# Canon Doing Market Research on Medium Format?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 6, 2014)

```
<div style="float: right; margin:0 0 76px 0px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16993">Tweet</a></div>
<p><a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon_medium_format_2ff.html" target="_blank">A new report</a> suggests Canon is sending out questionnaires to “key users” which includes some questions about medium format. Most of the questions were gear towards <span style="color: #000000;">image quality, usage scenarios and lens requirements. Most of the questionnaire was still about DSLRs and video, and that the “MF stuff was new”.</span></p>
<p>Rumors are running rampant that Nikon will launch a medium format body using the 50mp sensor that everyone else is using, and we’ve heard the same about Sony entering the field. Canon has been looking at the feasibility for years, and have said they want to enter more “professional” markets due to the declining consumer market.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon_medium_format_2ff.html" target="_blank">NL</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 6, 2014)

About 24-30MP on MF, shooting high ISO will be fun ;D


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 6, 2014)

> and have said they want to enter more “professional” markets due to the declining consumer market.



sarcasm... 

so canon sticks to 18-22 MP sensor and an outdated 500nm process for the next 5 years and when we want better IQ we have to go MF.

too bad i already have a phase one.

i guess i stop buying 35mm format lenses and bring my pennys to the bank.

;D


----------



## SwampYankee (Aug 6, 2014)

IT'S THE SENSORS STUPID!!!!! THE PEOPLE WANT A SENSOR LIKE NIKON HAS IN THE 810! GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT AND THEY WILL NOT ASK ABOUT MEDIUM FORMAT! IT'S THE SENSOR STUPID! YOU ARE YEARS BEHIND!


----------



## unfocused (Aug 6, 2014)

dilbert said:


> the nikon rumors website claims that no such thing is going to happen but i sometimes wonder if that website is more of an arm of nikon marketing ...



I hate to bite the hand that allows me to post on this forum, but in reading this site and Nikon/Photo Rumors for several years now I would say the other site is more reliable. I attribute it to too much outsourcing on this site and too many irons in the fire (lens rental business, etc.). Craig's business ventures seem to have been very successful and I wish him well, but the quality and frequency of rumor reports has suffered in my opinion. 

Nikon/Photo Rumors guy seems to have more reliable and better sources. I don't know if he works those sources better or there are just more leaks coming from Nikon.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 6, 2014)

The Sony 50MP sensor is now in a Phase One back, Hasselblad and Pentax camera and Hasselblad have annouced a back for old style V cameras. 
If Sony do launch a fixed lens medium format camera, along with the new S2 camera from Leica medium format is already a crowded market. For either Canon or Nikon to succeed they would need to bring something new if Nikon were to use the Sony sensor thats NOT now new or different. 

Price is the big factor the Pentax is still $ 9000 at its cheapest (body only) and the others are far more expensive frankly I dont believe there is enough customers. 

The route Fuji / Panasonic are taking with CMOS development IS more interesting a three layer CMOS sensor could 3D map information even selectively or remain 2D and will increase color space (Maybe REC 2020 instead of REC 709 for video). 
All sounds like desperation rather than innovation.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 6, 2014)

dilbert said:


> the nikon rumors website claims that no such thing is going to happen but i sometimes wonder if that website is more of an arm of nikon marketing ...


 
Nope. As I recall, they helped Craig get CR up and running several years back. Nikon is not as paranoid as Canon is about leaks.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 6, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> IT'S THE SENSORS STUPID!!!!! THE PEOPLE WANT A SENSOR LIKE NIKON HAS IN THE 810! GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT AND THEY WILL NOT ASK ABOUT MEDIUM FORMAT! IT'S THE SENSOR STUPID! YOU ARE YEARS BEHIND!


if you think that, as you try to find your caps lock then you don't really know what medium format brings to the table. AT ALL.


----------



## lintoni (Aug 6, 2014)

Meh


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 6, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div style="float: right; margin:0 0 76px 0px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16993">Tweet</a></div>
> <p><a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon_medium_format_2ff.html" target="_blank">A new report</a> suggests Canon is sending out questionnaires to “key users” which includes some questions about medium format. Most of the questions were gear towards <span style="color: #000000;">image quality, usage scenarios and lens requirements. Most of the questionnaire was still about DSLRs and video, and that the “MF stuff was new”.</span></p>
> <p>Rumors are running rampant that Nikon will launch a medium format body using the 50mp sensor that everyone else is using, and we’ve heard the same about Sony entering the field. Canon has been looking at the feasibility for years, and have said they want to enter more “professional” markets due to the declining consumer market.</p>
> <p>Source: [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon_medium_format_2ff.html" target="_blank">NL</a>]</p>
> <p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>



I could see this. if canon released "full frame" MF, it would seriously cause a lot of heads to turn canon's way in a big hurry as the current 1.3 crop factor adds dramatic and considerable cost to the lens investment with UWA lenses in MF.

I could be wrong, but even the most expensive systems to date were 1.16 crop - none of them produced the fully 60x45 of traditional 645.


----------



## lintoni (Aug 6, 2014)

645 for MF was/is the equivalent of APS-C, most MF systems were 6x6cm or 6x7cm.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 6, 2014)

As I've posted elsewhere, consider that you can't enter the MF market with just an outsourced sensor. You need a new stable of lenses, too. 

Think of how many mounts that the big 2 are currently supporting: Nikon has CX / DX / FX mounts already, and Canon has EF, EF-S, PL and the _spectacularly_-well-supported EF-M [cough cough]. 

I just don't see either taking on another mount. That's a massive investment to just get a foot in the door of a very competitive marketplace -- making your money back is questionable in that environment, regardless of your Brand's appeal.

What I _could_ see is Canon or Nikon doing is using their size/cash to get a leg up in MF. They could either:


Buy an MF company outright. "All your base are belong to us." 
Strike an m43-like licensing deal with a current MF company to share the mount design; all current lenses at this company plus all of Canon or Nikon's new lenses in this design would work with each other's bodies. That way, Canon or Nikon (whoever does this) only needs to come out with a great body and they can hit the market running. As this (in the long term) likely will mean the end of the current MF company, one would think that they'd have to be pretty desperate to accept these terms, or they'd charge nearly as much as selling the entire company for such an arrangement.

And for those saying that FF will get to MF quality soon, the Camera Store did a head to head to with the D800 against the new Pentax MF rig with this new sensor, and from what little I saw, it wasn't really that close. Shockingly, the larger sensor prevailed.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 6, 2014)

lintoni said:


> 645 for MF was/is the equivalent of APS-C, most MF systems were 6x6cm or 6x7cm.



true 6x6 being the most common - but it's certainly a lot closer than the 4.4x3.3 currently being said is medium format - that's almost like calling m43 full frame.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2014)

unfocused said:


> ... there are just more leaks coming from Nikon.



^^This

I've said for years that Canon's weather sealing is superior to Nikon's, and the greater number of Nikon leaks just proves my point.


----------



## weixing (Aug 6, 2014)

Hi,


neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > ... there are just more leaks coming from Nikon.
> ...


 This is a good point.... Ha ha ha... ;D ;D ;D

Have a nice day.


----------



## tolusina (Aug 6, 2014)

unfocused said:


> .....Nikon/Photo Rumors guy seems to have more reliable and better sources...


_ru·mor
ˈro͞omər/
noun
noun: rumour; plural noun: rumours; noun: rumor; plural noun: rumors

1.
a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth.
_
---
A rumor then, is anything but a true indicator of anything. 
The more outlandish and preposterous a statement, the better rumor it can be.
What you might be looking for is http://canonpressreleases.com or http://nikonpressreleases.com

If you're seeking reliable rumors, I'm pretty good at making isht up.
Canon's long anticipated 3D will use a true 60x45 MF Foveon type sensor and is scheduled to hit stores on October 32, 2014.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 6, 2014)

tolusina said:


> If you're seeking reliable rumors, I'm pretty good at making isht up.
> Canon's long anticipated 3D will use a true 60x45 MF Foveon type sensor and is scheduled to hit stores on October 32, 2014.



Rats, and I am working that day. Go figure the odds of that huh?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 6, 2014)

ahsanford

I concur more likely they would buy out Phase One or Hasselblad or strike deals with them. Its not that long ago that the rumor was Canon was looking at Phase One.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 6, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> IT'S THE SENSORS STUPID!!!!! THE PEOPLE WANT A SENSOR LIKE NIKON HAS IN THE 810!



As long as they include an AA filter.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 6, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > If you're seeking reliable rumors, I'm pretty good at making isht up.
> ...



You must be a dentist.


----------



## tolusina (Aug 6, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> ......You must be a dentist.


  
i hadda dee layed ree acchon


----------



## unfocused (Aug 6, 2014)

If I were a Canon investor, I'd really need a lot of convincing to consider medium format. It sure seems like a market were the best way to earn $1 million would be to start with $2 million.


----------



## LDS (Aug 6, 2014)

lintoni said:


> 645 for MF was/is the equivalent of APS-C, most MF systems were 6x6cm or 6x7cm.



Not true. All those formats used 120 or 220 film, and the choice among them depended on the intended use for the camera. Usually 6x4.5 were the smaller/lighter ones (lenses also), and the most useful to be used on-site and carried around, while the 6x7 ones were usually the bulkier ones, and better suited for studio work. Many models could switch form a format to another, many 6x6 models could also switch to 6x4.5 (some could also use 35mm film), if the square format was not ideal for the shot (or more shots from a roll of film were needed), and some 6x7 as well. 6x6 cameras were probably the most versatile format, and a good compromise between size and performance, and thereby the most common. IIRC only Mamiya and Pentax made 6x7 cameras, while Hasselblad, Rollei, Zenza Bronica made only cameras for 6x6 and 6x4.5 formats.


----------



## e17paul (Aug 6, 2014)

I think that Canon are asking well ahead of time, so that they can develop a sensor. In contrast, Nikon would be able to pull together a product far more quickll, by buying in a 50MP sensor from their usual supplier.

Canon have not mastered mirrorless yet (in my view, not until they have a built in EVF that I'm happy with), but must be wondering how to approach a repeat of the 1987 revolution. It will be a few years yet, but will happen.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 6, 2014)

Medium Format is not needed, IMHO, because full-frame is more than enough. Here are the reasons.


Very, very few MF lenses actually have more aperture for a given field of view than the fastest full-frame lenses, so there's little or no lens performance envelope advantage to MF.
The pixel count advantage is artificial. Canon produced a 120MP APS-H sensor that was claimed to work very well, and such a pixel density would be 187.5MP on full-frame.
What full-frame needs to use these larger pixels counts effectively is higher resolution lenses, which is a process that's already well underway at Canon (17 TS-e, 24TS-e, 16-35/4IS, 24-70/2.8 II, 70-200/2.8 II, and so on). These lenses and others can already support far higher pixel counts than the Nikon D810 has, and also far higher than the 50MP cropped MF sensor that's available now.
It's technologically possible (according to experts I know) to build a full-frame sensor with native ISOs down to around the ISO 25 range (deeper wells). Doing so will make the sensor size advantage of MF go away when you are not light-limited.

The full-frame system is already well developed as far as accessories and support goes, so it would be much less expensive to develop into a MF competitor by doing nothing but continuing to improve lenses and building a high pixel-count, high-performance, low base-ISO sensor for a full-frame camera. This is all doable right now.

Lee Jay


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 6, 2014)

I love how it gets so technical on here and numbers get thrown about.

Yet we shoot love and emotions.


----------



## ScottyP (Aug 6, 2014)

I think we can all see what is next. This return to medium format is sure, in turn, to ingnite the race back into Large Format. 

No one can deny the public has been itching to drape a new synthetic version (kevlar?) of the traditional light blanket over their heads, hunch over the tripod, clutching the updated carbon fiber handle of a state of the art flash powder trough. 

Party like it's 1899. This could obviously become huge with the steampunk crowd too.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 6, 2014)

dilbert said:


> the nikon rumors website claims that no such thing is going to happen but i sometimes wonder if that website is more of an arm of nikon marketing ...



All rumor sites are arms of marketing to some extent. When a rumor site depends on anonymous tips (that's all of them) then the camera companies can manipulate certain rumors. This comes with the territory, and there ain't much that can be done about it.

Both Nikon and Canon Medium Format rumors serve as polls, i.e. would you buy one if it were made. And how better to get Canon/Nikon fans to take the poll than to float a Medium Format Rumor.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 6, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > 645 for MF was/is the equivalent of APS-C, most MF systems were 6x6cm or 6x7cm.
> ...



Back in the days of film, most 6x6 negatives were cropped as 6x4.5. The square format could be cropped both as landscape and as portrait.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 6, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> I could see this. if canon released "full frame" MF, it would seriously cause a lot of heads to turn canon's way in a big hurry as the current 1.3 crop factor adds dramatic and considerable cost to the lens investment with UWA lenses in MF.
> 
> I could be wrong, but even the most expensive systems to date were 1.16 crop - none of them produced the fully 60x45 of traditional 645.



Hmmm. Didn't Fuji make both 6x8 and 6x9 Full Frame Medium Format Film cameras ??? That would be a very expensive sensor.


----------



## l_d_allan (Aug 6, 2014)

*How to get on list for evaluation? PLS accept EF lenses !!! 150+ DxoMark? *

Seems like Canon engineers could come up with a mount that could also accept EF lenses, and a body that was MUCH MUCH smaller than the Pentax 645z. Smaller than Leica S2?

The MF lenses would obviously be optimized for the full sensor. (unfortunate TLA ... two letter acronym :-\ ) 

The EF lenses would vignette like crazy, but maybe less than expected. The T/S lenses are basically MF with large image circle. A sensor size where the most common or best EF image circles just touched the top and bottom ... 12mm away .. might be usable. Or less ambitious, touched the left and right ... 18mm away. 

Actually, the existing T/S lenses with AF and maybe IS, and without the t/s mechanism might be the initial primes? Or not?

My 35mm f2 IS on this camera would look like a true 8mm fisheye on a full-frame, except rectilinear, obviously. It's image circle would just touch the top, and would be several mm within the left and right. My understanding is that the image circle of primes is larger than might be expected, to have corner-to-corner sharpness.

Maybe Roger Cicala at LensRentals can get an evaluation copy, with NDA?

The 645 and all other digital MF cameras I'm aware of are designed around mounts for 6mm x 6mm film, which is HUGE, and much bigger than it has to be for the 50 mpx Sony.

The MF sensors are "only" 43 x 33mm, which is not that much bigger than ff. The mount is HUGE in comparison to maintain compatibility with ooooooold Hassy and other 6x6 lenses. I wonder how the Leica MF is designed? Does it use the Sony sensor? Huge mount? My impression is that the Leica MF is smaller than the Pentax 645z.

And the initial native MF lenses on the ~0.70 crop sensor would be sensational ArtMf+ primes, but "matched" to the sensor so the "weak link" and "resolution bottle-neck" was balanced ... lenses could just "feed the sensor". "Blow the socks off" the Otus and Arts on the D810 or A7r?

Still dreaming?
Integrate Sony Exmor technology with 14+ EV DR, and also allow MagicLantern's Dual-ISO to be native option to have DR nearer the 20+ EV of the human eye, with new RAW format. ML's Auto-ETTR and Auto-Dot-Tune MFA ... actually all of ML that made sense ... hire A1ex.

150+ DxoMark?

To me, 1 fps or even less would be plenty ... be the opposite from the 1Dx, which has a priority for fps. Maybe only shoot RAW, so eliminate CPU processing "wasted" for the JPEG processing pipeline. RAW histogram and blinkies from ML. ML's RAW video. Use all the CPU cycles for IQ and then AF, not foo-foo.

Flexible 16-bit RAW that allowed selectable compression, a'la what Sony seems to be doing, but much more flexible (and honest :-\ ), and uses all 64k levels. Also allow 17+ bit RAW uncompressed. Not sure what the best default would be? 17-24+ bit RAW's could be huge, and difficult for CPU's to work with.


----------



## docsmith (Aug 6, 2014)

I actually like this trend. I'll probably never own a MF camera, but the cost is coming down. Right now, I suspect they are aimed at pros that need them and those that are not phased by the price of an Otus lens. That market seems small, but it does exist. 

So, buy an Otus lens or a MF camera? When you are in that price neighborhood, I can see a few people going for the MF camera.


----------



## Halfrack (Aug 6, 2014)

ScottyP said:


> ...., clutching the updated carbon fiber handle of a state of the art flash powder trough.



Can I be there when they try to explain flash powder to the TSA agents? 

MF is fun today, even just shooting Fuji pack film (Polaroid) on a Mamiya RZ is cheap.


----------



## RobertG. (Aug 6, 2014)

For some years you can already stick some Canon lenses to a medium format back and it works well. The cam is called HCAM from Hartblei. See details here: http://www.hartblei.de/en/hartbleicam2.htm. 

The current medium format sensor size is just a minor improvement compared to full format IMHO. A real 60mm x 45mm sensor would be something interesting. But a real revolution would be such a huge sensor in a cam with a DSLR-like performance and a mount like the old Pentacon Six, for which adapter rings to almost all other mounts can easily be produced. So the new cam can be used easily also with Hasselblad and other manufacturer lenses. Something like Sony's A7R in a larger format. 

If Nikon offers a medium format camera, only a fool would buy one. See their current quality control issues with the D600 and D800.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 6, 2014)

Make it sub-10K and give it some LS lenses. It will sell like hotcakes.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 6, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Make it sub-10K and give it some LS lenses. It will sell like hotcakes.



Repeating the same thing over and over again won't make it come true. 



ScottyP said:


> I think we can all see what is next. This return to medium format is sure, in turn, to ignite the race back into Large Format.
> 
> No one can deny the public has been itching to drape a new synthetic version (kevlar?) of the traditional light blanket over their heads, hunch over the tripod, clutching the updated carbon fiber handle of a state of the art flash powder trough.
> 
> Party like it's 1899. This could obviously become huge with the steampunk crowd too.



Given that the phrase dates to the 19th century according to the word detective, perhaps it would be appropriate if you suggested that your Large Format creations would "sell like hotcakes." I think there might actually be a bigger market for your idea than for medium format.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 6, 2014)

unfocused said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Make it sub-10K and give it some LS lenses. It will sell like hotcakes.
> ...


Repeating it won't will make you look really stupid when it does.


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 6, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> SwampYankee said:
> 
> 
> > IT'S THE SENSORS STUPID!!!!! THE PEOPLE WANT A SENSOR LIKE NIKON HAS IN THE 810!
> ...



Go full color per sensor cell.
-No more need for an AA-filter.
-an effective resolution akin to MF within the established system
-with the current stock of lenses, its hard to exceed 16-35/4is, 24-70/2,8& 70-200/2.8IIis as bread&butter lenses. And then there is the latitude of lens selection.
-makes it easy to generate a great video signal, just don't mess it up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2014)

e17paul said:


> I think that Canon are asking well ahead of time, so that they can develop a sensor. In contrast, Nikon would be able to pull together a product far more quickll, by buying in a 50MP sensor from their usual supplier.



As pointed out, Canon has made a 120 MP APS-H sensor. They've also made the world's largest CMOS sensor, here it is along side a 'full frame' sensor:







As for Nikon simply sourcing a sensor, there's also the matter of both Canon and Nikon funding the development of an entire new line of high end lenses. Not going to be fast or cheap.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2014)

unfocused said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Make it sub-10K and give it some LS lenses. It will sell like hotcakes.
> ...



Well, it worked so well for him with the 135mm f/1.8L IS, I guess he figures it'll work even better for an entirely new line of expensive bodies and lenses. It seems he also thinks calling everyone else stupid makes him smart, instead of just making him look like a petulant child. :


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


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


I find it funny that both a sub 10k Brand new MF body and a 135mm f/1.8 IS already exist. Now since those are facts, you both look really ludicrous to think I'm the one who looks dumb here. XD


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> I find it funny that both a sub 10k Brand new MF body and a 135mm f/1.8 IS already exist. Now since those are facts, you both look really ludicrous to think I'm the one who looks dumb here. XD



Don't be so manifestly obtuse. We all know you are talking about Canon products.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I find it funny that both a sub 10k Brand new MF body and a 135mm f/1.8 IS already exist. Now since those are facts, you both look really ludicrous to think I'm the one who looks dumb here. XD
> ...


Canon would be nice but those sigma Art lenses wouldn't be a bad choice either.


----------



## lintoni (Aug 7, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I could see this. if canon released "full frame" MF, it would seriously cause a lot of heads to turn canon's way in a big hurry as the current 1.3 crop factor adds dramatic and considerable cost to the lens investment with UWA lenses in MF.
> ...


http://photo.net/equipment/fuji/617
Try a 6 x 17!


----------



## unfocused (Aug 7, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Exists...or selling like hotcakes? Let's see some sales figures please.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 7, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > SwampYankee said:
> ...



Still need an AA filter.

Sigma seems to have brainwashed everyone.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 7, 2014)

dilbert said:


> To look at it from a different perspective, who would buy into Canon MFDB?
> * sports photographers - they would need to replace all of their current lenses with newer, bigger lenses and if they don't work from monopods/tripods, they would then need to. For newspapers, etc, this ecosystem upgrade would be costly without any gain as current model FF cameras deliver what's required. i.e. no buyers here.
> 
> * event photographers - aren't going to want to carry around bigger and bulkier cameras and lenses to gigs, concerts, etc.
> ...



Yikes, twice in two days, Dilbert is the voice of reason. I'm starting to worry.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 7, 2014)

So wait, Canon might make a 50 MP MF camera, but not a 50MP FF camera with the same pixel density as a crop body? Talk about running before you walk.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 7, 2014)

unfocused said:


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


Well they made a successful run with the 645D to make a successor with the 645z. Obviously it must be selling and in a year, well have the figures on the 645z, which would sell like hotcakes if they had some LS lenses.

check in then.


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 7, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Still need an AA filter.


Let me count how often I encountered moire from the monochrome back...0 times, seems to be a real everyday problem.


----------



## DavidD (Aug 7, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > tolusina said:
> ...


Its true. He is a dentist. My appointment is at tooth-hurty ;-)


Sorry I can't help it.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 7, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Still need an AA filter.
> ...



I encounter moire occasionally even with an AA filter.


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 7, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> I encounter moire occasionally even with an AA filter.



Which back?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 7, 2014)

Designing & building a complete camera system from scratch will run to many millions of dollars. The most expensive part of that will be lenses and even for Canon that would take at least 2-4 years. The amortization of lenses, if they successfully enter the market would likely be 10+ years but then Canon has EF lenses much older than this although the period for FF would be lower due to higher sales. 
The fact that Canon entered the cinematography market which you could equally argue is a much smaller market than the DSLR market means it could be feasable and in that market they have designed three cameras C100, C300 & C500 and a set of primes & zoom lenses which can be had in both EF and PL mounts, its a market also now crowded for both cameras & lenses so there are similarities. The Super 35 format however is not too disimilar to APS-H / C wheras much bigger glass is require for MF. In each case an optimized system would require lenses matched to sensor to get the Nyquist balance right so the work on the MF lenses is far removed from the APS-C or FF lenses. Pentax back focus is Pentax 645 70.87mm, Pentax 6x7 84.95mm, Canon EF / EF-S 44mm, and Arri PL 52mm. 
if its an entirely new system like the EF-M which is 18mm they could shrink the back focus with true telecentric lenses. Arri maintained a consistent back focus i.e. Arri 65mm system is 52mm like the 35mm system but the lenses are completely a different design for obvious reasons. However maintaining a constant back focus they could "region" the sensor to FF and you could use existing FF lenses.


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 7, 2014)

jeffa4444 said:


> The fact that Canon entered the cinematography market which you could equally argue is a much smaller market than the DSLR market means it could be feasable and in that market they have designed three cameras C100, C300 & C500 and a set of primes & zoom lenses which can be had in both EF and PL mounts, its a market also now crowded for both cameras & lenses so there are similarities.


Notably they entered that market from the price angle. Canons cine lenses are among the less expensive of the bunch, as strange as that might feel for some.


> The Super 35 format however is not too disimilar to APS-H / C wheras much bigger glass is require for MF.


Only in size though. Motion picture has those additional requirements that make completely different designs, esp for the zooms, desirable. For MF one could start with small frame lenses as baseline template. The elements would be large, but nothing that hasn't been done in the new TS-Es or the big whites. Even the new 24-70 is at least for the front part in the MF size bracket.

The question is whether there are strong differentiators as with the cine lenses, or if its more cost efficient to get a similar result by more conventional means.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 7, 2014)

Its actually harder to make high performance lenses for smaller sensors due to the increased depth of field however I agree cinematography lenses far outperform stills lenses particularly zooms and that equally applies to 70mm which is the largest cinematography format. Making fast MF lenses is a challenge hence why their is not so many of them.


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 7, 2014)

Medium format is the new full frame.

If not now in 3-5 years. It's another market to make money from and I fully expect it to be pushed to all hell.

If canon get's into bed with some pre existing lenses it's a done deal.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 7, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



Ha! So true. So very, very, sadly true. 

Perhaps this will help: Dynamic Range, Banding, Shadow Detail, High ISO, High Megapixels, Sony Sensors, DxO.

It that doesn't get the juices flowing, nothing will.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Aug 7, 2014)

In order for there to be a noticeable image quality difference, you have to double the diagonal. So you'd be going from 43mm to 85mm, give or take.

I don't think the lenses would be a huge issue. They could rework some existing designs to throw a larger image circle. A "normal" lens would be 85mm. The job would be easier if they went with a mirrorless design. I doubt the 85 f/1.2 would throw an 85mm image circle, as designed, but I'll bet an 85 f/2 wouldn't be a difficult engineering challenge.

They hardest part would be the business case. a 36 x 48mm sensor would be pointless. The image quality difference would be imperceptible. You'd need a 55 x 70mm sensor to make things worth the effort. But then costs would be too high.

It seems unlikely to me.


----------



## Halfrack (Aug 7, 2014)

dilbert said:


> l_d_allan said:
> 
> 
> > The EF lenses would vignette like crazy, but maybe less than expected. The T/S lenses are basically MF with large image circle. A sensor size where the most common or best EF image circles just touched the top and bottom ... 12mm away .. might be usable. Or less ambitious, touched the left and right ... 18mm away.
> ...



There is the rich hobbyist market - someone said one of the more common hobbies for tech focused employees is photography - so there is a growing market, and to these folks the Phase/Hass system is really a reach. Wedding shooters can do it all with their existing gear, but there is an issue in pricing - MF is an easy way to 'increase' your rates, and there are weddings that seem to have endless money available. 

Canon would have to bring a higher performing AF system - the Phase One DF+ has 3 AF points (center and either side about 1mm away from center), while Hasselblad has a single AF point but compensates for it with TrueFocus which adjusts the focus based of how you recompose the image.

Here's your MF cat image...


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 7, 2014)

jeffa4444 said:


> However maintaining a constant back focus they could "region" the sensor to FF and you could use existing FF lenses.



I suspect you would have the same problems with FF lenses on an MF body that you'd have with EF-S lenses on a FF body. They're designed under the assumption that the mirror will be a particular size, and MF would require a bigger mirror. Judging by the very small difference between adapted lenses that hang at infinity and Canon lenses that don't, I suspect that a change in mirror height of only a millimeter or two would be enough to cause problems.

You could work around this with a specially designed teleconverter attachment that spreads and refocuses the light over the larger surface, with a mirror that doesn't flip straight up, or with a mirrorless design, of course, but each approach has disadvantages, either in IQ, battery life, or mechanical complexity.


----------



## hajiaru (Aug 7, 2014)

Nikon D900 will have 50mp


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 8, 2014)

Stephen Melvin said:


> In order for there to be a noticeable image quality difference, you have to double the diagonal. So you'd be going from 43mm to 85mm, give or take.
> 
> I don't think the lenses would be a huge issue. They could rework some existing designs to throw a larger image circle. A "normal" lens would be 85mm. The job would be easier if they went with a mirrorless design. I doubt the 85 f/1.2 would throw an 85mm image circle, as designed, but I'll bet an 85 f/2 wouldn't be a difficult engineering challenge.
> 
> ...



Not altogether true you have to view it as "a complete system" and you have to decide what is important a. dynamic range or b.resolution. Sony has managed to improve resolution on its CMOS sensors (include any camera with a Sony sensor) by decreasing the pixel pitch but to compensate has better controlled noise particularly dark current noise which improves apparent dynamic range i.e. that range is truly useable. On a 36X24mm sensor the current happy medium is around 5um however the cinematography favorite the Alexa is around 8um because they want better dynamic range & color slightly at the expense of resolution and that image is projected far larger than most photographs. 

The relationship between pixel pitch and line pairs per mm is also crutial ideally you want to match the two so you could be doubling this between small & large pixels hence a "complete system" would aim to maintain the relationship and make improvements to other elements like processing, glass types, light wells, micro lenses, fill factors etc. 

The other factor to keep in mind is MF will have less depth of field than FF so auto focus will be far more critical and for bigger lenses speed will be the challenge for AF in sports & other fast moving subjects. Bigger glass means more expensive glass and I agree logic would say do away with the mirror to shorten the back focus and reduce the size.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Aug 8, 2014)

Stephen Melvin said:


> In order for there to be a noticeable image quality difference, you have to double the diagonal. So you'd be going from 43mm to 85mm, give or take.
> 
> I don't think the lenses would be a huge issue. They could rework some existing designs to throw a larger image circle. A "normal" lens would be 85mm. The job would be easier if they went with a mirrorless design. I doubt the 85 f/1.2 would throw an 85mm image circle, as designed, but I'll bet an 85 f/2 wouldn't be a difficult engineering challenge.
> 
> ...





jeffa4444 said:


> Not altogether true you have to view it as "a complete system" and you have to decide what is important a. dynamic range or b.resolution. Sony has managed to improve resolution on its CMOS sensors (include any camera with a Sony sensor) by decreasing the pixel pitch but to compensate has better controlled noise particularly dark current noise which improves apparent dynamic range i.e. that range is truly useable. On a 36X24mm sensor the current happy medium is around 5um however the cinematography favorite the Alexa is around 8um because they want better dynamic range & color slightly at the expense of resolution and that image is projected far larger than most photographs.
> 
> The relationship between pixel pitch and line pairs per mm is also crutial ideally you want to match the two so you could be doubling this between small & large pixels hence a "complete system" would aim to maintain the relationship and make improvements to other elements like processing, glass types, light wells, micro lenses, fill factors etc.
> 
> The other factor to keep in mind is MF will have less depth of field than FF so auto focus will be far more critical and for bigger lenses speed will be the challenge for AF in sports & other fast moving subjects. Bigger glass means more expensive glass and I agree logic would say do away with the mirror to shorten the back focus and reduce the size.



MF only has reduced DOF if the lenses are built proportionally. Currently, no MF system is capable of producing shallower DOF than a Canon system. It was true in the film days, and it's even more true now. 

With the same level of technology (for example, putting a roll of Tri-X in a Nikon and another roll into a Bronica), you have to double the diagonal for there to be a noticeable difference in the image quality.

My wall is full of very large prints made from cameras from the 30D to the 5D, Mk II. I'd challenge anybody to tell which ones were made with the FF camera vs the APS cameras. There just isn't that big of a difference between APS-C and FF. I only switched because of the lenses.


----------



## moreorless (Aug 8, 2014)

Stephen Melvin said:


> MF only has reduced DOF if the lenses are built proportionally. Currently, no MF system is capable of producing shallower DOF than a Canon system. It was true in the film days, and it's even more true now.
> 
> With the same level of technology (for example, putting a roll of Tri-X in a Nikon and another roll into a Bronica), you have to double the diagonal for there to be a noticeable difference in the image quality.
> 
> My wall is full of very large prints made from cameras from the 30D to the 5D, Mk II. I'd challenge anybody to tell which ones were made with the FF camera vs the APS cameras. There just isn't that big of a difference between APS-C and FF. I only switched because of the lenses.



In this respect I actually see more reason for Nikon to go MF than Canon, at present there at a disadvantage with DOF control as there seemingly unable to create F/1.2 lenses with AF due to the smaller size of the F mount where as Canon have shown they can create F/1 lenses if needed. Going MF would give them the chance to come up with something with similar of better DOF control.

I disagree with your point about needing to double the diagonal to see an improvement in image quality but I suspect a big factor will be whether 35mm lenses can be designed easily to make the best of 50 MP+ sensors or whether MF might actually make designs easier.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 8, 2014)

Stephen Melvin said:


> In order for there to be a noticeable image quality difference, you have to double the diagonal. So you'd be going from 43mm to 85mm, give or take.



I dunno, the 645z (diagonal 55mm?) looks to have better high ISO capability than the A7s, which is about the cleanest full frame sensor at present. It won't be worth the massive price difference to most people, but it is noticeable.

I agree all this sounds unlikely though, anyway.


----------



## lexptr (Aug 10, 2014)

All that Cine and MF stuff is nice, but I afraid, they will lose focus on 35mm format. I.e. less products in that mortal-affordable niche, rare updates.


----------

