Antony wrote:
If Canon are making a MF chip, then it will be in a medium format back to fit to Hasselblad or something. The concept of a larger sensor in the EOS range is a a joke. I think that the idea is that Canon will start to compete in the MF back market and MAY at some future stage offer lenses to fit MF cameras. This rumor has nothing to do with the EOS system.
Perhaps you can explain the financial justification for your statements. Why would Canon move into making MF backs rather than making an EOS camera with a larger sensor?
There is simply not enough market in MF to entice Canon into that area.
nathanlake wrote:
Perhaps you can explain the financial justification for your statements. Why would Canon move into making MF backs rather than making an EOS camera with a larger sensor?
There is simply not enough market in MF to entice Canon into that area.
Well, the concept of incorporating a larger sensor into the EOS line is great in theory, but would be useless given the fact that the lenses don't produce a large enough image circle (excluding TS-E lenses). The likelihood of Canon designing something like this as a 1 series replacement is extremely remote. On the other hand, it would be a simple procedure for Canon to create a digital back that can be utilised with MF cameras (eg. phase 1 etc.).
As to the reasons why - well this is a very high dollar market (eg. $20-$30K per back) and given they have already mastered the tech there would be (relatively) minimal expense involved. After all - you are just building a capture mechanism, not a whole camera.
36 x 48 mm does not equal 645, even if such a sensor may or may not have been projected for a putative 645 lens mount system camera.
Also, I very much doubt it makes economic sense for Canon to invest huge R&D into a complete new line of cameras and lenses that would have such little sales volume (high end pros and high end salary $150k+/annum amateur photographers only) that even the well-respected Mamiya company could not attract enough interest to survive with, and they already had lenses!
Get real, folks.
However, a 22 MP top of the line 1D variant for the-same-money-as-now ($7k to 8k) with ISO 25-6400 and Digic III is very feasible and looking increasingly likely (to this observer, no information, just speculation).
To me, this info is bogus, possibly created by someone who imagined Canon would try to fit a MF chip into a 35mm body. It's against common sense, and a possible white elephant if it happens. The current full frame sensor is 16mp... who would want an effective 12Mp unless you spend another 3000 dollars in lenses?
I guess Canon WILL be moving soon to the range of 22Mp by the demand of studio photographers being pressed by magazines into providing MF-sized files in digital format, something the 1DsMk II quite doesn't do. But unless Canon wants to launch a digital MF, they have to stick to their 35mm EF format, and advance regarding sensor density.
After all, if Canon wanted to provide a MF-sized sensor ( not an advancement at all, since there are companies already selling 39Mp MF-sized sensors, so, 22Mp MF-sized sensors are no big deal in the Digital MF market ), they would launch a Canon MF line, not just shove it into a 35mm sized body, and do some weird optical voodoo to make it work. And then, maybe produce some MF lenses, or more likelly adopt some other lens format from a traditional MF seller. And in that regard, why not simply team with some traditional MF manufacturer for that matter ( Mamyia or Hassel )?
And if I'm not mistaken, 36mmx48mm is the effective photogram size of a 6x4.5 MF camera in film. And the size of most MF 645 sensors. 22Mp or not. On that regard, what I guess is killing the MF Digital Back Market is the hyper-investment compared to non-so-great diferences. If you had a US$5000 22Mp back, wouldn't you take the dust of your old Mamyia and use it? Or get one for under US$1500? Many people I know LOVE MF photography, but switched to digital 35mm for price and practical reasons, but would switch back to medium format if digital backs came closer to the price range of 35mm bodies. Because to jump from 12Mp full frame to 16Mp full frame, you have to put in around US$3000 extra money. To jump from 16Mp to 22Mp, you have to put in around US$12000 extra money. It's not really encouraging.
The high-end Phase One P45 has an image area of 49.1cm x 36.8cm. Mamiya specs their ZD at 48cm x 36cm. None of the current "645" style backs are even close to a true 60cm x 45cm. However, they all have that similar 1.3 aspect ratio of 645 (49.1 / 36.8), where-as FF35 has an aspect ratio of 1.5.
Even film 645 cameras were not a true 60cm x 45cm. They were slightly less, closer to 56cm x 42cm. 6x9 is not 6x9, 4x5 cameras do not use film holders that yield a true 4"x5" image. Everything has always been rounded up for ease of comparison.
are we forgetting this one (quote from news on DPr):
3. Product type: Lens-interchangeable medium-format digital SLR camera
Model name (tentative): PENTAX 645 Digital
Product information:
Professional-quality digital image reproduction with 18 effective megapixels
Kodak-developed extra-large CCD image sensor with 18.6 total megapixels (tentative)
PENTAX-original 645AF lens mount
Compatibility with existing smc PENTAX 645 interchangeable lenses
-------------------------------------------------
Why wouldn't Canon want to compete? They have the money, they have the experience to make great lenses and cameras. And looking at the 30D, which shouldn';t have cost that much to develope, they probably have put the money elsewhere in some other project like this ...
