Tom_W
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.4 #2 · 17 TS-E; Detail intensive subject | |
rscheffler wrote:
Tom, I don't disagree with your points. Larger formats definitely have certain beneficial characteristics.
Would you buy a Canon MF system?
It's possible the trend with serious film photographers stopped at 35mm because of the limitations of the film itself and a reason a lot of commercial/editorial shooters worked with medium format. But a lot of those photographers have transitioned down to FF 35mm digital. Meanwhile the trend among most casual photographers is to APS-C digital SLRs or P&S cameras with much smaller sensors. That doesn't discount the benefits/advantages of larger formats, it just reflects the current reality.
The question for me is whether Canon has a need to participate in the specialized MF digital market. I don't see a logical reason for them, other than prestige, to do so when they're already so successful in pushing the boundaries with 35mm digital and, as mentioned, have attracted a lot of photographers who previously shot MF or even large format film. There is likely more money for Canon in aiming product at serious motion picture producers looking for 35mm FF video capture device at reasonable prices, kind of like what Canon did with MF shooters 5-7 years ago.
One could say that a 1DsIII or 5DII, combined with TS-E lenses and multiple shifted captures stitched in post production already equals the resolution of MF backs, as Doug with his opening post illustrated so dramatically. So in a way the mythical Canon MF system already exists.
Ron
That's a good question - I would consider a Canon, or any medium format system but price is ultimately my barrier. And I think that price guides a lot of peoples' decisions.
To me, and this is just my opinion, duplicating my 35 mm kit in medium format would be cost-prohibitive. Probably impossible as well, since I don't believe that there's many lenses that could qualify as supertelephotos in formats large than 35 mm. So a medium format kit would have to augment my 35 mm setup, not replace it.
The move from APS-C to full frame wasn't difficult. While the body costs more, the lenses are roughly the same price as those offered solely for the smaller format. I didn't consider the difference in price between a 5D2 and 50D to be all that significant when compared to the capabilities of each.
Ultimately, I think that right now, the 35 mm format gives the most bang for the buck. Yes, it's a compromise in some way, as all formats are. There are no 400/2.8 equivalents in medium format, and APS-C can't quite match the shallow DOF of larger formats (please don't start an argument about THAT). There's no lens to date offering the angle-of-view and flexibility of a 17mm TSE for an APS-C either, though Canon's 17 TSE will give the smaller format an excellent tilt-shift capable lens with the angle of view that a 27 mm lens would provide on full frame.
I think that a lot of it boils down to price - if not for the lower price of APS-C bodies compared to full frame bodies, I don't think there'd be many buyers. Likewise, if a medium format kit could be had for the price of a 35 mm kit, there'd be a much larger number of MF cameras sold (though I don't think MF would replace 35, since there is a size/weight factor to consider especially with longer lenses).
PS - getting back to the tread starter - awesome detail in that image. I really, REALLY like this new lens, and will probably buy one next year.
|
