ways 

Although latest Fuji & Has x1d MF sensor not twice larger than FF, it's about 70%ish larger. How much are we going to gain from this 70% larger sensor?...time will tell. 

I believe Has x1d are now shipping. I'm looking forward to see how these MF will perform in real life.


----------



## Pookie (Sep 22, 2016)

hendrik-sg said:


> low light capability and shallow DOF are not better on MF because the lenses are smaller. with a crop factor of 0.6 (minimum) a 85 1.4 lens would be approx 140mm f2.3. As far as i know, such a lens does not exist.
> 
> What is crearly better is overall resolution, like dpp or like them not, but there you can compare a 5dsr against a Phase one IQ180. The Phase One playes in a completely different league, but there are very few places where pictures in this quality can be seen.
> 
> ...



I think you meant on FF. The Larsskv is very wrong here. Never had a problem with DOF or fast lenses on MF. In both digital and film MF. Take a look at 20 year old Mamiya lenses... still considered a benchmark for sharpness in MF. On the Pentax the 90 f/2.8 is ridiculously sharp and has an insanely thin DOF wide open.


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 22, 2016)

Pookie said:


> hendrik-sg said:
> 
> 
> > low light capability and shallow DOF are not better on MF because the lenses are smaller. with a crop factor of 0.6 (minimum) a 85 1.4 lens would be approx 140mm f2.3. As far as i know, such a lens does not exist.
> ...



Oh, I dont think I´m wrong at all. Sure MF will have great bokeh, thin DOF, and fantastic sharpness, but the question is if that is a reason to choose MF over FF. I challenge you name one MF lens that has shallower DOF than the 85mm f/1.2 on FF, given the same framing and distance to the subject.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 22, 2016)

Dylan777 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I already have 5DSR a slew of sharp lenses ;D
> ...


Thanks, Dylan, things are going better, but still not shooting a whole lot. From your signature it looks like you don't have any Canon gear anymore, or am I reading that wrong?

On the MF question, I agree with Private on this one, and for me, the biggest thing I would like is a higher flash sync speed. 1/250s is workable with ND filters and such, but I would love to be able to shoot flash outdoors the way the MF guys do.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 22, 2016)

mackguyver said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



That correct, I no longer have any Canon gear. I do missed it sometime.

To me, it just tool and I buy the tools that fit my shooting style. Keep in touch


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 22, 2016)

Dylan777 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


From what I know of your shooting, your current gear makes sense, and will do.


----------



## Aaron D (Sep 22, 2016)

The perfect camera for me would be a FF mirrorless with 16 bit captures (and all the image beautiful-ness that goes with that) AND compact, sharp TSE lenses to go with - all with filter threads (as opposed to bulging-basketball fronts). And 30 MP is plenty.


----------



## Pookie (Sep 22, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > hendrik-sg said:
> ...



Nice qualifier after the fact... as for a fast MF lens, try Mamiya 80mm f/1.9 or Hasselblad 110 f2 or Contax 645 80mm f2


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2016)

Dylan777 said:


> Why not?



Market size...or rather, lack thereof. A couple of years ago, a senior Leica exec estimated the size of the MF market – global, industry-wide – at 6,000 units per year. I just don't see Canon going after a slice of a minuscule pie.


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 22, 2016)

dilbert said:


> If a 50mm MF prime is 35mm on 35mm format, and it has a f/4 aperature for MF, what is the equivalent 35mm aperture?



On a DOF-calculator, I compared an 85f/1.2 on a FF camera to the Phase One MF camera.

On two meters, the DOF with the 85f/1.2 on FF is 4cm.

The crop factor the Phase has to FF is 0,64. Therefore, to have the same field of view as 85 on FF, you need 85:0,64=132mm lens on the Phase one.

To achieve 4cm DOF at two meters, with an 132mm lens, it needs an aperture of f/2.

I´m no expert, but I don´t know of any lenses for the Phase One around 135mm, that has an aperture of f/2 og wider.

The new Fujifilm will have a crop factor of 0,79 compared to FF, same as Pentax 645. Compared to 85mm on FF you need a lens of 85:0,79=108mm to get the same field of view. If you want a DOF of 4cm at two meters on a 108mm lens, the DOF calculator says it needs an aperture of f/1.8. The widest aperture of the new Fujifilm-lenses is f/2.8.

I´m not saying that medium format cameras don´t have advantages over FF (I wouldn´t know, because I have no experience with it), but with regards to achieving thin DOF, you might actually be better of with FF and wide aperture lenses.


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 22, 2016)

Pookie said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > Pookie said:
> ...



I don´t know the crop factor of the Hasselblad lens/camera it is designed for, compared to FF. If it is like the Pentax 645, it will be very close to a 85/f1.2 on FF with regards of DOF, but the DOF of 85 f1.2 will be a bit thinner.

Please see my last post to see my reasoning behind this statement.

I used this DOF calculator: http://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof


----------



## Halfrack (Sep 22, 2016)

There are 2 big companies in medium format, and 2 companies that dabble in it. Hasselblad and Phase are all in, while Pentax and Leica are playing on the fringes. Don't get me wrong, I love the 645z, she's my next purchase.

All Hasselblad lenses are leaf shutters, and the latest ones sync at 1/2000th of a second. The big advantage of the X1D over the new Fuji, beyond shipment times, is that all the HC/HCD lenses, plus all the V series lenses will work (X1D-H adapter, H to V adapter). It's small, compact and proof that Sony will be making better 33x44 sensors at higher resolutions.

Crop factor depends on the back used - the 100mp backs, along with the 60/80MP are all a 1.0x native.

Want to know what 100mp shots are for? Everything, anything important, and most importantly, any time when motion prevents stitching. Prints with a 60" short edge are addicting.

If you want more info on MF gear, check out http://forum.luminous-landscape.com


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 22, 2016)

Dylan777 said:


> Hi guys,
> Just for fun
> 
> Let's say tomorrow Canon releases medium format in DSLR and mirrorless, would you:
> ...



Think I'd wait for Canon to have a stable of medium format lenses to go with it.

Just a question though... is what makes it medium format the sensor size? It can't be megapixels, right? Thanks


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 23, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi guys,
> ...



Medium format isn't a standard. The term is used on a variety of sizes that is bigger than the 35mm format. The size of the sensor in Phase IQ180 is bigger than the size in a Pentax 645. Therefore you must be aware of the crop factors also when comparing medium format cameras and lenses.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 23, 2016)

Given that the existing EF mount can "almost" fit one of these new "Medium Format" sensors, I think Canon should just go ahead and make a 1.7x larger sensor and stick it in an existing camera (mirrorless).

It would basically be as good as anything being offered by the competition, and natively support all existing EF lenses, and if they don't break the flange distance then all EF bodies would natively support all the new lenses.

By making the EF mount excessively large back in the 80's Canon may very well have futureproofed their system for the next hundred years.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2016)

Er, image circle anybody!

EF lenses have an image circle from 44mm to 50mm depending on focal length and baffle designs. The TS-E 17 and TS-E 24 MkII have image circles of 67.2mm (and no auto focus).

A 135 format sensor has a diagonal of 43mm.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 23, 2016)

Dylan777 said:


> Hi guys, Just for fun
> Let's say tomorrow Canon releases medium format in DSLR and mirrorless, would you:
> 1. Jump on it and sell your current FF or crop gear
> 2. Add to your current FF or crop gear
> *Big questions:* why? or Why not?



No. Canon should not mess around with MF, just go ahead and launch a kick-ass mirrorless FF system. I would sell my FF mirrorslapper camera, keep my EF L glass, use it with an adapter and buy some nice and small new native pancake primes in order to go small with a small FF MILC. 

MF is really only needed for less than 1% of all photographic tasks. MF is a market segment with no lack of established players who are slugging it out. Nobody is waiting for additional players. Fuji will learn it the hard way, they will loose a ton of money on their GFX. And I bet, Leica has not and will never recoup the S2 system development cost and resources wasted on it. 

It is really absurd, how ALL camera makers except Sony stubbornly refuse to make the product needed for the largest future market segment: mirrorless FF system. Instead they choose to make action cams in 2016 (stupid Nikon), new MF systems in 2016 (stupid Fuji, stupid Ricoh/Pentax), or only dwarf-sensor mirrorless (stupid Oly, stupid Fuji, stupid Canon, stupid Nikon). It will be a future business case in all business schools on "how an entire industry f*cked up".


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 23, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi guys, Just for fun
> ...



I guess Sony is the genius company, making many FE lenses larger than Canons L lenses, ruining the potential weight and size advantages compared to DSLRs? Not to mention their 35 f1.4 with heavy weather sealing, but forgot the rubber gasket around the lens mount? Or the overheating issues? Or the occasional crashing that requires pulling the battery out, with following resetting of custom buttons etc? I could go on, if I had the time. Sony obviously knows best. Not!


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 23, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi guys, Just for fun
> ...



Not Fuji, but very similar:
http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/hasselblad-sold-x1d-cameras-10-days-expected-sell-year/

2cents: If Fuji can keep the body around $7-8K, I think they will be fine. We don't have to carry f1.4 prime all the time. However, not having one when needed is really "f*cked up"


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 23, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> It is really absurd, how ALL camera makers except Sony stubbornly refuse to make the product needed for the largest future market segment: mirrorless FF system.



You think the largest future market segment is for full frame cameras? 



hendrik-sg said:


> Other point is, for a portrait shooting no model at all will meet the (quality) requirements, at least before hours of work for a really good makeup artist. And even then the pics can be used to judge the work of the makeup artist . Maybe even on a porn site, you will not want to see this level of details.



Tell that to Petter Hegre.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 23, 2016)

Style of photography and subject matter to some degree dictate format, one size does not fit all. Many professional landscape photographers shoot DSLRs and plate cameras, some shoot medium format also (Joe Cornish uses all three). 
Picking one over another is often subjective so qualifying medium format over FF 35mm is almost impossible. In video the shallower depth of field in large format sets tone & mood and focuses attention, likewise 2/3rds" can provide infinite depth of field and compensate for run & gun errors. 

Most of us never print larger than A3 so the advantages of medium format are mitigated (as indeed are high MP cameras if not cropping), medium format however often slows the process down and composition improves as more thought is given.


----------



## hajiaru (Sep 25, 2016)

Dylan777 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



and only 1 unboxing on youtube .Worst unboxing ever made .


----------

