Thanks for the head-up Carl. It's really terrible here. You never know what and when something or someone going to hit you. Actually, this forum is my escape from reality.
On a serious note, I would love to see canon get into medium format. Hell, I would love to see Canon make up their own format for giggles and market an all-digital line. Conforming to formats like 135 or 645 or 67 is a concept that has been digitally obsoleted; Phase One backs are only 6x6 because that's what the existing system has. If Canon is building a system from scratch, might as well create whatever format they want. It could be based on the golden ratio, or it could be specifically designed for highest wafer density in manufacturing.
I just don't understand what Canon has to gain by entering the MF market. Is it such a big market or with high profit margins? I am no expert but I think the answer to both questions is 'No'.
Yakim Peled wrote:
I just don't understand what Canon has to gain by entering the MF market. Is it such a big market or with high profit margins? I am no expert but I think the answer to both questions is 'No'.
I'd have to agree. I can't see how they would present the proposition to stockholders of moving from the top position in a profitable market to the "new kid on the block" position in a questionable market.
If they could market an interchangeable back that would fit existing medium format cameras, that would be an additional product that might be salable to the stockholders. If they could market a larger format DSLR that somehow still accepted EF lenses, that might be salable to stockholders.
But a completely new system in a market that appears moribund doesn't seem like something that would sell to the stockholders.
First off, MF is a DSLR. Stop thinking of it as a market to enter and start thinking of it as a market to create. Apple was a "new kid" when the entered the Creative-dominated but lagging world of HDD based music players.
If Canon can continue production on TSE lenses and the 20Da, then the concept isn't terribly far-fetched. There are MF systems out there with 5 lenses and under; it wouldn't be quite the massive RnD effort that EF was. I think they could build a 645 system, make 3 lenses, and sell the body for 10k street and it would be a success. Thin, hand-holdable body ala Mamiya RF, auto focus and image processing ported from Digic.
They don't even have to market it as/for "medium format", they could just market it as a bigger sensor, because that's all it is. APS-C and EF-S are the exact same thing in a different direction. APS-C is built for EF-S but has compatibility with EF, why not give the 645 camera high-speed crop mode compatibility with EF? I'd rather see that than the shockingly unnecessary 22mpx 1Ds. It's not like the 1Ds3 is going to be a sales leader anyways.
Stockholders want to see more Rebels and EF-S zooms; hopefully someone is still forward-thinking enough to innovate.
RDKirk wrote:
I'd have to agree. I can't see how they would present the proposition to stockholders of moving from the top position in a profitable market to the "new kid on the block" position in a questionable market.
If they could market an interchangeable back that would fit existing medium format cameras, that would be an additional product that might be salable to the stockholders. If they could market a larger format DSLR that somehow still accepted EF lenses, that might be salable to stockholders.
But a completely new system in a market that appears moribund doesn't seem like something that would sell to the stockholders. ...Show more →
First off, they don't have to sell anything to shareholders. Management makes the business decisions, including which areas to get into. Directors are elected by shareholders every couple of years but there's no requirement shareholders approve anything having to do with day to day business. Second, with that mentality, Canon would have never gotten into half their business lines including printers and probably even digital cameras. Is MF a niche? Yes. Would it bring down the company if they failed at it? Highly doubtful. Could it bring some additional marketing cache to the company amongst pros? Sure. Personally I hope they do it soon (if they haven't already started RD).
There are MF SLRs, rangefinders, view cameras, and TLRs.
There's almost no reason for a digital MF camera to be an SLR. It would make much more sense to make a rangefinder. You could have live LCD preview, smaller design, and more handholdability (without the mirror slap) that way.
I also wouldn't jump at 645 size, which honestly wouldn't be a huge advance. If they make a 6x7 or 6x6 and price it near where the 1Ds Mk II started out it would have a market. The hardcore MF purists who don't associate Canon with MF might not go for it, but there are indeed many pros reluctantly going from film MF to digital SF in the 1Ds Mk II.
There are MF SLRs, rangefinders, view cameras, and TLRs.
Got me there. I was implying that MF can be a DSLR; I think the line would probably be blurred between what most people think of as a "DSLR" (APS-C, APS-H, 135) and what most people call "medium format".
You don't have to sell me on a digital 645 RF, that camera would be (relatively) small and absolutely incredible. Unfortunately, if MF is a market risk, RF is compounding the issue.
Canon could do whatever they want, but at the same time risk doing the whold FD to EOS swap again... that pissed alot of people off, and there are some that are still bitter over it.... I know that if they introduced something totally new and incompatible with the almost ~$10k of gear i have, i'd be a little mad. I can't afford to get into a new system, and frankly i don't care for one. I think i speak for most of us when i say we're happy with our EOS stuff being constrained by the 135 format.
Perhaps, but when you think about it the compact P+S digicams are nothing short of poor man's rangefinders -- and look how popular they are!
If you took, say, the 1Ds Mark II's sensor, stuck it in a point and shoot body, and closely calibrated the optical viewfinder to the lenses, you have a rangefinder.
I think high price points are the really big risk. I'm sure Canon makes the bulk of its money from selling Powershots and Rebel XTs. Oh yeah, and copy machines. The pro cameras are a drop in the bucket for them. I'm sure there are 100 people who spend $500 on a point and shoot for every one who spends $5000 on a 1D Mk IIN.
So for Canon to put in the R+D to sell an expensive, elite product that few people will need / want / buy is pretty risky.
And for those of us snobbish enough to look down our noses at even the 1Ds Mark II, there's still film. I was on the verge of buying a 5D and decided to get a 4x5 large format setup instead -- and I'm loving my 400 megapixel scans
ok- if "APS Big" was marketed -along side- of EOS, that's one thing... but i think they'd need to be REALLY dedicated to it, and show lots of new stuff to win people over.
1) it wouldn't be cheap (the body)
2) i'm sure the glass wouldnt' be cheap
3) unless it was an interly new animal (bigger sensor with awesome ISO 3200), there's no need.
DrPablo wrote:
Perhaps, but when you think about it the compact P+S digicams are nothing short of poor man's rangefinders -- and look how popular they are!
Yakim Peled wrote:
I just don't understand what Canon has to gain by entering the MF market. Is it such a big market or with high profit margins? I am no expert but I think the answer to both questions is 'No'.
Pardon the pun 'exposure'.
The same question can be asked of car manufacturers, why do they build trucks, 4x4's, mini vans, full sized vans, cheap economy cars, hybrid cars, sports cars, family sedans
Give the consumer choices and expose the photographer to many choices in the hopes that when it come to upgrading to the next level the photographer will stick with the brand name they are familar with. Sure current MF photographers may not jump at a Canon MF digital but those future pro photographers that started with Canon Digital (ie a Rebel) may grow through stages to other possibilities 30D, 5D, ID MKII, 1Ds MK II (not necessarily all of them but the choices are there). But when you reach the 1Ds MK II where does the person go for MF, well not Canon as they have no offering.
It can also be considered a prestige thing, Canon can point out to potential customers we have camera offerings from point and shoots through and including MF. What other manufacturer could state that?
Yes a MF would be an elite product and be expensive but ask yourself this why does GM sell Saturns and Cadillac's or Ford sell Escorts and Lincoln Towncars? OR Toyota sell Lexus and Echo.
DrPablo wrote:
I think high price points are the really big risk. I'm sure Canon makes the bulk of its money from selling Powershots and Rebel XTs. Oh yeah, and copy machines. The pro cameras are a drop in the bucket for them. I'm sure there are 100 people who spend $500 on a point and shoot for every one who spends $5000 on a 1D Mk IIN.
hmmmm not sure whether that is entirely true, I would not be surprised if Canon makes the most of their money on the sale of pro cameras (and lens hoods ). it is not because you sell less volume of an item that it isn't the biggest contributor to your bottom line, but i may be wrong on this one for Canon.
I work in the airline industry and for the majority of my normal major airlines (not the low cost ones) first and business class tickets represent 60-70% of their turnover.
My best guess, is Canon releases a stripped down 6Mp 1.6X crop factor DSLR for short money, say $300 or so, yes they would make probably 5% of profit on this camera, the objective is first to lock you into the canon system, then get you buy lenses (where the real profit is). My next best guess is a 1.3X or 1.0X DSLR 8Mp or so with weather sealing and a 45PT AF system, frame rate no faster than 3FPS.
I doubt they would release a MF camera system, however it's not beyond them to release a MF digital back.
ISO1600 wrote:
Canon could do whatever they want, but at the same time risk doing the whold FD to EOS swap again... that pissed alot of people off, and there are some that are still bitter over it.... I know that if they introduced something totally new and incompatible with the almost ~$10k of gear i have, i'd be a little mad. I can't afford to get into a new system, and frankly i don't care for one. I think i speak for most of us when i say we're happy with our EOS stuff being constrained by the 135 format.
If they keep supporting your gear why would you be mad at an additional line?! I doubt the intro of a larger sensor body and lenses would mean the end of the 1D series, you could buy one or both, what's the problem?
). it is not because you sell less volume of an item that it isn't the biggest contributor to your bottom line, but i may be wrong on this one for Canon.