anyone think Canon will bring out MF digital at Photokina?

it seems an obivious next step in their domination of digital photography -
something like a ZD done properly by canon with double size upgraded 1Ds2 chips should be an amazing machine.

From a business point of view, it's ridiculous. Invest p--- pot full of money to develop an entirely new camera to steal market share from their own niche! They would be commiting suicide just when they have a near stranglehold on the digital market.

They will never produce a MFDB in my opinion. It would be wild if they did, but I doubt it.

What will come out in September is the tentatively titled 1Ds MIII. It will have 20 megapixels. But it will also have the option to shoot at a lower MP around 10 or 12 using less of a the chip having to adapt to lens magnification in this mode. It will also have a 3" screen! So the body will handle every from the 1D Mark II all the way beyond the 1Ds Mark II. An all in one camera.

They will also be introducing a 50mm 1.2 lens to accompany the new 85mm/1.2 II lens.

What more could you want. Now we just need 4:3 aspect ratio!

Hope that helps. I am going to dump my two 1DsMII's in July or August and then wait it out till I can get the two new ones.

I could never see Canon do this... and why would anybody want to have this. Isn't what you are suggesting the exact same thing as performing a crop in photoshop?

It's not the same as the current crop (sorry for the pun) of the chips used in D30, etc. as the photosites (and chips) in those cameras are a different physical size. What you have suggested is the physical photosite would also get smaller.

However, if using less photosites of the chip would result in higher FPS... then I could understand that strategy.

Kelly

The D2x does have such a function, and the difference with a PS crop is the speed of shooting.

Since the amount of pixels is lower, the d2x in cropped more (7 MP) can shoot at 8 frames per second. instead of 5 at its full 12.4 MP

Regards,
Bernard

Agreed... as long as people didn't think it gave them greater reach as opposed to a crop effect.

Kelly

To keep things on topic, the point is that a 20Mp sensor even with new ultra L lenses is at the absolute limit of 35mm lens optical resolution. Canon are not stupid, and can see where its headed - they *have* to produce an MF (larger sensor) solution if they want to go beyond 20Mp in any meaningful way.

It may not be a huge market, but Hasselblad is the last man standing in MF at the moment, so if Canon moved in they could sweep up the MF pro digital market worldwide, at $20,000 per starter outfit - that is real $ and canon should not ignore it. I doubt it would be simply a digiback, but a whole camera solution.

I dont care for 800lb gorillas, but quite frankly I'd totally welcome it. Imagine some of Canons know-how in AF and sensor technology done in 645 format...

We’re all just speculating here so I’ll add my two cents… My opinion is worth exactly what you are paying for it - nothing.

I know that the current management at Canon has made it very clear that they will not develop products that are not profitable. And I know the last time the local Canon sales rep came to our shop he said that a lot of people at Canon thought the 1Ds2 was too expensive and not enough people could afford it and that was a problem. What direction did Canon take after that? They came out with the 5D – a cheaper but very good camera that sold like crazy. That seems logical.

I would posit that the medium format market, even at $20K per kit or more would just not offset the development expenses of developing such a system. It would cost tens of millions of dollars to develop a medium format line at Canon. Would the management expect it to be profitable? Would they think that people could afford such kits? Would they expect it would attract a lot of buyers? These are the questions they would ask before developing such a system, wouldn’t they? It doesn’t seem justified from a profit perspective.

Yes, the Hassy H1 is the last man standing in medium format. Yes, Canon could kill Hassy immediately. But the medium format business so far these last few years has been doing quite a good job killing itself off. Every company has been consolidating and there just aren’t many players left now. Is Canon really worried by Hassy? Are they worried about Kodak or Dalsa? It is a niche market it’s it? I would think if they were worried about anyone right now it would be Sony. Between Sony and Canon they make up almost 90% of the market by volume don’t they? – 80%+ at least or something like that if I remember correctly. Everyone else is tiny by comparison. I don’t think Hassy worries Canon in the least.

I’m not trying to knock Canon or Hassy. For the record I’m heavily invested in both systems. I’d love to see what Canon could do. But I think Canon has bigger fish to fry. They need to develop a whole new line of wide angle L primes. That’s going to be a big, expensive job and they know it. Furthermore the 1Ds2 kicks butt and we all know it. How many of us have jumped out of medium format film and picked up a 1Ds2 for a lot of out projects? Come on it’s a killer camera as it is. If they could bump the color up to 16-bit, maybe do the crop thing for faster frame rates for a unified 1 series camera – toss in a 20MP sensor – you know we’d all buy one.

All Canon needs to do is look at the success (cough!) of the ZD (cough!) and they’ll run the other way. I think for the near term medium format will belong to niche players for better or worse. It requires a niche player to make the numbers work.

Hi
I am a Canon user and a Mamya ZD /Mamiya 645afd/aptus 22 user. I can't see Canon going into the MFD market. It is way too small. By the way I own both a Canon 5D and A ZD now. For our work purposes the ZD outperforms the 5D at iso 50. If I have to shoot at iso 400 I will use the 5D. They both have their place and the last I heard Mamiya has been sold. It will take a lot for Canon to get their chip to perform like the 22mp Dalsa chip. I can't coment on the Kodax chip as I haven't used it.
Thanks Denis Montalbetti

There is plenty of evidence against that statement, starting wih the D2x.

Extrapolating the current resolution of the D2x to a 24*36 mm sensor, such a sensor would have 28MP.

The Nikkor lenses have absolutely no problem dealing with the resolution of the D2x sensor, even in the corners.

Regards,
Bernard

It would make more sense if Nikon did it, wouldn't it?

They'd keep their APS sensor (D2x, D3x,...) and add on top of that a small medium format line up with new lenses...

Can keep dreaming.

Cheers,
Bernard

Can't see the need for Canon Medium format myself.
The IDSII is all the resolution I need, and much easier to use then a medium format.
The only real weakness in the system is some of the lenses.

I hope that Canon are busy on some new wide primes !

My feeling is we'll get 22MP at the next 1Ds iteration 2006 then maybe a Foveon-type sensor with slightly *less* raster resolution in 2008 (gaining in color quality, and 3 subpixels per location), and then maybe some more resolution again, back to 22*3 in 2010 at which point the crystal ball runs out - but in any case the current lens line would suffice at least until about 2012 if sensor ehancements of ths type are used, while imarketing resolution enhancements of 1.4x could be claimed in each generation.

Edmund

Unfortunately the corners of a D2X sensor are not the same as the corners
in a full frame sensor.
Don't you think the results might flounder a bit if the same lenses were used on a full frame
sensor?
I know that if I cropped off the outer half of many of my Canon lens captured images I would
be left with some pretty 'well-corrected' files as far as distortion,CA,and other anomalies
are concerned.

Mark

I would not buy even if Canon did build a mfd camera . I shot with Canon for several years and also went back to film for a while after using the 10d . Canon needs to get their color to 16 bit and get more accurate color at the same time and stay in the market they are in . Canon has a looong ways to go if they want to get up to the quality level of Leaf . I had to borrow a 1ds from a friend this week to finish up a job with as I needed to shoot at iso 800 and I was reminded of how much more work I had to do with Canon files . Canon does the 35mm digital well and I hope they stay at it and perfect it even more .

Exactly. The color is really where Canon is weak on their digital bodies. Fix that and some new wide angle L primes and they are in good shape for another couple of years.

I would also like to see a 4:3 aspect ratio. What would be even better is a 36x36mm square with the same Canon mount. That would be awesome! I use a Nikon D2x, and its been great, but I'd buy a square frame Canon in a second and pair it with their fast lenses. I almost always want to crop the long dimension of my digital captures.

Mark,

You are obviously correct, but it does at least show that we are far from the limit in the central part of the image.

Now, whether it is technicall possible on Canon/Nikon mount to design wide lenses with a FF coverage that have enough resolution remains to be proven.

My guess is that we will see a rebirth of wide primes... The MF market is basically primes only, it shouldn't be a problem.

Cheers,
Bernard

Then it might make sense to buy a reasonably cheap ebay Kodak Pro 645 back, wouldn't it?

I have been considering this for some time since it would give some life back to my sleeping Hassy H1 gear...

Regards,
Bernard

Well, If Canon went medium format it would absolutely obliterate the market since it would be the only one making its own sensors most likely. The problem is the glass although im sure they can figure that out in a hurry

Maybe, Canon is not looking at the MF 645 chip, because it is already been done by other companies. What left is the RZ and the Fuji 680, why fellow if they can produce a 6x7 chip. Just look at all those RZ and Fuji 680 out there. That what I would do, since Canon makes their own chip.

wha?

Canon will make a ground up system - it certainly wont want to be at the mercy of any camera company, with their outdated hardware. They may go ZD route (and get it right this time) with an integrated MF body plus back option.

remember people it doesnt have to be 645 - it can be any format Canon wants, within reason.

nobody disputes that sensors can get bigger/ finer and finer, but the 35mm lenses (even L's) just cant resolve any more detail. a 30Mp sensor even with the best optics is just going to be a finer grid on the same resolution image. To truly get more detail in the file, they MUST go to a bigger sensor size, with lenses to match.

Canon are not stupid, they know this. which is why I think its on the cards.
yes it's a smaller market than 1D's, 5D's, etc, but a very lucrative one, high end pros are wealthy and invest big $, plus its wide open globally, ready to be reeled in.

Personally I cant wait.

The original question was will “Canon bring out a MF digital at Photokina.” That is mere four months from now. Canon’s release schedule has already been well documented and they’ve been right on schedule with updates to each line: 30D, Rebel, 1D2n and 1Ds2 to date. They will be due for an update to the 1Ds2 by Photokina so we all expect a replacement. Given the current trajectory of the upgrades it is very probable they will release a 22-24MP 35mm 1DsIII. Ask yourself these questions: is the current 1Ds2 the pinnacle of the 1Ds line? Would the current L lens line-up not benefit from at least one more major upgrade, including MP count and color bit depth in the 1Ds series? And lastly wouldn’t almost every current owner of a 1Ds2 and aspiring 1Ds series buying who could afford it buy a 1DsIII? I think there is motive, timing issues and a substantial need for the 35mm 1DsIII to come out right around Photokina and the market for it would be substantial. A lot of people like me with a huge investment in L glass would welcome just that extra little bit from a 22-24MP 1DsIII with 16-bit color and yes, some of it would be wasted but it would be plenty worth the money. I would buy it in a minute. I’d still keep my Hassy H series camera and lenses to supplement it. But I’d buy the 1DsIII in a minute. So would most of you.

So then why would Canon steal the thunder from what is probably going to be its ultimate pro solution to date, the 1DsIII, by releasing at the same time a new 1MF medium format camera with a whole new line-up of lenses? Could they even pull all that off so soon at the same time they’re finishing up Digic III and new 22-24MP sensor, 16-bit color technology, possibly a cropping technology a la D2X and possibly some new lenses like a 50 L as expected and probably some point-and-shoots and some consumer zooms, maybe even a new Rebel? I don’t see anything in Canon public financial statements or investors relations financial statements that shows they are ramping up what would be a *MASSIVE* investment right now in a whole new medium format body and an *entire new medium format lens family.* So to me the theory doesn’t hold any water.

Now Photokina 2008? 2010? Maybe… That might make more sense.

Again – all pure speculation on my part. I don’t have any insider information and my opinion is worth about as much as bar room banter. Maybe less…

At some point we are bound to see some competition on the digital medium format front and that will result in more choice and lower prices (hopefully). Mamiya was our best hope, but it seems they went south at this time. Canon may be the next in line. I'm hopeful but careful at the same time because it would be the first time that a 35mm camera company offers a medium format camera. I may be wrong, and if so feel free to set me straight. I haven't looked back at the history of 35mm camera manufacturers lately ;- )

Regards,

Alain

Sorry Alain, Pentax has been there.

Without ruling out a possible MF move, I think that Canon shoudl better work on the hardware of their 1d series.

In my view, the priority for them is to stay ahead of Nikon, and the d2x series created a significant lead for Nikon in most field but sensor, my view is that Canon will release a 2ds that will have improved ergonomics, be lighter and feature a better AF in low light,... that would help a lot more Canon photographers out there a lot more than many more MPs... there will be MPs also of course...

Regards,
Bernard

Apparently we'll see a 20MP Canon at Photokina.

I expect a completely redesigned Canon EOS1 series will emerge this year. As for image quality, I must say I'm extremely sceptical, the 1DII and 1DsII have been steps back from the 1Ds. It's not that they can't do it, it's that Canon doesn't seem to understand what the upmarket crowd wants in terms of image quality for the extra $4K that they pay when they buy a 1DsX instead of a 1DX body.

Edmund

"Given the current trajectory"... What? Where are you getting your logic and your mathematics? The most recent evidence that might populate data on any trajectory is that MP is not increasing. Canon didn't do it on the 1D model, and they didn't do it on the 30D. Nearly all professional market watchers are saying that the MP race is over. What possible reason would Canon have to produce something with more than 16mp? The market for more than 16mp is tiny (most of the posts say they don't need more than 16mp), they could only do so at great cost, they have NO competition even at 16mp, and increases above 16mp would only more clearly point out the deficiencies in their lenses (as others have pointed out, their lenses really can't handle 16mp - let alone any more) The lenses certainly could use an upgrade but the cost would be enormous and the final cost to the customer of the lenses would necessarily be an order of magnitude higher than the current L lenses, and the market would be small -- not a viable market strategy and one that would leave Canon in a lot of red ink. They are making money hand over fist right now with no viable competiton for the 1Ds on the horizon. Milk the cash cow. It is just not a sensible business decision for Canon right now.

Of course it has nothing to do with the the 1DsMkII being the "pinnacle" of the line. They will always introduce newer and better cameras -- just like in the film days. There are things that can be improved about the 1Ds without having to go higher in pixel count -- as others have pointed out color is a big issue, DR is another, ergonomics is yet another. There are lots of avenues for improvement -- and improvements alopng these lines would yield far greater benefits to the users (at much lower investment) than just another mindless, uneccessary and costly increase in MP.

And where did this blinding insight come from? Is this more baseless speculation based on some perceived notion of some endless straight-line technology trajectory reching ever higher for ever and ever? (Hey, in 2 more years we'll be at 30mp or more! What a wonderful limitless world we live in!) Or did a little Canon birdie whisper it in your ear? Let's get back to reality. There is no evidence that Canon is going to build a body with more than 16mp right now and there is no real business basis for Canon to do so. Anyone who thinks they have one is not looking at the facts and only creating a story to rationalize their own fantasies.



This makes much more sense and seems to be the concensus speculation. These are the types of developments and improvements that make sense from Canon's business and production perspective.

They have no competition in pixel count, but recent comparisions have shown once more that the d2x is already very close at base ISO (if not better).

They know that Nikon will come up with something else, or if Nikon doesn't then Fuji will, and if Fuji does't, then it will be Pentax, or else Sony,... it might not be in 2006, but it will be in 2007, and is Canon going to take the risk to be overtaken middel of next year with another 1.5 year until the next upgrade? I don't think so.

Canon's policy has been to put themselves in a position where it is easy to claim that they are the best, why would they want to change that in their next flagship camera?

If a dying company like Mamiya managed to release a completely new 22 MP body at a price only 40% higher than that of the 1ds2, who knows what a healthy giant willing to quick ass could do next based on existing designs?

Regards,
Bernard

Canon is a healthy company (not quite a giant) and they would like to stay that way. There is still no competition for them at 16mp and NO evidence that anyone is planning anything to rival it anytime soon. If the D2X seems "close" to the 1Ds MkII, it still isn't at the 1Ds' level and if Canon is losing sales to the D2X it is not losing those sales because of a mp deficency so merely adding more mp (and the associated cost) isn't going help it compete better with the D2X. The other (non-mp) image quality and operational improvements suggested will. The 22mp Mamyia ZD is NOT a competitor to the 1Ds -- different markets and different stengths. No one is going to dump their 1DsMkII for a ZD anytime soon. Canon needs to continue to build up their cash stockpile now for the time when they really get competition on a mp basis for their flagship model -- 3 or 4 years down the road -- and at that point they will really need to decide whether a still higher mp is worthwhile in itself or just a fool's game.

Let's get back to this post in 4 months from now will we?

Cheers,
Bernard

Yes. I might actually try to go to Photokina this year. It should be a very interesting show this year.

Good point. So there might be more hope than I thought. After all, since it apears that the ranks of traditional medium format companies are thinning out, it may be logical that the space left vacant will be filled by 35mm companies.

Alain

Concidering the cost of entering the market, from engineering bodies, to complete optics and assessories systems, and entering a category thats shrinking rapidly over the past 5 years, I just don't see it happening.

I doubt Canon even acknowledges Hasselblad exists other than in a historical sense. They already produce cameras that have completely devastated the MF category. Do they really want large format quality also (MF digital).

I doubt it. And I think large format film is healthy for years to come. The economics are far from digital being competitive. Beside scanning backs with a view camera are the top of the mountain, especially when scanning speed improves from the present technology

bob

And what if the 1Ds mkIII is still 14 bit.....

What if it's 14 bit 24mp with in camera raw compositing of 3 or more frames. I heard rumours that the next camera is over 22mp and under $6000.00 US. If it has the newly designed ir sensor layer and the next generation digic 3 processor it could me major.
Dennis

That's all it is, just rumours -- baseless rumous started by the uninformed fantisizing about what could be next. The way these rumous have been pedaled, hyped-up and spread around, at so many of these "forums" (Canon is, as we have come to know, Lord, God, King), there will alot of disappointed people come September.

Success does not require success in every niche, including extremely small high end ones. Instead, some niches are way too small for an 800lb gorilla to bother with, even if such a niche keeps a few far smaller operations like Hasselblad-Imacon, Mamiya/Cosmo and Rollei going --- just barely. Adding MF would at best add about an extra 0.1% share of the DSLR market to the 50-60% share that Canon has already. This is like saying that survival for Toyota, GM, or Ford requires them to start competing in the sector now dominated by the likes of Ferrari, Lamborghini, Bugatti or Rolls-Royce.

Canon apparently realized this decades ago when it abandoned medium format (TLR's) to concentrate on the smaller and vastly more profitable 35mm format, and I see no reason that it would reverse direction now, with MF having a vastly smaller market share and far less profit potential than it did when Canon left it.

The argument that Canon needs to go to new, larger format lenses in order to get beyond lens resolution limits of 35mm format makes no sense to me: Canon's lenses had those same resolution limits with film, and it was never a reason for canon to upsize to MF then, so why would it be now?


In other words, where is the evidence that more than a tiny fraction of camera buyers want more resolution than Canon's current lenses can give them enough to bear the burdens of a larger format?

Zeiss has developed new AF lenses for the Sinar M camera.
They boast very high resolution and a very hefty price-tag.
Around the $9-10K.
I wonder how many of those babies they will sell?
Cheers,
Willem.

Well, I agree with your assessement, but, turning myself in the devil's advocate:

What has enabled Canon to move up from a second position in the film days to the first position in the digital era? Well, my view is that they did because:

- they released good products (whether they were the best or not is IMHO still opened to debate),
- by tapping into the thirst of consumers for easily understandable metric... namely pixel count and by releasing products with slighly more of that than the competition,
- by taking the higher ground with the 1ds - 1ds2.

They have sold very few 1ds + 1ds2 combined, and who can tell whether they have made money on these products. But these 2 bodies have contributed hugely to the image that Canon is the best game in town, and that has, IMHO, translated into hunderds of thousands of sales.

Just like Dell releases XPS game station that few people buy, just like AMD releases FX60 CPUs that nobody buys, just like GM produces Corvettes,...

From this standpoint, Canon must have been thinking about what it will take to maintain this image of being the best game in town.

Whether the answer is a 16MP 1ds3, a 20MP 2ds or a 33MP MF line up, I don't know, but I wouldn't find it completely absurd if Canon had also considered the MF route.

Another factor worth considering is that the 1ds2 when released cost about half the price of the MFBD with the same resolution at that time. A 33MP Canon MF body priced like a Mamiya ZD or lower would have potential for significantly expanding this market segment IMHO. This would mean more profit as well...

As far as people buying into a new set of optics etc... they did it once with the EOS line up and see the results 20 years later. A smaller company like Hassy managed to develop a completely new line up in a few years for that same market...

Finally, people feel nowadays that 16 MP is enough. This is mostly based on limitations of our current printing and display technologies. Who can swear that:

- nobody will release within 5 years new printers/papers that really show a difference between 240 and 480 DPI?
- the prints in galleries will not slowly disappear in favour of very high density TFT screens for which 480 DPI is a must? IBM released a 22 screen inch 3 years ago with a 3800*2400 resolution at 200 DPI. I saw those, they are already virtually impossible to distinguish from prints, but with a much higher contrast.

Anyway, the bottom line is that us thinking that 16MP will be enough for the foreseable future is IMHO short sighted.

Regards,
Bernard

On point 1, I believe that Canon was already number 1 by the end of the era of FSLRs (Film based SLR's), and that its lead over Nikon is not noticably greater now than it was then, especially with the D50, D200 and D2X all selling.

On point 2, yes, GM makes Corvettes, but does not far more exotic and expensive stuff like Lamborghinis: to me, the 1Ds series is already the Canon Corvette, and that is as far as GM or Canon are likely to go.

On point 3 about new lens systems: with Canon EOS and the Hasselblad-Imacon-Fuji 645 AF lens system (and Olympus with 4/3), we are looking at a new lens system to _replace_ an old one (and to add autofocus!), not introducing a new, more expensive, lower sales volume system along side an existing one that will continue to sell in far large numbers than the new one. I see no chance that a new larger format Canon lens system could replace EF-S and EF lenses, or even achieve sales levels vaguely close to what EF-S and EF have now.

Also, smaller company Hasselblad did not develop those new lens, big company Fuji did, with help from Konica-Minolta with the AF system. Hasselblad is little more than the "naming rights sponsor" of the H system.

One of the things we don't hear about in much depth, with regard to MF backs, is the dynamic range and S/N. It's supposed to be much better, but is it really?

It's interesting to note that in respect of the current hot topic on this site, the comparison of high end cameras, the DR and S/N factor was not addressed.

Speaking personally, for my style of shooting, lack of DR is a more serious concern than lack of resolution, although both are defintely concerns.

One can't help imagining that two 5D sensors joined together would make a superb MF back. Canon could probably do it, but what would be the point? It doesn't have any MF lenses, except perhaps the TS-E lenses which might just fit the bill with a bit of vignetting. But those are not autofocus lenses. Nor do they have IS.

The reality is, a camera is not just a sensor and back, or body.

Perception is everything - and there is a widely-held (but mostly incorrect) perception that any major and tangible improvement to a DSLR these days is centred around megapixels. That's why I think the 1DS3 (?) will have increased MP, whether it needs it or not.

Things like increased dynamic range, higher usable ISO (already at miracle levels in my view) or larger LCD screens, better menus and the like, are not given the importance they deserve by the wider general public. The 1DS2 is not just used by pros and I'm not sure that perceived "minor" tweaks will be enough for Canon to stay in the lead.

I would expect something like 20-22 MP, among other enhancements, to be announced in the new model, if only because the rest of the world expects it.

I just wish that Canon - and other manufacturers - could forego short-term financial gain for longer-term customer satisfaction and upgrade these things through firmware updates. I know that you can't cover everything by this method, but I'm damn sure that you don't need to buy a new £5k camera every 18 months just to keep up with the technology.

We didn't do it in the old days. I still have a 15 year old RZ system - at least I think I still have it: it's been a while - that is as good now as it was the day it was made. During that 15 years, the best image quality improvements were all made via firmware upgrades, only they used to call it "film" back then . . .

It would take a major set of great new features to get me to upgrade my 1DS2 within the next couple of years, but I guess that's what Canon wants to me to do.

It's all great fun speculating though.

Cheers

Bob

funny thing is thats what they all did:
Volkswagen bought Bentley and Lamborghini
BMW bought Rolls Royce.
Merc were at the top but still needed to go higher - Maybach
GM bought Saab
Fiat (yes, crummy Fiat) have Ferrari.

sorry, but successful mass market companies still want to go higher. its a fact of life.

Canon not that big? its a Giant - and its shares have risen 30% in the past year alone.
It can do what it want, and if MF digital is what it wants ($, prestige, technological requirements)- then it will go there.

A friend of mine has a book that shows a Canon prototype of a MF SLR that took FD lenses that was never made in a production unit.

So it seems that Canon has thought of this and decided not to produce a MF SLR.


Will T.

Interesting. Does the book of your friend mention when that happened?

Regards,
Bernard

Those examples are all aquisitions if existing high end technology (and Saab is not even very high end!) The topic here is the far greater effort and expense of developing a new high end system of lenses and bodies, for a market sector that is rapidly shrinking.

By the way, who said anywhere that Canon is not that big?


Two questions, with my answers:

1) Did Canon move into medium format once they rose to the top of the 35mm film SLR market (Answer: no, instead Canon used to be in MF but dropped it decades ago.)
2) Is medium format a more or less attractive product sector with digital than it was with film? (My answer: way less.)
3) Given the answers to the above questions, why would Canon move into a larger format now (My answer: no good reason, it is a delusion of people who believe that the way forward in photographic technology is using longer focal lengths to cover any given FOV, which is what the benefits of larger formats rely upon.)

Never mind whether Canon _could_ introduce a new larger format system if they chose to: where are the reasons that they would choose to do so?


P. S. To Ray: there is a lot more to doubling sensor size than splicing two smaller sensors together: forget that myth that sensors like the original 1D CCD were simply cobbled together like that. One DSLR from Minolta did use a pair of sensors, using a prism system to split the image between the two sensors, and it was a failure.

Instead, difficult multiple exposures of the stepper are needed when the size goes beyond about the 34mm diagonal of the 1D sensor, according to Canon's website. The great price advantage of the 1DMkII over the original 1D and both 1Ds models probably has a lot to do with the fact that the 1DMkII CMOS sensor can be made with a single exposure in the stepper, instead of the more difficult double exposures used for the 1D CCD and both 1Ds CMOS sensors. For Canon to go to much beyond 35mm format into "medium format digital" territory, even a double exposure would not be enough: instead four exposures would need to be lined up.

surprised at the amount of chatter this post has generated, but stick to my guns, I still believe Canon will make an "MF" digital system soon. its the only way forward for them, and not so hard with all their know how and chip making expertise.

The market is much bigger than people make out - if it kept Hasselblad, Mamiya, Fuji, Bronica, Rollei, Pentax, etc all busy for years, there has to be a lot of $ in it. Yes, 1 series cameras have eaten into that market, but it is not the same thing. (we have to redefine what quality level we expect from "35mm", "MF", "LF" etc) There is still a large global pro base for MF style equipment and quality way above 1 series levels.

SeriousPros spend $30,000 on their main camera system minimum, often double/treble that. Big studios invest $200,000+ in digital MF gear, so why on earth would Canon ignore that opportunity?

The grafting of digital backs onto film era bodies cant last much longer, its not a tenable long term solution, so its coming, and personally I will welcome it - a true MF system for the digital age is badly needed.