# NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP



## lb (Aug 1, 2014)

Yes at this years Photokina NIKON is reported as releasing a medium format camera with the same sensor as Hasselblad, Phase one , and Pentax, but mirror less and with a new type of shutter, will this put the damper on our new 7D

http://petapixel.com/2014/07/29/rumor-nikon-planning-release-camera-featuring-sonys-50mp-medium-format-sensor/


----------



## captainkanji (Aug 1, 2014)

No.


----------



## Eagle Eye (Aug 1, 2014)

Actually, you're confused. Nikon is going to announce at Photokina that they're releasing a camera with an EF mount, "designed to work with the best lenses in the world," according to my sources at Nikon Djibouti. That's what that picture is showing. Amazingly, the EOS 7D II will also be EF lens compatible.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Aug 1, 2014)

1st April already ????


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 1, 2014)

Just what the sports/action/wildlife photographer has always wanted!

We demand a camera that is heavier and bulkier!
We demand to pay more!
We demand lower frame rates!
We demand less lens selection!
We demand long lenses to be both astronomically heavy and expensive!

Sports/action/wildlife photographers (the market for the 7D2) rejoice! Your salvation is here.

..... and for those who can not recognise sarcasm, this is it... This camera will have no effect on 7D2 sales as it is designed for a completely different market.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 1, 2014)

As much as I like Nikon, I am not sure of this rumour. Nikon currently has no MF lenses. They don't have a history of making MF lenses. It would not make any business sense for Nikon to get into this business unless they can offer something better than or cheaper or both than the Pentax 645Z.

How many non-MF consumers are seriously considering moving up to MF. Existing MF users will stay with their system due to the investment in lenses. Unless Nikon can come up with a system that allows people to use their existing Pentax, Hassie, Phase one, .... MF lenses, it will be an uphill marketing problem.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 1, 2014)

dilbert said:


> lb said:
> 
> 
> > Yes at this years Photokina NIKON is reported as releasing a medium format camera with the same sensor as Hasselblad, Phase one , and Pentax, but mirror less and with a new type of shutter, will this put the damper on our new 7D
> ...


+1


----------



## e17paul (Aug 1, 2014)

That would be daft, just a 'me too' alongside Pentax, Leica, Hasselblad, etc.

If starting a new lens system, the smart move would be to launch a mirrorless MF without the bulk caused by the enormous flipping mirror.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 1, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> They don't have a history of making MF lenses.


http://www.popphoto.com/gallery/12-film-cameras-worth-buying-right-now

They also made (make?) some of the best lenses available for large format view cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2014)

dilbert said:


> lb said:
> 
> 
> > Yes at this years Photokina NIKON is reported as releasing a medium format camera with the same sensor as Hasselblad, Phase one , and Pentax, but mirror less and with a new type of shutter, will this put the damper on our new 7D
> ...



Hopefully someone with better attention to detail, too. In removing the left side of the camera, the lens release was also removed. A buyer would need to think carefully about which lens to mount first...


----------



## sanj (Aug 1, 2014)

Like your sense of humour. Or humor.


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 1, 2014)

pure rumor.. and nikon is struggling.

would suprise me when they have the resources to make such an experiment.
but we will see. the rumor is not new, it was reported for some time.

canon on the other side has enough resources to develop a cinema system and cinema lenses as we know.


----------



## arcanej (Aug 3, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hopefully someone with better attention to detail, too. In removing the left side of the camera, the lens release was also removed. A buyer would need to think carefully about which lens to mount first...



That might be a feature not a bug. A MF entry by Nikon will need a new lens lineup. The article mentioned that Nikon has a patent for exactly one MF lens. If there is only one lens, no real need to take it off after you mount it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 3, 2014)

The way to get into the MF business is to buy one of the MF manufacturers that are going broke. Then you get a slew of lenses that work, and can build on existing models. The real question is why a Nikon, who is doing very poorly right now would want to dump more money into a losing product. That might be the thing that gets them sold to someone else like Samsung. The rumor is less than believable. That doesn't mean that prototypes don't exist, R&D should be looking at potential new products, but those who hold the purse strings are not likely to drop huge amounts of money into something entirely new.


----------



## jrista (Aug 3, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The way to get into the MF business is to buy one of the MF manufacturers that are going broke. Then you get a slew of lenses that work, and can build on existing models. The real question is why a Nikon, who is doing very poorly right now would want to dump more money into a losing product. That might be the thing that gets them sold to someone else like Samsung. The rumor is less than believable. That doesn't mean that prototypes don't exist, R&D should be looking at potential new products, but those who hold the purse strings are not likely to drop huge amounts of money into something entirely new.



This exactly. There is no way Nikon could enter the MFD market. They would be crushed, and they don't have the revenue flow to R&D up a whole new camera system on their own that would be competitive. Medium format buyers already have Sony's 50mp MF high DR sensor, and they already have established lens lines and established customers. People who already use MF would be idiots to switch to Nikon.


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 3, 2014)

Why does everyone think Nikon couldn't develop a MF system? They're still the number 2 player in the market, a downward trend from the top of the market is still really high up.

Is it a good idea? If they really think this thing through and make it a long term investment, yes. It's pretty much inevitable that everyone will end up with "larger than 35mm" sensors, there's just no-where else to go to keep raising the IQ bar.


----------



## jrista (Aug 3, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Why does everyone think Nikon couldn't develop a MF system? They're still the number 2 player in the market, a downward trend from the top of the market is still really high up.
> 
> Is it a good idea? If they really think this thing through and make it a long term investment, yes. It's pretty much inevitable that everyone will end up with "larger than 35mm" sensors, there's just no-where else to go to keep raising the IQ bar.



I don't even believe Canon could develop an MF system. For exactly the same reasons...and Canon is WAY better at marketing their camera systems than Nikon is (not to mention their significantly larger R&D budget.) If Canon couldn't do it, there is no way Nikon could do it...they simply don't have the cashflow to ride out the long up-front journey trying to steal MF customers away from the established dominant players in that market. Especially now that their potential competitors are also using high DR Sony sensors, and pairing those sensors with interchangeable backs, better camera systems, and phenomenal glass.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> I don't even believe Canon could develop an MF system. For exactly the same reasons



Isn't that almost exactly what they've been doing with the cinema line? Entirely new bodies and entirely new lenses. They won't do it before cinema is solidly profitable, but they certainly could if they decided to make it a 5-7 year project. The sensor is the main obstacle here.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 3, 2014)

9VIII said:


> It's pretty much inevitable that everyone will end up with "larger than 35mm" sensors, there's just no-where else to go to keep raising the IQ bar.


I've speculated on previous flames...er...threads, when mirrorless becomes fully viable (EVF lag, etc) it will be possible to adopt a triple-sensor system, which would improve resolution and increase per-area light capture possibly by more than twice. That would be cheaper to develop than a full new line of MF lenses and bodies.


----------



## jrista (Aug 3, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I don't even believe Canon could develop an MF system. For exactly the same reasons
> ...



Canon started doing that fairly early on in the digital 2k and 4k cinema industry. There are competitors, but none of them were extremely well established like the MFD companies. If Canon or Nikon try to break into MF, they have to produce not only a sensor or a camera, but an entire photographic system while concurrently fighting against a LONG established set of companies and very strong customer loyalties. To really compete, they would need to make their system digital-back compatible with the existing brands...who knows what the hurdles there would be (assuming the existing MFD competitors don't hold all the rights and have the ability to block such a move from Canon.)

I honestly don't see that as the same thing as what they did with Cinema. They already had a lot of the technology they needed to move into Cinema...they had been doing both video DSLR and Camcorders for a long time before they started building their Cinema EOS line.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> Canon started doing that fairly early on in the digital 2k and 4k cinema industry. There are competitors, but none of them were extremely well established like the MFD companies. If Canon or Nikon try to break into MF, they have to produce not only a sensor or a camera, but an entire photographic system while concurrently fighting against a LONG established set of companies and very strong customer loyalties. *To really compete, they would need to make their system digital-back compatible with the existing brands..*.who knows what the hurdles there would be (assuming the existing MFD competitors don't hold all the rights and have the ability to block such a move from Canon.)
> 
> I honestly don't see that as the same thing as what they did with Cinema. They already had a lot of the technology they needed to move into Cinema...they had been doing both video DSLR and Camcorders for a long time before they started building their Cinema EOS line.



A digital back with Canon's menu format and functionality to use RT flashes? In principle it could work, but it probably would have happened by now if it was going to do so.

Jim


----------



## jrista (Aug 3, 2014)

Jim Saunders said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Canon started doing that fairly early on in the digital 2k and 4k cinema industry. There are competitors, but none of them were extremely well established like the MFD companies. If Canon or Nikon try to break into MF, they have to produce not only a sensor or a camera, but an entire photographic system while concurrently fighting against a LONG established set of companies and very strong customer loyalties. *To really compete, they would need to make their system digital-back compatible with the existing brands..*.who knows what the hurdles there would be (assuming the existing MFD competitors don't hold all the rights and have the ability to block such a move from Canon.)
> ...



If they just made a digital back, that might work. Then they wouldn't have to build a whole MF ecosystem. It's the building of an entire MF ecosystem that could compete that I think is a stretch.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Hmmm...I don't find that entirely persuasive. While I don't know the MFD marketplace (or its customers), I see photographers in the digital age as very pragmatic: if Canon offered a product that met their needs at a price that met their budget it would sell. One of Canon's cinema strategies was to "fit it," using PL-mount lenses. Likewise, they could "fit in" by starting with a body and lenses that are compatible with one or more of the current market players, while slowly developing sensors that compete. You are correct, however, that certain patents may make that challenging.


----------



## kphoto99 (Aug 3, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hopefully someone with better attention to detail, too. In removing the left side of the camera, the lens release was also removed. A buyer would need to think carefully about which lens to mount first...



You don't need a button on the camera. You can do it the way FD lenses did it with a button on the lens.
I'm not talking about the early lenses that had the silver ring, I'm talking about the later lenses that had a button on the lens.

I prefer that to the EF mount button on the camera.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Aug 3, 2014)

Face it, either Nikon or Canon (or Fuji or Samsung) could build a medium format system if the marketing case could be made for a profitable venture. Technology is advancing at a rate that a 4x6 or 6x6 or 6x7 sensor is not only possible but potentially "affordable". These sensors could easily reach 75, 100 or 150 megapixels at the same
density of current "full frame" sensors. Then again, could anything larger than the current 24x36 sensor be 
considered "medium format"? The Leica S is not "standard" sized, I'm not sure about the Pentax 645 or the
various backs for Mamiya, Contax and Hasselblad, but it would appear that any "medium format" standards are
at best in question. But no matter, the camera design and build is the easy part - what about the family of lenses?
And when that is done, even in a timely fashion, will it be significantly better than the then available full frame
offerings. Any camera company executive looking at today's marketplace would have a tough decision to move
forward on a completely new system - medium format or not.


----------



## johnhenry (Aug 3, 2014)

One person hit it one the head: buy out someone who has a long established line of medium format lens/backs/equipment so that ALL THEY HAVE TO BUILD IS A DIGITAL BACK.

If you bought the right to use Hassleblad's body/back/lenses and just built a body/back for it


----------



## JumboShrimp (Aug 3, 2014)

I have always thought that 6x7 Pentax should have jumped into the MFD foray by developing a digital back/camera for their excellent (and affordable) line of 6x7 lenses. Any one else have thoughts on why they chose not to? As far as the Nikon rumors go, don't really care one way or the other, but it sounds like a disaster in the making.


----------



## surapon (Aug 3, 2014)

Dear Friends.
I might recommend Canon to use this old camera design, for New Canon 300 MP Super Full Frame Camera ( No, Not Medium format). Well It might work and cheap too. It might use the Great EF Canon Lens too= just pull the accordion back about a foot distant from the lens. ;D
Have a great weekend.
Surapon


----------



## Click (Aug 3, 2014)

Ha Ha Ha ;D 

Dear Mr. Surapon,

I would like to see that camera hang-on to you while on your next photo expedition. ;D

Have a great weekend Sir.


----------



## surapon (Aug 3, 2014)

Click said:


> Ha Ha Ha ;D
> 
> Dear Mr. Surapon,
> 
> ...



Yes, Ha, Ha, Ha, Dear Friend Click.
If I have this Camera, I must hire the Strong/ Beautiful Helper, who can help me carry this big camera.
Good day, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## Policar (Aug 3, 2014)

surapon said:


> Click said:
> 
> 
> > Ha Ha Ha ;D
> ...



There are a lot of photographers still using 8X10. Of course all the great landscape photographers were 4x5 or 8x10.

I saw a few stills from this photographer:

http://www.lauramcphee.com

Great stuff! Worth the extra effort for sure.

Fwiw, Canon won't do this because they don't have lenses for it. Yes they made a PL mount C300 for some reason (they also sell PL mount lenses), but the C300 was VERY expensive because they weren't necessarily going to push lenses with it. And they only entered the market once the EF mount become a competitive "cinema" mount and now Arri and Red are building (very expensive, since they don't sell lenses to subsidize the cost) EF mount cameras.

Besides, FF is pretty much on par with 6x7 in everything except "film look." MFDB is more competitive with large format, especially the tech and view cameras... and that is a much smaller market even than 645/6X6/6X7 was.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 3, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I don't even believe Canon could develop an MF system. For exactly the same reasons
> ...



Canon's cinema lenses are just adaptations of existing lenses, in some cases, just a different body. Their $50K cinema lenses are new, but even there, they use technology that is existing in the canon line. They are not MF. lenses.

However, the fact that Canon could technically build a MF system does not mean that its a good idea financially. They have had the opportunity to acquire a MF company in the past, and decided against it. That was a good move, since the economy has really hurt sales of high end cameras.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 3, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > lb said:
> ...



Maybe Nikon is responding to our earlier discussion about loose lens release buttons.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 4, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I think you meant that Canon's _bodies_ are adaptations of existing bodies. I don't have a clear basis for comparison since I haven't used their cinema bodies. They do have a completely different physical layout and ergonomics, and presumably optimized video processing hardware. I wouldn't be surprised if their cinema sensors are little different from their DSC sensors.

Again with lenses I'm out of my element since I'm not a video guy. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the lenses "use technology that is existing in the canon line." While I'm sure some of the optical design can be borrowed the result must be parfocal, and it's my understanding that a lot has to change regarding the chassis in which the optics are mounted: it must be optimized for manual focus and to eliminate focus breathing, etc. 

I don't pretend any expertise, just enjoying the speculative conversation. It seems to me there's a bigger difference between a still lens design and cinema design than between FF and MF.

I agree entirely that the questions of whether they could build an entire MF line from scratch is entirely separate from the question of whether it would be a good business decision.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 4, 2014)

I'm far from an expert, so feel free to correct me.

My [mis?]understanding of the motivation behind film MF was the limitation on how much film could be enlarged. MF lenses weren't as sharp as FF lenses, because MF film wasn't enlarged in printing as much as FF film.

As example, FF film was always enlarged 16x area just to get 4"x6" from 24x36 (mm) film, while 8x10 film (large format, I know, just illustrating) was printed 8x10.

So, how useful would MF lenses from the film era for digital MF sensors? Wouldn't the manufacturer have to make an all new line of sharp-as-FF lenses for the new sensor anyway?


----------



## Bennymiata (Aug 4, 2014)

Pentax had the 645D and now the 645Z, which is basically a Pentax K3 in a bigger body housing with Sony's 50MP 4X3 sensor.
I think it would be very wise of both Canon and Nikon to check on the sales of this camera, as I believe it is the most affordable way of getting into digital MF photography.
Even though I believe it is very good value for what it is, especially when Hasselblad and Phase One use the same sensor but charge many times more than Pentax does, I don't see the 645Z's running out of the stores.
Really, these days, there is very little reason for going MF when the full frame cameras of today are so good and indeed, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference even if you pixel peep.
Why have a removable back on the digital cameras of today? All they do is invite the bare sensor to get scratched.
In the days of film cameras, it was a godsend, as you needed to change film so often, but how often do you need to change sensors? Memory cards yes, but sensors? Never.
Pentax makes the 645Z because it has the legacy of all those old lenses to fall back on, but for Canon or Nikon to get into MF, it would just be a losing proposition, as it is for Hasselblad and Phase One.


----------



## Policar (Aug 4, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Again with lenses I'm out of my element since I'm not a video guy. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the lenses "use technology that is existing in the canon line." While I'm sure some of the optical design can be borrowed the result must be parfocal, and it's my understanding that a lot has to change regarding the chassis in which the optics are mounted: it must be optimized for manual focus and to eliminate focus breathing, etc.
> 
> I don't pretend any expertise, just enjoying the speculative conversation. It seems to me there's a bigger difference between a still lens design and cinema design than between FF and MF.



The Canon CN-E primes appear to be VERY similar optically (if not identical in some cases) to their L counterparts. The cinema zooms are obviously dramatically different designs, however.

Medium format lenses have to cover a much, much larger area (while still autofocusing...) so while the optical designs might resemble scaled up stilll lens designs more than they resemble cinema zooms, they would have to be pretty much all new. 



Antono Refa said:


> My [mis?]understanding of the motivation behind film MF was the limitation on how much film could be enlarged. MF lenses weren't as sharp as FF lenses, because MF film wasn't enlarged in printing as much as FF film.
> 
> As example, FF film was always enlarged 16x area just to get 4"x6" from 24x36 (mm) film, while 8x10 film (large format, I know, just illustrating) was printed 8x10.
> 
> So, how useful would MF lenses from the film era for digital MF sensors? Wouldn't the manufacturer have to make an all new line of sharp-as-FF lenses for the new sensor anyway?



Sort of.

Film enlargements might be based more on grain and film sharpness than on lens sharpness, but lens sharpness had to be sufficient for enlargements, too. In my experience, fine grain 135 ("FF film") can be enlarged to about 8''X10'', maybe a bit larger; 8X10, while often contact printed to 8''X10'' can flawlessly be enlarged to about 80''X100''... The ratio is always about 10 times in each axis for irreproachable quality, but it's a little smaller for smaller prints due to the viewing distance. Black and white grain looks nice and scales up nicely, however, to larger sizes. I think FF digital can easily scale to 11X17 and I am sure soon MUCH larger; it is on par with good 6x7 medium format in terms of sharpness but with less grain and also less resolution.

The thing is, those 6x7 lenses had to be adequately good wide open for film... meaning they are often stellar stopped down. The 50mm f1.4 Nikon AI lens is not great wide open on digital (the Otus is surely better), but by f5.6 it is still good enough for digital, especially for APS-C. 6x7 lenses stopped down will be perfectly sharp for high pixel density digital. Large format lenses are a bit softer.

Irrelevant... Canon will never go in this direction!


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 4, 2014)

Bennymiata said:


> Even though I believe it is very good value for what it is, especially when Hasselblad and Phase One use the same sensor but charge many times more than Pentax does, I don't see the 645Z's running out of the stores.



The interesting part here would be: why does one want to go medium frame?
For raw sensor size/resolution the D8x0, A7r are, compared to the new CMOS-sensor, almost there. To make the step worthwhile one of the full 645 sized sensors would be helpful.
LS-lenses are an actual added value, at least with HBlad and POne; that can make sense from a bookkeeping point of view.
Some legacy stuff? Would be a reason, but tough to capitalize on for a new manufacturer.
And then there is the factor "prestige", either to impress someone or to caress ones own ego.


----------



## Policar (Aug 4, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> Bennymiata said:
> 
> 
> > Even though I believe it is very good value for what it is, especially when Hasselblad and Phase One use the same sensor but charge many times more than Pentax does, I don't see the 645Z's running out of the stores.
> ...



It helps to impress clients, sure, but the same way 24MP full frame looks a lot sharper, especially int he center, because the lenses only need (1/1.6) times the MTF to produce a certain amount of sharpness for a given print size, lenses don't have to behave as well on a tiny scale for a larger sensor. So a good lens stopped down on MF will look amazing, substantially sharper with much better micro contrast than on FF or APS-C.

But is it work it? Probably not. Look at the sales figures.


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 4, 2014)

Policar said:


> So a good lens stopped down on MF will look amazing, substantially sharper with much better micro contrast than on FF or APS-C.



That's a point where the relatively low overall turnover rates for MF come into play. Some of the current lenses for small frame have leveled the playing field quite a bit, and we won't see many MF lenses that benefit from the same technological advancements.


----------



## Policar (Aug 4, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > So a good lens stopped down on MF will look amazing, substantially sharper with much better micro contrast than on FF or APS-C.
> ...



This is more the case with zooms than it is with primes, however. The recent Hasselblad lenses are very sharp. The Mamiya 7 series lenses and even RZ67 lenses are as sharp as good dSLR lenses and the recent tech camera lenses are amazing:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/results.html


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 4, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> I have always thought that 6x7 Pentax should have jumped into the MFD foray by developing a digital back/camera for their excellent (and affordable) line of 6x7 lenses. Any one else have thoughts on why they chose not to? As far as the Nikon rumors go, don't really care one way or the other, but it sounds like a disaster in the making.



I see two reasons for extremely high prices of 6x7 sensors:
- pixel defects on the freshly produced chips. Example: If you have a 10%
probability for a 24x36mm sensor of having severe pixel defects it is
roughly 50% for a 6x7cm chip
- the silicon wafers which are used to produce the sensors have circular shape,
the larger the sensor the larger the wasted area - in comparison to the still
expensive 24x35mm sensors another 50% effect.

The production cost will at least
5 times higher (area)
2 times higher (waste due to pixel defects)
2 times higher (bad wafer usage)
resulting in 20 times production cost increase.

That might be one reason not to design and produce these large sensors.

This rough estimate excludes effects from larger on-sensor signal lines (signals propagate roughly 0.2 metres per nanosecond) which limits sizes of e.g. CPUs and the related electronics - I know that a sensor isn't a CPU and it uses parallel readout but some problems are similar.

Just my 2ct
Michael


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 4, 2014)

If it's sub 10k, and has 3 LS primes to start, it'd sell like hot cakes.


----------



## jrista (Aug 4, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> If it's sub 10k, and has 3 LS primes to start, it'd sell like hot cakes.



*IF* it is sub 10k. Given the $7k price of the 1D X, which uses a sensor that has about half the area of a 44x33mm "small" sized medium format sensor, let alone something in the 60x40mm range, I find it highly doubtful that Canon would practically give away a MFD camera for $10k. Especially not with Canon's pricing trend lately. I also don't see the lenses being cheap by any means...it's a lot tougher to design the optics of a lens that must perform ideally from corner to corner in a much larger image circle. I agree with one of the previous comments...they would be more like Canon's Cine line of zoom lenses, which are tens of thousands of dollars each.


----------



## deleteme (Aug 4, 2014)

The only scenario I can see this working is if Nikon is ignoring the other MF players altogether and taking aim at Canon's top end customer base of wealthy hobbyists.

The notion that there are legions of pros snapping up vast quantities of high end gear is false. Nikon is not unaware of the many converts from Canon to the D800 because of the additional resolution and the predilection to pixel peeping. 

But in the end it would seem that Nikon lacks the resources to assemble a system that even matches Leica's S system much less Hasselblad and Mamiya/ Phase.

OTOH maybe this is a front for Sony' s purchase of Nikon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2014)

Normalnorm said:


> Nikon is not unaware of the many converts from Canon to the D800 because of the additional resolution and the predilection to pixel peeping.



Nor are they unaware of the many converts from Nikon to the 5DIII because of the lack of a true successor to the D700 and a predilection to needing a pro-level general purpose camera.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 4, 2014)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > If it's sub 10k, and has 3 LS primes to start, it'd sell like hot cakes.
> ...


It's relatively easy to get a Hasselblad h3DII 39 with a 80mm kit for well under 10k and around 8k. A 210mm and a 35mm LS lens will add another 5k if bought used to the price tag. MF has become much more affordable and it could soon be available again to the masses if the price trend continues. Pentax could lead the way if they released a Line of LS lenses.


----------



## Halfrack (Aug 4, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> It's relatively easy to get a Hasselblad h3DII 39 with a 80mm kit for well under 10k and around 8k. A 210mm and a 35mm LS lens will add another 5k if bought used to the price tag. MF has become much more affordable and it could soon be available again to the masses if the price trend continues. Pentax could lead the way if they released a Line of LS lenses.



Careful - Hasselblad has cut off services to the H3D/H3DII bodies & backs. H4D-40's can be had for under 10K CPO - http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/1064797/husa_cert_preowned.pdf - I'm playing with the 150mm and look to add the 35mm to the kit 80mm, toss in the 1.7x extender and it should be all I need - except for the 24mm HCD - that thing is amazingly wide!

Canon and Nikon don't have any existing glass that will do well in a MF world - well the 17/24mm TS-E lenses work really well, but that doesn't make for a system. Between glass and the AF systems, Canon/Nikon would be better off buying Hasselblad or Phase and leaving the brands where they are. Even resurrecting an old brand like Contax would be better than putting Canon/Nikon on the camera (Kyocera killed it in 2002).


----------



## RGF (Aug 4, 2014)

Could they be planning on putting their name on someone's else's hardware, a touch of unique firmware, and presto - Nikon MF camera with minimal investment and minimal risk.


----------



## klickflip (Aug 4, 2014)

My thoughts are.. 

Its prime time for Nikon to do this especially if its sub 10K , Sony sensor is there and great. yes new lenses would be needed, maybe they have been working with Zeiss which have designed 100s of MF lenses or Fuji or use another manufacturers mount if they got the license and make their AF work for these lenses would be the quickest way. 

Heard sony and Fuji rumours of a MF camera, but this has been hinted to be a fixed lens one.. 

I think and really hope that we are going to see a resurgence in MF again as digital costs come down to put us back to where we were in the 80s / 90s with the choice of cheaper Pentax, Bronica, Mamiya and higher end Mamiya, Hassys and Fujis .

Personally I'd love Fuji to bring out their GX67 / 80, ranges again and the Bronica ETRSI which were my favourite cameras. - We still have the Mamiya 645 in Phase one DF & Mamiya DF645 form thesedays. 

I've not seen anyone use or talk abut the Pentax ever in professional circles, I think this is due to the quirky look plus not having a leaf shutter, which is the most useful for syncing at higher speeds outdoor. Most I know use the Hassy H2D with Phase one backs. 

The H3DII 39 are not the best apart from in well lit or studio environments tbh, files break up easier than 5D III files in my experience but it is a 10 year old kodak sensor I think. The older Phase P30 Dalsa sensors are still very good at iso 100 though. And the newer IQ ones are very good. 
I haven't used any of the H4/5 sensors which I've heard are much better, but phase one seems to be miles ahead in quality terms. 

The sony sensor is a great step forward for more varied use / iso MF though. If someone can put it in a decent and more affordable package much like Pentax has done.. but make it an appealing camera with and or maybe optional leaf shutter with LS lenses like the Phase one/ Mamiya platform that would be a winner. 
Sure Phase one are amazing but I think their premium price days are numbered. 

I know the D800 has affected the 30/40 MP Hassy & phase sales. (I just wish there were L primes equivalents) I've seen colleagues buy one and lenses at 10K instead of spending 30K, yes its not quite the same but in another way its more useful.
With 90% of the quality of say a phase IQ40 but 500% more flexibility- but thats still 50% or more quality than a 5DIII or 1DX.
It feels like what 645 film was in medium format terms many years ago, a decent step up from 35mm but not quite as much quality Larger MF 67 69 etc or 5x4 etc. And quite a small nimble camera which the 645s were. 

I would be very excited to see more manufactured jump on sony's sensor with new camera & lens systems, and then digital will have grown up properly in my eyes


----------



## unfocused (Aug 4, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> If it's sub 10k, and has 3 LS primes to start, it'd sell like hot cakes.



Please define "sell like hotcakes." 

I'd love for someone who thinks this is a viable market to provide some evidence or, at a minimum, reasonably good arguments to support that contention. 

In 2013 there was a Forbes interview with Leica's medium format guy. He said, _"There are no industry-wide figures, but we think the core medium format market is roughly *6000 units per year* – worldwide, for all brands."_ (Emphasis added by me)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcbabej/2013/05/08/how-leica-camera-is-reinventing-the-medium-format-market-on-its-own-terms/

That's not very many hotcakes.


----------



## jrista (Aug 4, 2014)

unfocused said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > If it's sub 10k, and has 3 LS primes to start, it'd sell like hot cakes.
> ...



Aye, this is similar to what I've heard. Which just emphasises the point...it's a very small pie that Canon and/or Nikon would be trying to take slices of. They would need some very competitive offerings to break into the niche.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 5, 2014)

unfocused said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > If it's sub 10k, and has 3 LS primes to start, it'd sell like hot cakes.
> ...



I think you forget MF was king of general portraiture in film and see no reason why it couldn't return as long as cost goes down. Weddings, editorial, fashion, etc... all medium format or LF. 35mm was for PJ's or sports shooters. 

Hassy does service H3DII but not the H3D directly. Warranties are not offered on either but you can still get service as long as parts are available. (Which I was informed plenty was as the 39mp sensor was a very popular one.)

In reality, 35mm can never complete with MF as long as they have focal plane shutters. All 35mm cam's need to get on with electronic shutters or a set of LS lenses but why not just get MF then?


----------



## jrista (Aug 5, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> In reality, 35mm can never complete with MF as long as they have focal plane shutters. All 35mm cam's need to get on with electronic shutters or a set of LS lenses but why not just get MF then?



Hmm...I don't think I'd call an electronic shutter better. At least, they won't be better until they are all global shutters that instantly shift all pixels into a background per-pixel memory. Most current electronic shutters on DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras scan, so exposure isn't guaranteed to be the same from bottom to top. A global shutter would need to be high end as well...there is still row activation with a global shutter, and still that scanning. They can shift the pixel value into the pixel memory faster than a full readout, but there is still that lag. For longer exposures, that doesn't matter as much...for action photography, the lag matters. A nice high end global shutter design, the kind used in digital cinema cameras that can operate at thousands to tens of thousands of frames per second, is the kind of design I'd really want in a DSLR electronic shutter...at least then, I'd know I could use it for high speed photography and not have to worry about a slight exposure gradient across my images. 

As for leaf shutters...they have their cons as well. I think the key benefit everyone wants from a leaf shutter is the ability to, at least theoretically, sync at any flash speed. At times I've read about how leaf shutters can operate at several ten thousandths of a second, and still sync. A lot of that is simply not true, at least, not in the context of DSLRs. Most DSLR-sized leaf shutter lenses sync at 1/500s, a very few have synced at 1/1000s. The only leaf shutters I know of that have synced at 1/20,000s or faster are really tiny ones in small compact cameras. 

There is also the issue of inconsistent exposure. Because a leaf shutter opens in the center, flowers outward, then flowers back inward, you get less exposure at the periphery and more in the center. That effectively guarantees vignetting in every single image...additional vignetting, on top of any that might naturally occur due to lens design. 

Leaf shutters, good high end ones, are also complex and costly to build, and they would have to be in each and every lens. Personally, I would rather NOT incur the additional cost of having a leaf shutter built into each and every lens I buy...I think its more cost effective to have the shutter, whatever design, elsewhere, and allow lenses to be cheaper.

As for MFD, I guess time will tell. Sensor area is the ultimate key to better image quality, but the older sensor designs used in say the Hasselblad H3D and H3D II were similar in design to Canon's current sensors. They had as many problems with shadow noise as Canon cameras...lots of it, banding, etc. The current H5D-50c still sells for $28,000 just for the camera, and it's at least a few thousand for a lens. Canon would need to compete with the H5D-50c, not the old H3D, if they wanted to break into the market. I honestly don't see Canon doing it for all that much cheaper than Hasselblad, and if they did, they would likely be taking a loss on the products just to be competitive (especially if they aren't using a 300mm wafer fab...I think there was a rumor a while back that Canon might be either migrating to a fab that does 300mm fabrication, maybe taking over some of the capacity from P&S fabs that aren't producing as many compact cameras...or maybe building a new fab, but to manufacture MFD size sensors, they would have to take capacity away from something either way).

The benefit of medium format film was the cameras were all still designed roughly the same way. A medium format SLR might have had some additional features, but there was nothing in particular that made them particularly more costly than smaller cameras...not as far as the bodies went. They didn't have the extra cost of manufacturing extremely low yield sensors that cost a fortune to make. The customer took care of paying the cost of the film. That's nothing to say of the IQ we can get from a "lowly" 35mm DSLR these days, let alone a digital medium format. It's a little unfair to compare a modern DSLR with the "cheap" 35mm film and cameras of yesteryear. Full frame DSLR image quality is now far superior, and digital medium format is again superior to FF DSLR.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 5, 2014)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > In reality, 35mm can never complete with MF as long as they have focal plane shutters. All 35mm cam's need to get on with electronic shutters or a set of LS lenses but why not just get MF then?
> ...


While a nice long response, the reality is the x100s do a fine job a super sync speeds and my H3D with its humble 80mm nails 1/800 syncs like clockwork. I saw no issues using either the x100 or LS lenses with fast triggers & lenses in good working order. 

An electronic shutter like the x100 would be the best cheapest route for 35mm to move than with LS. It's a shame that I have to report than from ISO 50-200, the nearly decade old 39mp Kodak sensor whipped my 5D3 in post using both adobe CR & phocus. However, after 200 iso it's swiss cheese (pun intended.)


----------



## jrista (Aug 5, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> An electronic shutter like the x100 would be the best cheapest route for 35mm to move than with LS. It's a shame that I have to report than from ISO 50-200, the nearly decade old 39mp Kodak sensor whipped my 5D3 in post using both adobe CR & phocus. However, after 200 iso it's swiss cheese (pun intended.)



Well, that's expected. The sensor is over twice as large (2.1x larger, to be exact, at 37x49mm), and both sensors have the same kind of read noise problems. Aside from a few minor improvements, like gapless microlenses, Canon's fundamental sensor tech is ALSO a decade old. Now, I don't think the IQ difference between the H3D and a D810 would be quite the same. There is still a difference, and the win probably still goes to the H3D (simply because total sensor area is always going to trump unless you have SERIOUS technology problems), but the gap is considerably smaller, since the read noise of the Kodak sensor is still five times higher than on a Sony Exmor sensor.

On the flip side, cameras with Sony's 50mp medium format Exmor are still going to walk all over even the great D810. Canon can't enter the medium format digital market with an entry that competes with the H3D. They have to start out competing with something like the H5D-50c or the Phase One IQ250. If Canon ignores their sensor performance with the 7D II, they are on the brink. I think the long-term ignorance of their sensor IQ, regardless of whether it really matters a ton or not in the end, is ultimately going to cost them customers, as it's a matter of perception. Why would any established MFD customers buy a Canon medium format that used a medium format sensor based on their own decade-old technology? MFD is all about the low ISO IQ...it always has been. They are the ultimate landscape and studio cameras. Canon wouldn't stand an ice cube's chance in hell if they released a medium format camera with their current sensor tech into the midst of the new MFD market now dominated by large format Sony Exmor sensors.

If Canon was ever to enter the MFD market, they would need to first establish that they are still a leader in sensor technology and overall image quality. I personally think Canon's IQ is great, however I pretty much live at ISO 400 and higher, so the whole dynamic range thing isn't an issue for me. I lift shadows all the time, but at those ISO settings, there is little to no banding most of the time, and what banding there is (at least in the 5D III) is a breeze to clean up with Topaz Denoise. But there is still the *perception *that Canon is not just losing...but that they have *lost *the IQ wars. If I was going to spend a couple tens of thousands of dollars buying into a medium format digital system for say my landscape photography...why would I pick Canon if they hadn't proven their IQ, which is what such a camera would be all about, was better than Pentax's, Phase One's, or Hasselblads? I mean, it's a shit-ton of money regardless...and I'd have to buy everything new anyway, since none of my existing Canon gear would be compatible anyway...so why limit myself? 

Canon is currently in a lose-lose position for entering the medium format market.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 5, 2014)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > An electronic shutter like the x100 would be the best cheapest route for 35mm to move than with LS. It's a shame that I have to report than from ISO 50-200, the nearly decade old 39mp Kodak sensor whipped my 5D3 in post using both adobe CR & phocus. However, after 200 iso it's swiss cheese (pun intended.)
> ...


I think we're talking past each other here. I was just pointing out the practical uses of a cheaper MF systems especially if Nikon did release a system sub 10k with LS lenses. I really don't care if it says pentax,canon,nikon,etc... as long as that new cmos tech is used with a set of LS lenses. However if they can get electronic shutters working on 35mm cams, that gap would close significantly.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 5, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



How about convenience, portability, durability, cost, flexibility to name just a few advantages of the DSLR format. I think you forget (or perhaps are too young to remember) that the only reason Medium Format was king of general portraiture in film was that 35mm film was hugely inferior to larger formats in the pre-digital days. 

That's not an issue today. Medium format users were only too happy to give up their clunky, slow, inconvenient cameras for DSLRs once the quality became acceptable. 



RLPhoto said:


> In reality, 35mm can never complete with MF as long as they have focal plane shutters. All 35mm cam's need to get on with electronic shutters or a set of LS lenses but why not just get MF then?



So, the only advantage is focal plane vs. leaf shutters? That was a big difference in the film days when most SLRs synched at 1/60th of a second. Less of a difference today and only important for a small niche of shooters. 

Are you suggesting that the worldwide 6,000 unit market would magically expand on the basis of a leaf shutter? Sometimes it's better to just admit that you engaged keyboard before brain. We all do it at times, no shame in admitting it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 5, 2014)

unfocused said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I think you forget MF was king of general portraiture in film and see no reason why it couldn't return as long as cost goes down. Weddings, editorial, fashion, etc... all medium format or LF. 35mm was for PJ's or sports shooters...
> ...



+1

One main limitation of 35mm film was how much you could enlarge it for printing – if you wanted prints much bigger than 8x10", you needed a bigger negative...and had to put up with all the inconvenience of MF to get it.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 5, 2014)

unfocused said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...


The only reason MF fell out of use was the price gap became a canyon with digital and I didn't say 35mm didn't have it uses. Just because you quoted a hack at Leica which its MF is a joke at best when the industry is ruled by phase and Hasselblad proves your ignorance. 

I already been right over a year ago saying cmos would come to MF, alas it finally came. Eventually it will get cheaper and you'll see 35mm wain for mid to high end use for sheer IQ and unique advantages. If serious portrait photographers had the choice between a 3k 35mm system and a 5k MF system, you'd bet they'd dump the 35mm gear. It's all about price and it will eventually come down.


----------



## jrista (Aug 5, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Are you thinking about Schneider Kreuznach 1/1600th sync LS lenses? You do realize that those puppies cost a minimum of $6000 for a really tiny prime, and the cost goes up from there. 

A lot of other leaf shutter lenses still only sync at 1/500th. It is possible to have 1/500th X-sync with a focal plane shutter (although, why the 1D X does not use one is beyond me.)

I do agree, that if we could get nice global electronic shutters in FF DSLRs, that could sync at any speed, that would be pretty nice. I think that would be the key to making medium format affordable, since the lenses wouldn't need the complexity of a leaf shutter, which definitely pushes up cost.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 5, 2014)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


I'm speaking of Leaf shutter in general with LS, not specifically with phase1. Still, my original comment that if nikon made sub 10K CMOS 645 MF system with a wide, norm, and tele prime with LS (1/500th or better) It'd drive the pricing down for the entire MF industry. If we don't need a Machine gun D4s, we have the MFD body at around the same price.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 5, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Still, my original comment that *if* nikon made sub 10K CMOS 645 MF system with a wide, norm, and tele prime with LS (1/500th or better) It'd drive the pricing down for the entire MF industry. If we don't need a Machine gun D4s, we have the MFD body at around the same price.



"If." 

You may think gear doesn't matter, but it matters a whole lot to the companies that manufacture it. Compare the 1D X to the 1D C – effectively equivalent production cost, one retails for thousands more. Why is that, do you think? Market size. As stated above, the entire worldwide MF market is estimated to be ~6000 cameras/year. I'd wager Nikon sells far more D4s bodies than that. 

Could Nikon design and produce a sub-10K MF body? Sure...but they're already losing too much money despite their best efforts, planning to lose even more would be quite foolish, and shareholders don't generally like foolishness.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Still, my original comment that *if* nikon made sub 10K CMOS 645 MF system with a wide, norm, and tele prime with LS (1/500th or better) It'd drive the pricing down for the entire MF industry. If we don't need a Machine gun D4s, we have the MFD body at around the same price.
> ...



Sure thats a quote of 6000 cams a year from a man who works at leica? : : : I'm pretty sure mass market is not in their minds to begin with.

Even if so, that 6000 Cams @ 20k+ per body, not at sub 10k. Lets see how the 645z sales go after a year and i'm sure they will sell more than that even though on a crippled lens system. Because realistically, the sub 10k body is already being done by pentax.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 5, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Because realistically, the sub 10k body is already being done by pentax.



Yes, it is...and I don't believe it's really any competition for the Canon and Nikon pro bodies, in terms of sales.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 5, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Just because you quoted a hack at Leica which its MF is a joke at best when the industry is ruled by phase and Hasselblad proves your ignorance.



Wow! I was feeling a little bad, thinking my post was a little harsh, but I guess not...

Let's see: I'm ignorant because I actually took the time to try to find an estimate of the size of the Medium Format market before posting. And, let's see, while we're at it, Leica executives are hacks because other brands have a larger share of the miniscule medium format market.

Okay...

What are your figures for the size of the medium format market? Please provide a source.

The medium format debate seems to be one of those where some people adhere to dreams with a fervor that rivals most religious fundamentalists. The beauty of the debate is that, by arguing about what "could" happen in the future, adherents don't have to be troubled by little things like logic and facts.

Both Canon and Nikon could have entered the medium format market any time over the past 40 years or more. In fact, it would have made far more sense to enter that market back in the film days, when there was more demand and less investment required. Yet, they never did so. 

I have a hard time seeing why either would want to invest major resources in entering a tiny niche market with a very high cost of entry, particularly when their own products have been a major reason why the market has been shrinking. But then, I'm ignorant.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Because realistically, the sub 10k body is already being done by pentax.
> ...


Give Pentax a line of LS primes and a few years, 35mm camera manufacturers will need a lot of incentives to attract users who will make the jump. The next gen cycle will only drop prices even futher to the point where MF will become mainstream again. it's just a matter of time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Give them? They could have chosen to produce them, but they haven't. If only you were the CEO of Pentax...

If you were, I expect they'd already have gone under, as your grasp of business and economics is poor. 'Full frame' isn't yet mainstream, and even that's a very long way off. APS-C is mainstream, FF is a very small market segment, and MF is a minuscule niche market. "A matter of time?" It's only a matter of time before our sun will become a red dwarf and human life on earth will cease. It's an open question as to whether that or MF becoming mainstream will happen first.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Prices will go down and I can guarantee that you'll be the one eating crow in the end. You heard it here first, I say MF will return to mainsteam use as it once was before for 645 and you say it won't. Lets hope that big brain of yours doesn't cover your eyes from seeing the obvious shift the 645z really is.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Lets hope that big brain of yours doesn't cover your eyes from seeing the obvious shift the 645z really is.



Here's what I see:

Canon EOS Rebel T3:
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #22 in Camera & Photo

Canon 5D Mark III:
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #569 in Camera & Photo

Pentax 645D (granted, not the Z which isn't even available on Amazon):
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #17,780 in Camera & Photo

I don't know what you see, but I strongly recommend that you get a thorough eye exam.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Lets hope that big brain of yours doesn't cover your eyes from seeing the obvious shift the 645z really is.
> ...


I think you should get your head checked. MF and 35mm are two totally different beasts, and MF would be an add-on to a pro's bag. Plus, who orders a MF cam through amazon neuro? Are you neurotic?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 6, 2014)

If Nikon makes a new line of medium format cameras and lenses, seems like a guaranteed way to lose money. 

I do not understand why Pentax took many years to launch a digital 645, and then released with a 33x44mm sensor... If the sensor is truly size 60X45mm would some buyers willing to spend $ 15,000 on a body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> I think you should get your head checked. MF and 35mm are two totally different beasts, and MF would be an add-on to a pro's bag.



You're the one who stated, and I quote, "MF will become mainstream again. it's just a matter of time." Now you're saying it's an 'add-on' for 'pros'. Evidently, I'm not the one who needs their head examined...


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I think you should get your head checked. MF and 35mm are two totally different beasts, and MF would be an add-on to a pro's bag.
> ...


Wait, owning a car and a truck doesn't mean their both mainstream? Just like owning both 35mm and MF but MF is now becoming affordable. 
Again let's hope that large appendage growing out of your skull covering you sight by quoting sales about MF cameras from amazon!!! Lol. 

Seriously neuro, this is getting ridiculous. Just no.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Is owning a car and an 18-wheeler Mack truck mainstream? Apparently it is, according to you. Ridiculous, indeed.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Look who's talking when a 1dx costs nearly the same! Lol. Very funny neuro. However doesn't change that MF will become the 18 wheeler many photogs will use for heavy work when it's more affordable. Plus I know of many blue collar people who can afford their18 wheeler and a car and they're pretty mainstream.  it's not like a jet engine truck.

Still, just no neuro.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Look who's talking when a 1dx costs nearly the same! Lol.



Canon EOS 1D X
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,399 in Camera & Photo

Still far higher than any Pentax MF. Also, I certainly wouldn't characterize my purchasing behavior as mainstream. 

It's good you can LOL at yourself. I hear that's healthy.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Look who's talking when a 1dx costs nearly the same! Lol.
> ...


You must be mental pulling MF sales from amazon as only someone neurotic would believe amazon would be a measure for MF sales! XD Please seek professional help.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Obviously you missed the ~6000 units/year worldwide estimate. There are none so blind as those too foolish to see. 

You should have just stuck with 'gear doesn't matter,' it was a more defensible position that trying to sound knowledgable about markets and economic realities.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


And I think you missed the part that it was from Leica saying so, not phase1 or hasselblad. Also, that's a quote when they were 20k+ average. Pentax alone has topped that.

You need to reread again.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 6, 2014)

dilbert said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Yikes! Dilbert is right! Are the end times near?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> And I think you missed the part that it was from Leica saying so, not phase1 or hasselblad.



Earlier, you were asked for your own information about the MF market. I notice you failed to respond to that request. 

I see no reason to doubt a Leica exec's statement about the current MF market. They're a player in that space, and as such, they'll have done a proper market analysis. 

Are you saying your own analysis of the MF market has more validity than that of a manufacturer of MF systems? I suppose you also think we're laughing with you, but the truth is we're laughing at you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Yikes! Dilbert is right! Are the end times near?



I think that falls into the category of infinite monkeys and infinite typewriters resulting in the complete works of Shakespeare.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > And I think you missed the part that it was from Leica saying so, not phase1 or hasselblad.
> ...


Your darn right phase1 or Hasselblad has more say about market share than someone like Leica who's system is a mere dot and blip compared to the amount of equipment avaliable and used. Theyre not that stupid to say how limited sales could be, thats bad PR. How can anyone with common sense take that quote seriously? Pentax didn't and released another MF digital body the 645z anyway. 

I could care less about anyone else's opinion but quite frankly I find it really humorous that someone as the caliber as yourself would pull sales figures on MF from amazon! Haha. I can't help but laugh at that ludicrous thinking.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Your darn right phase1 or Hasselblad has more say about market share...



Do tell...what have Hasselblad and Phase One said about market share? 

Leica has on the order of seven times the market cap of Hasselblad and Phase One combined, so it makes sense that Leica has far less to spend on accurate market research...makes sense to you, at any rate. 

Gear matters, but your opinion – which is completely unsupported by anything resembling facts – does not. 

Go hang out with dilbert, the two of you should get along well in a world completely separate from reality. As far as I'm concerned, your total lack of business acumen makes further discussion of the future of MF in the camera market pointless, so I'm done with the conversation.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 6, 2014)

unfocused said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



LOL......... ;D, that was funny


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Your darn right phase1 or Hasselblad has more say about market share...
> ...


Don't think too hard neuro, you might hurt yourself because after all were not talking about MF market share because that's the only darn thing we are discussing. If the Leica MF system corked over and died tomorrow, no one would blink but when Hasselblad stopped and revived the 50 year old V-system, actual users cared. If we were discussing rangefinders, Leica has all the authority in the world but we are not.

So please when you can use some logic and not quote Leica about MF which virtually no one bought into and quoting MFD sales from amazon. It's ludicrous and I love how you pull the quote out of context everytime.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 6, 2014)

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/08/05/no-nikon-is-not-coming-up-with-a-medium-format-camera.aspx/


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2014)

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/08/canon-doing-market-research-on-medium-format/

Of course, Canon isn't Hasselblad or Phase One, so like Leica, Canon's market research can't possibly be accurate. :


----------



## unfocused (Aug 6, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> It's ludicrous and I love how you pull the quote out of context everytime.



Well, here is another quote. This one is from Chris Sandstrom, researcher and public speaker at Chalmers University of Technology and the Ratio Institute. From Göteborg, Sweden, he studies disruptive innovation and technological change and researched Hasselblad for his PhD. 

This is the concluding line from his presentation on Medium Format Photography in Decline: "The medium format has been declining ever since the early 1980s and will continue to do so until there’s nothing left."

Of course, I'm sure you know more than he does.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/08/canon-doing-market-research-on-medium-format/
> 
> Of course, Canon isn't Hasselblad or Phase One, so like Leica, Canon's market research can't possibly be accurate. :


Wow neuro this makes you look even dumber. It's a rumor at best, canon hasn't said anything, and why would they enter a market where Leica said there is no sales beyond 6000 units? Oh that's right because they know Leica is full of it and will research it anyway. 

Canon didn't take Leicas word for it, because they aren't as dumb as you to keep quoting them. They also aren't saying pretentiously about a number because phase1 and Hasselblad aren't just going to give them exact sales figures.


----------



## moreorless (Aug 8, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/08/canon-doing-market-research-on-medium-format/
> ...



I'm guessing its probably less "mistrusting Leica" and more looking into what kind of market could be created with a system that potentially offers improved functionality and/or a lower price than existing MF.

At present you sacrifice quite a lot of functionality going MF relative to Canon and Nikons best 35mm DSLR's, I remember talking to my second cousin who shoots a lot of pro travel photography and he ultimately sold his Hassleblad system and went with a 1DX for that reason.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 8, 2014)

moreorless said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Exactly what pentax is doing and is a big shift for MFD. Inversely, I sold the majority of my 35mm kit and I'm loving MFD. I would probably drop my 5d3 to an aps-c camera if I was in a pinch but I wouldn't let my Blad go so easily.


----------



## moreorless (Aug 9, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Exactly what pentax is doing and is a big shift for MFD. Inversely, I sold the majority of my 35mm kit and I'm loving MFD. I would probably drop my 5d3 to an aps-c camera if I was in a pinch but I wouldn't let my Blad go so easily.



The problem Pentax seems to have is that it really doesn't have the resources that Canon or Nikon would in terms of either offering improved features or building a modern lens line-up.

The 645z has more AF points that most MF cameras for example but there all clustered around the centre because its reusing an ASPC AF system, really not much better than your typical central AF point on other MF cameras. As you've said before it lacks LS lenses as well.

With the lens selection on offer today the 645z to me clearly seems to be aimed at the landscape/macro photographer. The problem I'd say is that whilst the body is much cheaper than alternative MF the lenses are not and these markets are very price dependant, there aren't many amateur or pro landscape shooters who can afford to spend $15,000+ on their setup.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 10, 2014)

moreorless said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly what pentax is doing and is a big shift for MFD. Inversely, I sold the majority of my 35mm kit and I'm loving MFD. I would probably drop my 5d3 to an aps-c camera if I was in a pinch but I wouldn't let my Blad go so easily.
> ...


That's the thing here, Pentax or anyone who can get the 50mp Sony sensor in a affordable body with LS lenses will shift MFD back into reach of the average professional. I certainly would have bought a 645z and a pair of LS lenses assuming that pentax can also manage to make the lenses affordable too. (Which shouldn't be too hard since you can find there older LS lenses really cheap w/ 1/500th syncs.)


----------

