I really hope Canon stays out of this market as their chips are not up to the task as far as I am concerned . The only thing I like about the Canon system now is the low noise at high ISO and that is it . If they did move into this market they need a better chip like the one from Dalsa otherwise it will be just a MF canon with the same look and feel . All my commercial clients are extremely happy that I made a change to the Aptus . Every client has made comments about how the images they now buy have so much more dynamic range and they look like when I shot 4x5 . Digital no longer looks digital . If Canon enters this market I feel it will be more of the same . Unless they put as much into it as Leaf and Phase they will fail .

Please answer my question then: given that neither Nikon nor Canon moved into medium format film cameras during all their decades of dominance of the film SLR market, why would either of them upsize their format now when the medium format market has been made drastically smaler by the digital transition, and while both of them along with the entire SLR industry is moving mostly in the direction of smaller formats, not larger?

After all, of the MF makers you name, the digital transistion has lead to the end of Bronica, the near disappearance of Rollei MF, Hasselblad and Fuji discontinuing most or all of their MF product lines in favor of a single joint 645AF product, Mamiya's parent company giving up and selling off its MF operations, and Pentax has discontinued all its MF products, though it is talking of introducing a DMF. And the Contax MF system disappeared too.

It is nonsense to say that simply because some small companies have survived (with Hasselblad and Rollei repeatedly going through near-bankrupcy, buy-outs and drastic down-sizing), that this makes the market sector attractive to a far bigger company like Canon.

If MF is the sort of market sector that you think a company should invest resources in, I am not hiring you as my investment advisor!


As to the idea of MF "the only way forward" for Canon, increasing format size has not been the way forward chosen by Canon so far. I suspect that "forward" for Canon mean increased profits, not sinking money into a small and shrinking market sector, where currently most players seem to be making losses.

I suspect that the medium format sector is far smaller these days than you believe. Consider these numbers: the Japanese Camera Industry Association reports that last year, total medium format shipments in Japan were 10,000, though the mostly Fuji-made Hasselblad H might not be counted, due to final assembly being done in Sweden. For comparion, Canon estimated a 5D sales rate of about 100,000/year, has stated a 1DsMkII product rate of 24,000/year, and has a total DSLR sales rate approaching 2 million/year.

BJL,

Playing the devil's advocate again, some reasons why they might want to consider it:

- To keep the high ground and maintain the image that Canon produces DSLR delivering a better image quality. Canon has IMHO understood that the 1ds did a lot more for them than selling a few 10.000 of bodies. It sealed their image as the leader technologically. The image remains, but the gap has mostly been closed by the D2x in terms or image quality, and many others are getting closer. We are moving quick towards a situation similar to the film days. The system itself (lenses,...) is re-gaining importance compared to the sensor, and Nikon for instance is IMHO overall aheadin terms of offering and usability. At least the gap is a lot smaller than when you factored in the 1ds 3 years ago.

What will enable Canon to keep claiming that they are the technological leader in 3-4 years from now? MF would be one of the options (I am not saying it is the only one though),

- To satifsy these millions of shooters that HAD to go from MF to 35 mm for economical reasons while they prefer the look and feel of MF. Just think of all these people very vocal about the need ot full frame digital for DoF - there is just the same wth MF. These people are what Mamiya and Pentax are shooting for with their own MF offering.

The shrinking size of the MF market is mostly a consequence of the incredible price of digital MF solutions. A credible option at a lower price point would expand it significantly IMHO,

- Because there still many pros in Japan that shoot film. Weddings here is very much still MF film from what I can see.

- Because their present financial situations enables them to invest in order to kill more competitors,

- Because they might be able to find some ways to lure 35 mm Canon DSLR users into using a Canon MF system instead of another one. I am thinking of identical RAW workflow, identical ergonomics (let's hope not though), identical accessories (batteries, flash,...).

Cheers,
Bernard

But the question was will they release a MF system at Photokina this year. That means a whole new series of lenses in addition to the body sensor, processor, flash system, etc in just a few months from now...

Long term will Canon do it? That's another question...

Bernard, while we're having a bit of fun speculating about corporate strategy and what is coming next, one also hears that Canon is likely to release a 22 MP 1D series later this year. Again, who except them knows for sure, but IF SO, and assuming the images would be at least as clean as those from the 5D, how much value-added would they be putting on the market with a very expensive MF sensor? If the MK2 already displaces medium format film, could one not envisage a 22MP full-frame (35mm) sensor meeting much of what the market demands from say a 25 MP MF sensor at what will probably be a much lower price?

Okay, while we're all speculating wildly, let me throw in my own useless prediction:
Canon will introduce a digital MF with (--- drumroll, please ---):
a Mirror Lockup button
intended to lure into the MF camp all of us who have been wishing for that on the present DSLRs.

This will, of course, force many of us to start spending the outrageous funds needed to go to MF.

Eric

Yep, but what if their MF were to have the same pixel pitch? We'd be around 50MP...

I don't really believe in it myself though... My best bet is also that they will release a 22 MP 16 bits 2D.

Cheers,
Bernard

Eric,

Once more you have found the missing link! That's why Canon hasn't been delivering... those who thought they were unable were fools... it was all part of a grand plan...

Cheers,
Bernard

Yes, by these figures Canon is selling 5% of 5D compared to the whole SLR market, however I wouldn't be surprised if the 5D alone contributed 25% to the profits of the SLR department of Canon these days. And then of course one should remember the marketing effect these cameras have on the compact sector which Canon is also present in. My first digital was a Coolpix because at the time I was a Nikon shooter.

In Japan, the pro market is taken very seriously (witness the many MF offerings coming from that country) and I wouldn't be surprised if Canon decided to float some new products aimed specifically at marriage/advertising.

Fuji launched both the H* series and the S* series and these are adressing their own integrated distribution structures. The S* series in particular has the exposure lattitude for marriages, and the H* series is now the only player in town as an MF body -even though it's labelled Hasselblad in the rest of the world. I don't think that Canon will enjoy Fuji eating their lunch in the domestic market indefinitely.

Edmund

Welcome back Bernard, you devil!
But I am still not persuaded.

- The idea of Canon needing an even larger format for the sake of "maintain the image that Canon produces DSLR delivering a better image quality" makes even less sense now than it did in the film era, where Nikon etc. were using the same format as Canon, so Canon had not even the small image quality gap that they have now. So again I conclude that if Canon did not go MF film, they will not go to MF digital.

- I am not sure that millions of shooters HAD to go from MF fim to 35mm digital; my guess is that a great majority of those who moved from MF film to smaller digital format were very happy to be rid of the greater bulk, weight and lens cost of MF, disadvantages that Canon MF would still have. The far greater lens selections of smaler formats is surly an attracto too, and do not imagine that even Canon could quickly build a new MF lens system anywhere close to the size of the EF system. That is one place where format downsizing is so much easier than upsizing: all current lenses work, at least as stop-gaps while new lenses beter suited to the new smaller format are phased in.

- The often exaggerated larger format advantage of less DOF wide open does not apply to MF compared to 35mm at all, since MF lenses fairly consistently have higher minimum aperture ratios than 35mm ones by a stop of two. Matching the DOF of the 85/1.2 in 36x48mm DMF would require f/1.7, mathing f/1.4 would take f/2, and the closest MF lenses (a Mamiya f/1.8, Hasselblad and Contax f/2's) are gone leaving the Fuji 100/2.2 as the fastest current MF lens.

My guess is that the reason for this is that the combination of even less DOF and even more size, weight, and cost is not sufficiently attractive to make such monster lenses commercially viable, even in high budget, low mobility world of MF. In portrait photography, where extremely shallow DOF is supposedly so in demand, a lot of MF portait lenses are f/4, giving as much DOF wide open as about f/2.3 in 35mm or f/1.4 in DX.

The evidence of any market for a lens giving less DOF that the Canon 85/1.2 L wide open is lacking.


- I thought we were talking about a digital MF system? Are you now suggesting that Canon might quixotically follow Kyocera/Contax by introducing a new MF _film_ camera system to satisfy the Japanese wedding photgraphy market?!


- As I have said repeatedly, I see no motivation for Canon to invest money into "killing off competitors" who at most take a tiny share of potential Canon sales because they operate in a different and far smaller market sector. It is the "GM needs to invest many millions into killing off Lamborghini" idea again.

Deleted

The football world cup is starting in a couple of weeks, so we should be able to put an end to this debate.

Keep your eyes on the touchline instead of the game and secrets may be revealed. If no details, then at least there will be plenty of stories on the internet of what people thought they saw, or claim that they have been told.

By the way, my prediction is England will go out in the semi-finals on penalties (again).

BJL,

It seems that Devils can't win... I agree with most of your points, except for the firs one perhaps.

Cheers,
Bernard

Forget about pixel and formats, the best thing Canon could do to match their MF big brothers is to go to 16bit captures and fix the wide angle dilemma.

A 22MP, 16 bit sensor in a smaller body with one ultra high end wide angle lens will do the trick for me. Do we really need more?


Josef

My very feeling as well. I might even consider switching then.

Regards,
Bernard

which ultra high end wide angles have caught your attention? I've been taking a look at the Zeiss 21mm Distagon and the Leica 18mm Elmarit, any others?

It's the Leica 19mm you want not the 18mm.

The Zeiss 21 is king for sharpness edge-to-edge. The Leica 19 is close but not quite as good on the edges but with a little better color but you have to break your mirror to use it on a FF Canon. The Zeiss can fit as is. I own both.

The Leica 28 is possibly the sharpest lens ever made in this range. The Zeiss 28/2.0 (not 2.8) is very close and the Zeiss 35 PC Shift lenses are amazing. I own these too.

The Leica 15/2.8 is the best in its class. I don't own that one, I own the lessor Leica 15/3.5 which is basically the same design as the Zeiss 15/3.5 with possibly different coatings. These aren't as good but they are a good value and more common on the used market.

I totally agree. Nikon peaked with their F2AS Photomic. The lead changed when Nikon released that piece of crap F3 at around the same time Canon released the improved, built like a tank, F1n with rotatable high point finder. It was the best camera I ever owned. Give me all the features of that F1 with a 20mp capability and I wouldn't need a girlfriend.

yuk! you were being sarcastic, right?

give me 3:2 or 16:9 but not 4:3.