Just A Thought - Where Does Canon Go From Full Frame

First let me state that this is pure speculation, dreamed up in my feeble brain, not based on any insider knowledge, so take it for what its worth.

Now that Canon has the full frame digital market under control and the competition for lower level DSLRs is heating up, what is the possibility that they will venture into the medium format world - a new format, new lenses, etc.

Or would they perhaps buy out one of the current players (Mamiya? Rollei?) like Sony bought out Minolta?

This entered my mind when I saw the Canon teaser on the Web, and I wonder if they have a real surprise up their sleeve for Photokina.

Food for thought. I'd like to hear what others think of this.

Have Fun,

While I think they'll increase resolution to come close to medium format, I don't think they'll actually venture into the medium format world itself. I'll wager that they'll keep it cost effective and build on their current technology.

One of the semi-reliable rumors indicate Canon is coming out with a 2x focal length camera. It will be able to use EF lenses in crop mode (at 1x), but will have some new lenses EF-Ls (L=large in this case) that work at 2x. Not quite medium format but very close. Could fit in same basic body form of 1 series cameras.

While the rumor is logical from an eventually standpoint, part of me hopes it isn't because I probably could not afford the upgrade path for that one.

Meanwhile in the 35mm FF realm, 22-25MP seems to be the limit and 22MP has been mentioned by a Canon rep awhile back so that may be the upper limit for 35mm format sensors, with APS-C sensors fairly close to the limit already. Note the limit is based on not losing the high ISO versus noise advantage. If willing to trade off noise at high ISO you could probably get 100MP on the sensor eventually (somewhere around 200MP you hit a physics limit beyond which you can't detect visible light anymore).

So Canon is about at the practical limits because of physics versus versatility so they can only improve the features or increase the sensor size. Improving the features is more likely as increasing sensor size will increase cost.

just what I know or can speculate on.

Well, how about a prism to split, the red, green, and blue parts of the spectrum, and a separate 24 X 36mm sensor for each color. This would increase resolution without the need for the sensors to be denser.

Of course this would present all sorts of new technical challenges.

If you could link this with live preview, you might even be able to cram all of this inside a body and retain the lens flange to image sensor distance and use existing Canon EF mount lenses. But most likely the reflex mirror would have to go, do to lack of space.

Enjoy! Lon

Predictions are WAG...so here is mine: Canon buys Hasselblad, makes an affordable 66MP low noise 55mm x 55mm sensor, and markets a dSLR for medium format under the Hasselblad name!

(tongue firmly embedded in cheek)

Interesting concepts - I had heard the "double size" sensor rumor, that was what got me going on this.

I don't see big sales growth for Canon in the 35mm format market at this point, with all of the competition coming in, so that's what made me think a new (bigger) format would be attractive to Canon's sales folks.

Have Fun,

Regarding what humans are calling "medium format" digitals.

The current crop of digital cameras (at 6 to 10MP resolutions) has already almost killed the film medium format segment of the photographic market.

And using current pixel sizes, 22 to 25 MP resolutions are soon very likely (in 24 X 36mm sized sensors).

Discussion of digital "medium format" seems to me to be humans overlaying yesterdays practical need, onto today's technology. In other words, yesterday’s world had a practical need for medium format cameras. I am not sure this will ever be true again. Possibly it might be true, but just because medium format thrived in the past, does not necessary mean that it will in the future.

Of course there will be some limited production medium format digitals, but expecting to see medium format digitals sales like the Mamiya 645, or even the Hasselblad 6 X 6 is unlikely.

Wedding photographers were the huge market for these cameras, and currently most wedding photographers are extremely happy with their 6 to 10 MP cameras built on 35mm like bodies. With room for these same 35mm like digital bodies to grow to about 25MP, I suspect the medium format digital will be at most a niche market, more likely to replace 4 X 5, and larger cameras, for the no compromise, ultimate image fidelity, crowd.

Wonder if anyone is at work on miniature view cameras that accommodates all the tilts and shifts and happily mates to a digital back with a image sensor about 2.25 X 2.75 inches in size. Short mount lenses in the 40mm focal length range will also be needed. The longer focal lengths are already all over ebay for a song, better snatch them up now in advance of the market swell.

But, about 5 or 10 years will tell.

Enjoy! Lon

The thing that I see is, not being held to the constraints of a film size allows Canon and other manufacturers to develop whatever format they want. They may well decide to stay in the 24x36mm and smaller market, but they no longer have to concern themselves with what film Kodak is going to produce and sell. They can concentrate on what formats their customers want.

In the medium format world, Mamiya and others used the square format to argue that there was no need to turn the camera sideways. In a "for instance" mode, a square format camera could mask to selected sizes and aspect ratios without the need for a "vertical grip", and internally crop the image if desired. Need 3x4, no problem; need 2x3, no problem; need a square format, no problem.

Just another thought.

Have Fun,

I like the square format idea. If it was 36mm x 36mm, then the current set of lenses would work fine. You could imagine a set of "blinds" (real or electronic) in the viewfinder to set the crop and format. Nice one.

Actually, the square format would be smaller. The current EF lenses are engineered for the 24x36 frame, and that circle is smaller than 36x36. It has been discussed here, but I can't find it easily, and I'm sure someone will come along soon and post it. Nice try, though.

Edit: I saw one reference that the EF lenses could handle a 30x30 square format. Still, a nice size.

Have Fun,

Yeah.. you're right. I just did the math - square is 30.59mm each side

Square is good though.

Hey, why does an image sensor have to be square or rectangular?

How about a round one with a diameter of about 43mm (1,450 mm square image area)? That would all fit in the current image circle for an EF lens.

But, a 30mm square image sensor, that would be a 900mm square image area. A 24 X 36mm image already gives you 864mm square. This is a very small increase in image area, and would likely not be worth the trouble.

Enjoy! Lon

When sensors become much more inexpensive than they are today, a round sensor might be marketed, as it uses all of the image circle. However, I am not aware of an appeal for round images in either the professional or consumer world. But who knows. . .

A 30x30 format would not be a great advancement, but who knows what the future will bring? It also wouldn't provide for any new equipment other than the body, and in the DSLR world the real income comes from the lenses, so unless it led to a new series of lenses it wouldn't be a big hitter for Canon.

Have Fun,

Life is WIDE. I like WIDE. No vote for square
3:2 is fine. 16:9 would be fine also.

While a round sensor would be great from a lens perspective, it would be a waste from a Focal Plane Array (Sensor) perspective. Unless it was a 6 or 8" circle. Outside of hexagonal sensors, square sensors allow you to get the most pixels/sensor out of a wafer that they produce the sensors on. Take into account they have to grow the sensors on a 6 or 8" platter. I think most use the 8" (~200mm) platter, but some quick research indicates some are using larger sizes 300mm.
In addition a circular sensor would waste pixels in the center of the wafer where you are likely to get the best yield.