Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: asf on August 09, 2010, 10:11:33 am
-
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/08/canon-l...format-company/ (http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/08/canon-looking-at-a-medium-format-company/)
-
Bronica always used to be good kit. If Canon could revive Bronica ...
-
Bronica always used to be good kit. If Canon could revive Bronica ...
Or Contax...
-
I vote for Hanza (http://www.huffman.tk/id40.html)
-
Bronica always used to be good kit. If Canon could revive Bronica ...
Really? I only ever owned a single Bronica camera - the GS1 (the 6x7 thing) and never again.
I bought it with a 250, 100 and 50 (or was it 55?) lenses, all new, and the only thing that was beautiful was the 100 lens. The wide one was an unmitigated disaster at the sides and the mirror up function never worked. It was only used on a tripod.
I bought the thing on a trip back to the UK and got rid of it on the next. Money down the drain. But, it was lightweight.
On the other hand, I heard good things about the 645 outfit...
Rob C
-
Really? I only ever owned a single Bronica camera - the GS1 (the 6x7 thing) and never again.
I bought it with a 250, 100 and 50 (or was it 55?) lenses, all new, and the only thing that was beautiful was the 100 lens. The wide one was an unmitigated disaster at the sides and the mirror up function never worked. It was only used on a tripod.
I bought the thing on a trip back to the UK and got rid of it on the next. Money down the drain. But, it was lightweight.
On the other hand, I head good things about the 645 outfit...
Rob C
I had the 645 system with many lenses but when on a landscape photo trip I was made fun of for the piece of junk I was carrying. It really did a decent job but it wasn't a Hasselblad I guess?
Great system for the money, imo
-
We talking about just a back here, or a camera that has a medium format sized chip? If it was just a back (that had the ability to mount to any medium format camera body) then I would be interested.
-
We talking about just a back here, or a camera that has a medium format sized chip? If it was just a back (that had the ability to mount to any medium format camera body) then I would be interested.
Well, at least with any body which is in an open system like any Phase One or Mamiya body.
We've seen these Canon and Nikon MF rumors for a long time. Not saying it can't or won't happen (though my bet is against it) but just a cautionary to those who might be new to the forum that this is not the first (or second, or third...) time a rumor has been spread that Canon or Nikon will introduce a larger than 35mm camera.
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
-
Well, at least with any body which is in an open system like any Phase One or Mamiya body.
We've seen these Canon and Nikon MF rumors for a long time. Not saying it can't or won't happen (though my bet is against it) but just a cautionary to those who might be new to the forum that this is not the first (or second, or third...) time a rumor has been spread that Canon or Nikon will introduce a larger than 35mm camera.
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
Canon does have the technology, but I am not sure that they have the business motive (BM). Some BMs could be:
1. The Leica is eating Canon's Lunch (not likely)
2. They found a fundamental tech limit and there is a big market for more megapixels. Scaling the sensor size is the only way to do it and remain competitive with Nikon noise wise.
3. They know that they can build a MF system with almost no investment and build the systems very cheap so they want the extra profit.
4. Paranoia / me to syndrome :They are sure that Nikon is doing it and don't want to be left behind ?
5. They just hate Hasselblad like so many people I have met in the web
Frankly If I were a Canon investor, they will have a hard time justifying to me why do they select to invest on a new MF. Right now the so called EVIL camera systems are pressing the SRLs were Canon is King. So investing in this two technologies appear to be a better bet. Even so, as they said: Who knows?
-
Well, at least with any body which is in an open system like any Phase One or Mamiya body.
I'm kind of fascinated by this open system thing. Yes the Mamiya takes other backs but I doubt seriously if it was Phase's main purpose to make a camera for other makers digital backs and since the Mamiya in it's many versions has been around a long time, I doubt if it would go over very well if they had closed the system.
But all of this seems to be kind of a mute point because I'm rarely anywhere I can't buy or rent an H-1/2 or a Contax and that includes the recent three cities I've just traveled to.
I didn't check but I wonder if renting a DF in LA, Chicago and Detroit is easy, though I should say again, I haven't checked, then again medium format cameras (not backs but cameras) seem to last a very long time before they are outdated.
In regards to Canon making a larger than 24x36 camera who knows, but I also would place a guess that regardless of the frame size the next big camera thing will be an EVIL viewfinder camera that can shoot stills and (excuse me because I know everyone here hates this word) VIDEO.
I know there are a lot of rumors out there, always has been since digital film has taken over, though I also know that a few of the rumors out there will happen and some probably shake up the high end camera world even more.
We'll see.
I do know the last portfolio we showed was on an i-pad and the interest in the motion imagery was equal or greater than the still imagery, so it stands to reason that EVIL is on the way.
IMO
BC
-
What does EVIL mean? Jim
-
Personally, I doubt this will ever happen. And if it does, I doubt they will make a back, but a camera body with a medium format chip. Thus making it virtually useless to us architectural shooters who use technical cameras.
-
What does EVIL mean? Jim
EVIL Camera = Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens.
You replace the optical an electronic one. No mirror, one moving part less.
-
2. They found a fundamental tech limit and there is a big market for more megapixels. Scaling the sensor size is the only way to do it and remain competitive with Nikon noise wise.
nope. look at what canon mostly makes 7D and 1D's. both of these stuff more pixels than nikon in a smaller space. Nikon would be the one doing this if they could. Canon bne the one to make a 645 with a 1.3 crop.
I have a feeling that if they did anything the reason is for
1) video
2) http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/red-sca...ics-fast-focus/ (http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/red-scarlet-makes-surprise-cameo-filming-epics-fast-focus/)
are you guys avid event photographers? Go out and look at a concert, all the canon's are shooting video and the nikons are shooting photographs. I went to a 4 day festival in maryland and only one canon person I know what shooting photographs. the other 5+ people were just constantly shooting video from these DSLRs.
-
I heard from people close to other people who work for the internet (well, more or less) that it is more than probable that there will be another Nikon-going-MF rumor within a few weeks, most likely just before, during or after the Fotokina.
Wouldn't that be a blow to the Canon rumor industry?
-
A great opportunity to revive one of two great systems the Contax or the Rollei but they would want make and use their own lenses.
Always thought the pressure would arrive for 35mm format to grow up...
-
2. They found a fundamental tech limit and there is a big market for more megapixels. Scaling the sensor size is the only way to do it and remain competitive with Nikon noise wise.
Canon are significantly ahead of Nikon noise-wise.
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/evalua...1div/index.html (http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/evaluation-canon-1div/index.html)
Plus, Canon knows how to treat the data from their sensors with scientific-grade respect. Unlike Nikon, Canon does not:
- clip the bias noise distribution to zero
- f*ck with (median filter) the RAWs in long exposures
http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/NIK_CAN.HTM (http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/NIK_CAN.HTM)
So if either of them gets into the MF game, I would dearly hope it's Canon.
-
nope. look at what canon mostly makes 7D and 1D's. both of these stuff more pixels than nikon in a smaller space. Nikon would be the one doing this if they could. Canon bne the one to make a 645 with a 1.3 crop.
I have a feeling that if they did anything the reason is for
1) video
2) http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/red-sca...ics-fast-focus/ (http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/red-scarlet-makes-surprise-cameo-filming-epics-fast-focus/)
Yes, you are right. In fact the 7D density is very high with good noise results. The other day I was calculating that Canon can build an 47mpixel 35mm full frame sensor with good noise. That will handle the S2 also. So other BM goes down. If canon used something like this in a MF (48 x36 mm2, >94mpixels) camera, even PhaseOne will go out, once Canon build trust on the MF space. Canon could use the fast ASICs they use for 35mm and kill everyone in the process.
are you guys avid event photographers? Go out and look at a concert, all the canon's are shooting video and the nikons are shooting photographs. I went to a 4 day festival in maryland and only one canon person I know what shooting photographs. the other 5+ people were just constantly shooting video from these DSLRs.
I am intrigued by that result. Canon video is far ahead of Nikon's, but even as I shoot Nikon, canon cameras are very good. The reference to RED could be the BM.
-
Schneider + Samsung + Alpa rumor
http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/weird-rumo...format-cameras/ (http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/weird-rumors-canon-and-samsung-to-make-medium-format-cameras/)
-
I am happy if they can avoid that stupid 32 or 34 mp on the next 1DsMark IV and put then on a MF body
-
There is enough diffraction limits with the current 21/24 MP DSLRs.
IMO In 35mm FF there is not much room for detail improvement with current lenses.
-
I agree with this and the previous post. 1Ds Mark IVx lets call it.
I would love to see the flex of Canon speed, ISO in a MF cube. Pop that on a RZ or Sinar...Wow!
I would think they can EASILY make it priced agressively.
As long as the quality is there with large pixels(original 1Ds size or so) for good movements. After this much momentum they have gained, I can't see any reason for them not to do it... I think they would have a very good chance of succeeding. Universal back adapt to MF and LF.They would cut ALL the costs of the camera body, and all into the chip and process. WOW.
-
i think canon can go into 30+ megapixel territory by dropping the AA-filter and gain a reasonable amount of additional sharpness. i hope that they really work on better dynamic range and better color reproduction (maybe by going 16bits). and they should add a shooting mode that uses an electronic shutter like in video that allows flash sync at all speeds. that would be a huge step foreward and eliminates allmost all mf advantages.
Philipp
-
I think not, I shall never buy a new Canon with more pixels, that's already too much
-
I have to agree, i just changed from Canon 1dsmk3 to a phase one P30, i think 21 mpx is enough on the 35mm size sensor.
-
or a Hasselblad H3D II 22mp
-
A larger sensor is what I was talking about about...not cramming more pixels...
and yes dropping the AA would be SOOO nice!..at least a removable one, or none. I don't think anyone is really holding out for a 35mm size to be 30 or more mpixels. It is likely to happen, but so what?
-
There is enough diffraction limits with the current 21/24 MP DSLRs.
IMO In 35mm FF there is not much room for detail improvement with current lenses.
You are probably right about the resolution limits of some 35mm format lenses, but not the best 35mm format primes ... which are the main ones relevant to a discussion of higher resolution possibilities.
On diffraction, I have to say this yet again:
diffraction at, say, 30MP or 40MP would not be not any more of a problem in 35mm format than in a larger format. Yes, controlling diffraction to make use of the sensor's full resolution requires using a lower f-stop with the smaller format (about one stop lower for 35mm than 645), but the smaller format gives the same DOF at that lower f-stop, just with more "speed" so that a lower ISO speed and/or shorter exposure time is used: not much of a problem.
Maybe someday diffraction could be more of a problem for 35mm than for MF, but only if and when 35mm format reaches about 100MP (3 micron pixel spacing). Then reducing diffraction effects enough to get full resolution in 35mm format would require opening up to about f/4 whereas MF would use about f/5.6, and aberrations might be more of a problem at f/4 than f/5.6.
Even then: at the same f-stop, increasing pixel count in the same format has no effect on diffraction spot size and improves sensor resolution, so overall resolution gets better, not worse!
-
you can turn it as you like but with f/11 f/16 on 35 and f/22 on MF you get diffraction if the pixels are too smalls, using a lower f-stop is not always what you want or need
-
man... do I hate the new llok of this forum.
anyhow, there will be no DSLR that removes or has a removable AA. The last one that did that (which I'm currently waiting for the battery to charge) was the SLR/n. Camera makers aren't going to remove this because the standard user would complain about moire patterns in every single picture they shoot.
-
you can turn it as you like but with f/11 f/16 on 35 and f/22 on MF you get diffraction if the pixels are too smalls, using a lower f-stop is not always what you want or need
Agreed: my points are only that
A. the problem is equally bad in any format, so long as lenses are good enough to give the needed resolution, so it is wrong to offer this as a reason for going to a larger format than 35mm.
B. more pixels still give a clear increase in resolution at lower f-stops, and no decrease in resolution at any f-stop, so it is silly to say that there is no point increasing 35mm format sensor resolution simply because at some choices of f-stop (f/11 and above?), there is not much resolution gain.
As to why it is equally bad in any format (with good enough lenses):
1. The dominant reason for stopping down to an aperture small enough to cause diffraction problems, like your example of f/11 in 35mm, is to get enough DOF.
2. Changing to MF, that same need for DOF requires a higher f-stop: about f/16 in your example.
3. At the different f-stops needed to get the same DOF in the different formats, diffraction hurts resolution just as much.
The hard fact is that pushing resolution to the levels offered by sensors of 20MP and up imposes noticeable limits on the DOF attainable in conjunction with that high resolution, through the f-stops needed to adequately control diffraction, and this happens to a degree which does not depend on the format. I suspect that this will someday set the practical resolution limits for still photography, short of special techniques like DOF stacking. (Stitching does not really help: it just effectively turns a lens for one format into a wider angle lens in a larger format.)
P. S. What about all those giga-pixel images? The ones I have seen are all wide-angle views of distant panoramas, avoiding nearby subjects, which is the easiest case for DOF.
-
You are probably right about the resolution limits of some 35mm format lenses, but not the best 35mm format primes ... which are the main ones relevant to a discussion of higher resolution possibilities.
On diffraction, I have to say this yet again:
diffraction at, say, 30MP or 40MP would not be not any more of a problem in 35mm format than in a larger format. Yes, controlling diffraction to make use of the sensor's full resolution requires using a lower f-stop with the smaller format (about one stop lower for 35mm than 645), but the smaller format gives the same DOF at that lower f-stop, just with more "speed" so that a lower ISO speed and/or shorter exposure time is used: not much of a problem.
Maybe someday diffraction could be more of a problem for 35mm than for MF, but only if and when 35mm format reaches about 100MP (3 micron pixel spacing). Then reducing diffraction effects enough to get full resolution in 35mm format would require opening up to about f/4 whereas MF would use about f/5.6, and aberrations might be more of a problem at f/4 than f/5.6.
Even then: at the same f-stop, increasing pixel count in the same format has no effect on diffraction spot size and improves sensor resolution, so overall resolution gets better, not worse!
I use Zeiss primes on the a900 (85mm and 135mm), maybe because they are fast lenses and optimized to give the best quality at around f5.6, but they begin to show diffraction at f11 and at f16 it is really there.
On the Phase with the P30+ and the older 80mm and 150mm non D, I need to stop at f16 or 22 before seing the effect of diffraction.
I'm not saying that a 32/36 megapixel 35mm sensor will not shows its advantages relative to the current 24 and 21 megapixels sensors, but I think the increase of perceived and effective sharpness will be negligible.
In any case, if Sony, Nikon or Canon will do a body with a 30+ mp sensor I will be happy to buy it.
-
man... do I hate the new llok of this forum.
anyhow, there will be no DSLR that removes or has a removable AA. The last one that did that (which I'm currently waiting for the battery to charge) was the SLR/n. Camera makers aren't going to remove this because the standard user would complain about moire patterns in every single picture they shoot.
I had one of those Kodaks for a while and the moiré was not as bad as you describe. It was slightly worse than the 1ds, yet not on all the circumstances.
I think with the newer and better algorithms to process raw files and more computing power we have today, it is possible to have a 35mm FF with a very low pass or no filter at all.
I remember that with the Kodak, as software was being updated (not the Kodak one) and the algorithm became more efficient on demosaicing, though it required more processing time, the results were getting significantly better.
-
I had one of those Kodaks for a while and the moiré was not as bad as you describe. It was slightly worse than the 1ds, yet not on all the circumstances.
I think with the newer and better algorithms to process raw files and more computing power we have today, it is possible to have a 35mm FF with a very low pass or no filter at all.
I remember that with the Kodak, as software was being updated (not the Kodak one) and the algorithm became more efficient on demosaicing, though it required more processing time, the results were getting significantly better.
I have one also, the SLR/C. It really pulled the gap between my 35mm images vs my Phase One images.
I agree 100%. the moire was mostly an issue for clothing/fashion, which is significant, but other than that, I had no issues with it for any of the studio work i did. I did have a STORNG magneta cast if I had any light aimed towards it.
I wish the ISO wasn't locked in with the time, so it would be fully manual. In fact, if that magenta cast is something that can be fixed, I would still be using it.
Even the processing software was very advanced in many ways.
As you say, with newer sensors, I think it would be less problems from the SLRx days. I have not tried Foveon, but I think the Sigma cams don't have a AA either(?)
Yes and 16 is where I top out for MF def issues. Maybe its the blades or my memory is blurry, but I remember using my Leica 100macro lens on the 1Ds and was able to stop down much more than the 100 macro or 180 .
-
I use Zeiss primes on the a900 (85mm and 135mm) ... they begin to show diffraction at f11 and at f16 it is really there.
On the Phase with the P30+ and the older 80mm and 150mm non D, I need to stop at f16 or 22 before seing the effect of diffraction.
It seems that all three of us agree then: with a larger format the diffraction effects kicks in at a somewhat higher aperture ratio, (about one stop higher for MF than 35mm) ... which balances the different DOF at equal f-stop and equal FOV in different formats to give equal DOF at the "diffraction limited aperture".
But perhaps I am misunderstanding your comment, so let me ask what display and viewing conditions you are using when making these judgements of visible diffraction?
- Prints or onscreen viewing at equal PPI? (e.g. 100% pixels on-screen)
- Prints or onscreen viewing of the image at the same displayed size (maybe on-screen viewing of a crop to the same portion of the image)
- Other?
-
printing big size or 100% on the screen
-
Canon are significantly ahead of Nikon noise-wise.
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/evalua...1div/index.html (http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/evaluation-canon-1div/index.html)
The article you point to is not a comparison. It only states that the 1DIV has low read noise.
Back to the point, it would be great if Canon delivered a CMOS based 50+ megapixel rugged MF camera. But actually the 645D already is all of that, it just lacks live view.
For those photographers thinking that live view is not relevant, there is no reason to wait for Canon/Nikon to enter MF, the Pentax 645D already is all we hoped these mainstream brands would bring to MF in terms of reliability, price and usability in the field.
I actually don't quite understand why 35mm users would have to care much about buying MF from the same brand. True some sensors are better than others (if anything Nikon leads in DR and system noise right now), but overall the absolute level is excellent accross the board. We can expect the next generation of Canon sensor to have catched up 2 years later, which would mean MF sensors levels of DR.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The article you point to is not a comparison. It only states that the 1DIV has low read noise.
Cheers,
Bernard
True, Bernard; my case was incomplete. I should also have linked to this:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html
...scroll down to Figure 3 and see where the Nikon's best (D3 & D300) are with respect to a whole slew of the Canons (50D, 7D, 1DIV, 5DII). Heck, even the old 350D is better than them!
Figure 11 is perhaps fairer as it normalizes for pixel size differences (using readnoise/mm^2), but the Nikons still lag a bit.
Now the D3x is something else (it's not measured there) but I gather its real strength is noise at _low_ ISO, thanks to a clever system to reduce the ADC noise contribution which dominates readnoise at low ISOs in all cameras. This plot is about sensor readnoise, which dominates at higher ISOs, and is the more important fundamental characteristic (plug Nikon's best ADC into one of Canon's sensors and you might have the best of both worlds). Does anyone know the sensor readnoise values of the D3x and D3s? I'd be astonished if they're around or under 1.7 electrons, but I have humble pie standing by in the fridge if necessary. However, based on results like http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=33852632 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=33852632), I don't think I'll be needing it.
-
Once you handle and shoot a Leica S2, you can sense where Canon might go. It has the fire power of a medium format in a camera not much different in size and weight than the 1Ds models .... and with the "hand holdability" of an SLR. Of course, the difference between "might" and "will" is a wide chasm. :)
-
It seems that all three of us agree then: with a larger format the diffraction effects kicks in at a somewhat higher aperture ratio, (about one stop higher for MF than 35mm) ... which balances the different DOF at equal f-stop and equal FOV in different formats to give equal DOF at the "diffraction limited aperture".
But perhaps I am misunderstanding your comment, so let me ask what display and viewing conditions you are using when making these judgements of visible diffraction?
- Prints or onscreen viewing at equal PPI? (e.g. 100% pixels on-screen)
- Prints or onscreen viewing of the image at the same displayed size (maybe on-screen viewing of a crop to the same portion of the image)
- Other?
Yes, it seems that we agree.
As for answering to your questions, I do make those assessments on screen at 100% or 66% and on print at about A3 size, even if the final media will be smaller than that.
I have to say that when I need to shoot at f16 or more, with the a900, I can get rid of the diffraction softness, just increasing sharpening to the point that on screen at 100% looks quite evident. But since my final output is normally full bleed magazine size, wich is about 9" by 12", the image looks fine on print. All the artifacts and little stair steps that may appear on diagonals, just do not show on print and the image simply look sharper without showing any deterioration.
On the printed magazines, I can see the difference of "crispiness" from the times that I did not use to sharpen the images as much.
I have found that the sweetest spot for the a900 is between f5.6 and 8 (nothing new I know...), but sometime is not enough and I need to go f 11 and more.
If I work with the P30, I normally do not use any sharpening at all. Though the P30 images do not look much better than the a900, a little but not much.
-
I had one of those Kodaks for a while and the moiré was not as bad as you describe. It was slightly worse than the 1ds, yet not on all the circumstances.
I think with the newer and better algorithms to process raw files and more computing power we have today, it is possible to have a 35mm FF with a very low pass or no filter at all.
I remember that with the Kodak, as software was being updated (not the Kodak one) and the algorithm became more efficient on demosaicing, though it required more processing time, the results were getting significantly better.
I use the SLR/n all the time. Ma and Pa point and click are going to see moire everywhere and hate it.
but I failed to point out that the place where the AA filter goes means that you have to take the entire camera apart. MFDB that have removable AA's are there because you can pop off the back, unscrew the AA plate, and slap the MFDB back on the camera. They haven't yet brought backs to the digital world for film cameras and they aren't going to. there is no money in it and they will lose money in the planned obsolesce that is designed into every single one of the uni-body cameras.
-
Just for Fun
Don't forget that Canon had commissioned digital MF Prototypes from Luigi Collani already in 1983 !!!
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/design/kikaku/t90/03_5systems.html ;)