canon medium format digital slr

YEP. I seem to remember about 10/15 years ago. A photograper in india was still useing a 24"x 20" format camera. Cannot remember any details though. Believe he had trouble finding a sholder bag for it. Must admit not used 10x8 for more than 30 years myself
 
Last edited:
Doubt it. There's no market for medium format these days, and as full frame 35mm gets better all the time, less and less need for it. And it would need an entire new lens range, which bearing in mind the strength and depth of Canon's EF lenses is their greatest asset, looks unlikely.

The biggest sensor you can cover with most of the current EF lenses would be about 31x31mm. Square, and only 11% bigger in area than 24x36mm. They could do something interesting with that, but I doubt it (why would they?) and it wouldn't be medium format.

I think Canon will be forced to follow Nikon's 36mp D800 though.

PS Current medium format digitals are hardly worthy of the name. Their sensors are nowhere near as large as medium format film, Pentax and Leica particularly only a bit bigger than full-frame. Only the biggest Hasselblad back comes close, at lunatic cost.
 
HoppyUK said:
Doubt it. There's no market for medium format these days, and as full frame 35mm gets better all the time, less and less need for it. And it would need an entire new lens range, which bearing in mind the strength and depth of Canon's EF lenses is their greatest asset, looks unlikely.

The biggest sensor you can cover with most of the current EF lenses would be about 31x31mm. Square, and only 11% bigger in area than 24x36mm. They could do something interesting with that, but I doubt it (why would they?) and it wouldn't be medium format.

I think Canon will be forced to follow Nikon's 36mp D800 though.

PS Current medium format digitals are hardly worthy of the name. Their sensors are nowhere near as large as medium format film, Pentax and Leica particularly only a bit bigger than full-frame. Only the biggest Hasselblad back comes close, at lunatic cost.
Click to expand...

The Leica lenses are as good as it gets on medium format though, and if the sensor was bigger they'd be harder to design. Medium format still looks better than full frame.
 
HoppyUK said:
Doubt it. There's no market for medium format these days, and as full frame 35mm gets better all the time, less and less need for it. And it would need an entire new lens range, which bearing in mind the strength and depth of Canon's EF lenses is their greatest asset, looks unlikely.

The biggest sensor you can cover with most of the current EF lenses would be about 31x31mm. Square, and only 11% bigger in area than 24x36mm. They could do something interesting with that, but I doubt it (why would they?) and it wouldn't be medium format.

I think Canon will be forced to follow Nikon's 36mp D800 though.

PS Current medium format digitals are hardly worthy of the name. Their sensors are nowhere near as large as medium format film, Pentax and Leica particularly only a bit bigger than full-frame. Only the biggest Hasselblad back comes close, at lunatic cost.
Click to expand...

I'm not clue up on MF camera tech, how big are these sensors?

Isn't traditional MF film negative 6x4 inches?
 
Raymond Lin said:
I'm not clue up on MF camera tech, how big are these sensors?

Isn't traditional MF film negative 6x4 inches?
Click to expand...

roll film is 6 centimetres wide so it can do 6x4.5, 6x6 6x7, 6x12 and 6x17 formats by varying the number of frames on a roll.

I think most MF digital backs are either 645 or 6x6 - i'd love to see a 6x17 digital back for the fujifilm panoramic - but that would be ludicrously big and expensive, and far too niche to take off

i'd also like to see hasselblad put out a digital xpan, but again that isnt going to happen either
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
I'm not clue up on MF camera tech, how big are these sensors?

Isn't traditional MF film negative 6x4 inches?
Click to expand...

sensor size varies by maker. Hassleblads H4D sensor is 33 x 44mm

a 6 x 4 inch negative would fall into large format. There are various MF film sizes but 6 x 6 cm and 6 x 4.5 cm are the most common
 
Raymond Lin said:
Ah, so technically modern MF digital bodies are "cropped"?
Click to expand...

seems as good a way as looking at it as any. What they were cropped from is a little up in the air cause there never was a MF 'standard' film size. (Unlike 35mm)
 
boyfalldown said:
seems as good a way as looking at it as any. What they were cropped from is a little up in the air cause there never was a MF 'standard' film size. (Unlike 35mm)
Click to expand...

And there was only ever one 35mm film frame size?
:exit:
 
Raymond Lin said:
Ah, so technically modern MF digital bodies are "cropped"?
Click to expand...

To add to what Hugh said, Medium Format digital shooters tend to 'just get on with it' rather than comparing their sensor sizes to the competition, or smaller DSLR's etc.

They know they're paying a premium for a premium product and they don't feel the need to justify it or look down on us mere mortals with our little sensors.
 
There's still willy waving with digital medium format, especially with the D800E coming along to rustle jimmies, but the market is a lot smaller so it's not as frequent as the tired old Canon/Nikon arguing.
 
As it says on Canon Rumours, seems likely the story has got mixed up with references to medium-format 'like' image quality, but using EF lenses.

Basically, it's most likely to be a new Canon full-frame 35mm sensor with 40-ish mp, like the Nikon D800. This makes perfect sense to me, as Nikon have pulled off a neat trick with their sensor that seems be be at least as good as anything Canon currently has, but with a much higher pixel count.

The biggest benefit of that I believe is the ability to crop it down to APS-C and still have 16mp to play with. It's effectively two cameras in one, similar pixel count to D7000, more than D300. At the same time, the frame rate jumps from 4fps to 6fps (and it stops eating memory) and you gain the extra pixel-reach that tends to go hand in hand with what most folks need for action photography. Canon can't play that game ATM.
 
Phil V said:
To add to what Hugh said, Medium Format digital shooters tend to 'just get on with it' rather than comparing their sensor sizes to the competition, or smaller DSLR's etc.

They know they're paying a premium for a premium product and they don't feel the need to justify it or look down on us mere mortals with our little sensors.
Click to expand...

Lol, you took it the wrong way by a billion light years, by no way I am implying "looking down" at anyone.

Cropped as in if it can uses old regular existing MF lenses, if the sensor is not the same size as the negative that it replaces, then it is not using the whole of the lens.

Thus, cropped.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Lol, you took it the wrong way by a billion light years, by no way I am implying "looking down" at anyone.

Cropped as in if it can uses old regular existing MF lenses, if the sensor is not the same size as the negative that it replaces, then it is not using the whole of the lens.

Thus, cropped.
Click to expand...

I know, and never implied you were.

My point was that there are a thin sector of FF photographers who believe its all about FF, and are blinded to the massive history of frame sizes we've been through on the way to APSC becoming the norm (norm being the size most popular amongst serious photographers). It's a pet peeve, having had 5 different formats prior to digital I get frustrated by the FF zealots.

Arent the newer Hasselblads completely new systems, therefore may be using the whole of the lens?

Genuine question I don't really know, but they look completely different to the old film system lenses.
 
There's no such thing as a meaningless label?

All labels by nature have meaning:thinking:

MF is larger than a miniature camera, smaller than a plate camera. The fact that digital MF is smaller than its film counterpart is largely irrelevant.
 
Sigh.....you are such hard work Phil !

meaningless as in if MF in digital format does not conform to the old MF sensor size then it is just a mean to mean that it has a bigger sensor than your normal 35mm format. At least the old negative comes off a 6cm wide negative as standard?

If by your own words,
APSC becoming the norm
Click to expand...
then 35mm is not really what you call FF, then FF is a meaningless word.

Back to MF, if everyone uses a different sensor size then technically they are not the same format as there is no standard at all.

Thus, all this cropped, FF, MF, is all meaningless.

It's just a new system. Period.
 
Last edited:
Well, am i misleading? Not really, just passing on something i found online, is it real? Probably, might just be a ruse. Might be a typo who knows but the info on compatible lenses leads me to believe something's on the cards.
I strongly believe that the digital backs from the camps of leaf and more recently sinar are leaps and bounds ahead in the quality steaks, agreed, not the most portable systems but hey, I've seen Joe cornish hanging off the edge of a waterfall with a large format bellows camera fitted with a digital back.
I do think that even with the same pixel count, large format wins due to the same pixels not being crammed onto a smaller chip. Even if the larger chips don't conform to their film counterparts.
 
Phil V said:
There's no such thing as a meaningless label?

All labels by nature have meaning:thinking:

MF is larger than a miniature camera, smaller than a plate camera. The fact that digital MF is smaller than its film counterpart is largely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Not irrelevant considering how widely abused the term is by manufacturers. They are trading off the widely held belief (as this thread demonstrates) that medium format 120 film is about 60mm wide, and therefore medium format digital must also be around this size, and correspondingly much better.

It's not, most medium format digital is miles smaller. 645 film has an image area more than 300% larger than 35mm full frame, but Leica S2's sensor is only 57% larger, Pentax and the cheaper Hasselblad only 68% larger.
 
Raymond Lin said:
meaningless as in if MF in digital format does not conform to the old MF sensor size then it is just a mean to mean that it has a bigger sensor than your normal 35mm format. At least the old negative comes off a 6cm wide negative as standard?
Click to expand...

Not always. There is 70mm film as well ;)

Medium format can only be defined as a loose range, as Phil has done above. But the basic threshold that most people would consider true medium format would be 6x4.5cm
 
Alastair said:
Not always. There is 70mm film as well ;)

Medium format can only be defined as a loose range, as Phil has done above. But the basic threshold that most people would consider true medium format would be 6x4.5cm
Click to expand...

but it is at least 60mm wide...which digital format for MF isn't, so its either trading its name - faking it.

Or cropped.

Or its a new format.

Or if you call it MF for the digital world then fine, but then since they all use different sensor size then what makes one MF, and another also MF ?

Just because it has an in between size from a 35mm to a plate camera?

Isn't it a bit vague?
 
Last edited:
If it's bigger than 36x24mm it's into medium format territory for digital. The Kodak KAF-22000 and KAF-39000 sensors are 48x36mm, and I'd say that a sensor that's 100% larger than FF is substantially different.
 
But since this thread is about a mythical medium format Canon that's not going to happen anyway... :D
 
550px-Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside.svg.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top