adan Posted July 24, 2011 Share #21 Posted July 24, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, I dont see any technical problem to make digital medium format camera in a size of current, say, canon 5d mark ii. If you can't see a technical problem, that could be a) because there is no problem, or because you don't have the technical skills to see it. Got any evidence that in this case we are talking (a) and not (? Setting that aside for a moment - OK, Leica has put a slightly larger sensor in a camera about the size of the 5DMk2. For $24,000, which is not exactly the consumer market. The "problem" may not be technical per se, but marketing. Can a larger sensor actually be produced at a consumer price? Can you actually quote, within $1000, how much an S2 sensor costs? An M9 sensor? A Canon T3i sensor? The moment this product appears, at consumer price range, there will be no way back. Substitute "If" for "The moment," and you may be right. IF the moon were made of blue cheese, we'd never starve. What you have not demonstrated is that "The moment" is actually going to happen. And unless/until you have some evidence to the contrary, I don't believe it will. How many people are lusting for S2 now? You tell me. You have any market survey information? And I dont see any other road for camera companies to advance, other than enlarging the sensors. So how come we didn't see a Canon or Nikon medium-format film camera - 30-40 years ago? Gosh, it's obvious they could have advanced their cameras by moving up to 120 (or 4x5) film back then, isn't it? The technology had been around for decades. Whaddya think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 Hi adan, Take a look here Future of 35mm format lenses. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
adan Posted July 24, 2011 Share #22 Posted July 24, 2011 Well, I dont see any technical problem to make digital medium format camera in a size of current, say, canon 5d mark ii. If you can't see a technical problem, that could be a) because there is no problem, or because you don't have the technical skills to see it. Got any evidence that in this case we are talking (a) and not (? Setting that aside for a moment - OK, Leica has put a slightly larger sensor in a camera about the size of the 5DMk2. For $24,000, which is not exactly the consumer market. The "problem" may not be technical per se, but marketing. Can a larger sensor actually be produced at a consumer price? Can you actually quote, within $1000, how much an S2 sensor costs? An M9 sensor? A Canon T3i sensor? The moment this product appears, at consumer price range, there will be no way back. Substitute "If" for "The moment," and you may be right. IF the moon were made of blue cheese, we'd never starve. What you have not demonstrated is that "The moment" is actually going to happen. And unless/until you have some evidence to the contrary, I don't believe it will. How many people are lusting for S2 now? You tell me. You have any market survey information? And I dont see any other road for camera companies to advance, other than enlarging the sensors. So how come we didn't see a Canon or Nikon medium-format film camera - 30-40 years ago? Gosh, it's obvious they could have advanced their cameras by moving up to 120 (or 4x5) film back then, isn't it? The technology had been around for decades. Whaddya think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 24, 2011 Share #23 Posted July 24, 2011 A look at history might help us here. At one time there were the Zeiss Ikontas, and Super Ikontas in 6x4.5cm and 6x10cm. Medium format. Exceedingly expensive in their time. There were also miniature medium formats with shift and tilt. Not quite so expensive. Very capable in their time and still quite useful. And then less and less expensive MF cameras. But the market really didn't care for the sophistication shown by the engineers. They want small and cheap. And except for the Leica and a few others, the engineers continued to make superior smaller cameras, but the market still didn't really care. Look at how rarefied they are today. Small market, big price. A huge research product by Kodak showed that the average consumer wasn't particularly fond of pictures of great tonal range or sharpness. In fact they liked rather bright, contrasty images. Thus was born the atrocity of the disk cartridge and a plethora of highly successful Instamatics (with the exception of their SLR Instamatic - too big, too expensive). I quite seriously doubt the public today which fosters smaller and smaller personal appliances are going to go back to larger cameras, especially now that so very few ever print their images and 12mp is going to be more than adequate for most. Cell phone cameras are adequate for many. There's your market. The economy of scale we enjoy for micro chips does not correspond to high quality optical sensors. FF (35mm) sensors will never be cheap. MF will continue to be comparatively more expensive. That's the far right of the consumer bell curve. Very small market. APS and M43 are still expensive but with the exception of a couple of them, they are small enough to make the consumer happy. Cell phone quality is adequate for very many of them. So the trend that threatens FF35 is smaller and cheaper lenses (with the usual few exceptions such as the VC .95 25mm). Besides, cameras aren't good investments. Try expertly engraved Belgian Brownings if you like hardware. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 24, 2011 Share #24 Posted July 24, 2011 A look at history might help us here. At one time there were the Zeiss Ikontas, and Super Ikontas in 6x4.5cm and 6x10cm. Medium format. Exceedingly expensive in their time. There were also miniature medium formats with shift and tilt. Not quite so expensive. Very capable in their time and still quite useful. And then less and less expensive MF cameras. But the market really didn't care for the sophistication shown by the engineers. They want small and cheap. And except for the Leica and a few others, the engineers continued to make superior smaller cameras, but the market still didn't really care. Look at how rarefied they are today. Small market, big price. A huge research product by Kodak showed that the average consumer wasn't particularly fond of pictures of great tonal range or sharpness. In fact they liked rather bright, contrasty images. Thus was born the atrocity of the disk cartridge and a plethora of highly successful Instamatics (with the exception of their SLR Instamatic - too big, too expensive). I quite seriously doubt the public today which fosters smaller and smaller personal appliances are going to go back to larger cameras, especially now that so very few ever print their images and 12mp is going to be more than adequate for most. Cell phone cameras are adequate for many. There's your market. The economy of scale we enjoy for micro chips does not correspond to high quality optical sensors. FF (35mm) sensors will never be cheap. MF will continue to be comparatively more expensive. That's the far right of the consumer bell curve. Very small market. APS and M43 are still expensive but with the exception of a couple of them, they are small enough to make the consumer happy. Cell phone quality is adequate for very many of them. So the trend that threatens FF35 is smaller and cheaper lenses (with the usual few exceptions such as the VC .95 25mm). Besides, cameras aren't good investments. Try expertly engraved Belgian Brownings if you like hardware. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted July 24, 2011 Share #25 Posted July 24, 2011 I will worry when 4/3 and other smaller formats die. Medium format has issues with DOF, which technology will have to address. Consumers seem to like small cameras. Which is contrary to going medium format. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted July 24, 2011 Share #26 Posted July 24, 2011 I will worry when 4/3 and other smaller formats die. Medium format has issues with DOF, which technology will have to address. Consumers seem to like small cameras. Which is contrary to going medium format. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted July 24, 2011 Share #27 Posted July 24, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) The flip side to bbb's argument is - "How come today's "35mm" DSLR's are so bloated that they are as big as a Leica S2 and as heavy as a Hasselblad 500C - without even offering the bigger image area?" If Nikon and Canon want to "advance" - how's about following Leica's lead and figuring out how to put a FF sensor into a body the size and weight of their 1985 cameras? A FF Nikon DSLR within 10% of the size and weight of an F3 (and preferably with the same manual controls) would get my attention real fast....a lot faster than a D3-sized body with an S2 or 645 sensor. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/157681-future-of-35mm-format-lenses/?do=findComment&comment=1744492'>More sharing options...
adan Posted July 24, 2011 Share #28 Posted July 24, 2011 The flip side to bbb's argument is - "How come today's "35mm" DSLR's are so bloated that they are as big as a Leica S2 and as heavy as a Hasselblad 500C - without even offering the bigger image area?" If Nikon and Canon want to "advance" - how's about following Leica's lead and figuring out how to put a FF sensor into a body the size and weight of their 1985 cameras? A FF Nikon DSLR within 10% of the size and weight of an F3 (and preferably with the same manual controls) would get my attention real fast....a lot faster than a D3-sized body with an S2 or 645 sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted July 24, 2011 Share #29 Posted July 24, 2011 MF lenses will always be bulkier than FF as well. Aside from DoF and personal preference, there is no reason to carry such a burden while the resolving power of FF and smaller sensors will grow higher and higher with lesser and lesser digital noise. Not to mention the fact that I've never seen an f2 MF lens, go figure an f1.4... I understand that given the smaller enlargement factor required for a MF higher ISO speeds could be used, but would one ever give up the OOF of an f 1.4 'lux or a Noctilux'? Cheers Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted July 24, 2011 Share #30 Posted July 24, 2011 MF lenses will always be bulkier than FF as well. Aside from DoF and personal preference, there is no reason to carry such a burden while the resolving power of FF and smaller sensors will grow higher and higher with lesser and lesser digital noise. Not to mention the fact that I've never seen an f2 MF lens, go figure an f1.4... I understand that given the smaller enlargement factor required for a MF higher ISO speeds could be used, but would one ever give up the OOF of an f 1.4 'lux or a Noctilux'? Cheers Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted July 24, 2011 Share #31 Posted July 24, 2011 A look at history might help us here. At one time there were the Zeiss Ikontas, and Super Ikontas in 6x4.5cm and 6x10cm. Medium format. Exceedingly expensive in their time. There were also miniature medium formats with shift and tilt. Not quite so expensive. Very capable in their time and still quite useful. And then less and less expensive MF cameras. But the market really didn't care for the sophistication shown by the engineers. They want small and cheap. And except for the Leica and a few others, the engineers continued to make superior smaller cameras, but the market still didn't really care. Look at how rarefied they are today. Small market, big price. A huge research product by Kodak showed that the average consumer wasn't particularly fond of pictures of great tonal range or sharpness. In fact they liked rather bright, contrasty images. Thus was born the atrocity of the disk cartridge and a plethora of highly successful Instamatics (with the exception of their SLR Instamatic - too big, too expensive). I quite seriously doubt the public today which fosters smaller and smaller personal appliances are going to go back to larger cameras, especially now that so very few ever print their images and 12mp is going to be more than adequate for most. Cell phone cameras are adequate for many. There's your market. The economy of scale we enjoy for micro chips does not correspond to high quality optical sensors. FF (35mm) sensors will never be cheap. MF will continue to be comparatively more expensive. That's the far right of the consumer bell curve. Very small market. APS and M43 are still expensive but with the exception of a couple of them, they are small enough to make the consumer happy. Cell phone quality is adequate for very many of them. So the trend that threatens FF35 is smaller and cheaper lenses (with the usual few exceptions such as the VC .95 25mm). Besides, cameras aren't good investments. Try expertly engraved Belgian Brownings if you like hardware. I feel you couldn't be any more righter, line by line, word by word. But for some reasons it hurts... Cheers, Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted July 24, 2011 Share #32 Posted July 24, 2011 A look at history might help us here. At one time there were the Zeiss Ikontas, and Super Ikontas in 6x4.5cm and 6x10cm. Medium format. Exceedingly expensive in their time. There were also miniature medium formats with shift and tilt. Not quite so expensive. Very capable in their time and still quite useful. And then less and less expensive MF cameras. But the market really didn't care for the sophistication shown by the engineers. They want small and cheap. And except for the Leica and a few others, the engineers continued to make superior smaller cameras, but the market still didn't really care. Look at how rarefied they are today. Small market, big price. A huge research product by Kodak showed that the average consumer wasn't particularly fond of pictures of great tonal range or sharpness. In fact they liked rather bright, contrasty images. Thus was born the atrocity of the disk cartridge and a plethora of highly successful Instamatics (with the exception of their SLR Instamatic - too big, too expensive). I quite seriously doubt the public today which fosters smaller and smaller personal appliances are going to go back to larger cameras, especially now that so very few ever print their images and 12mp is going to be more than adequate for most. Cell phone cameras are adequate for many. There's your market. The economy of scale we enjoy for micro chips does not correspond to high quality optical sensors. FF (35mm) sensors will never be cheap. MF will continue to be comparatively more expensive. That's the far right of the consumer bell curve. Very small market. APS and M43 are still expensive but with the exception of a couple of them, they are small enough to make the consumer happy. Cell phone quality is adequate for very many of them. So the trend that threatens FF35 is smaller and cheaper lenses (with the usual few exceptions such as the VC .95 25mm). Besides, cameras aren't good investments. Try expertly engraved Belgian Brownings if you like hardware. I feel you couldn't be any more righter, line by line, word by word. But for some reasons it hurts... Cheers, Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted July 24, 2011 Share #33 Posted July 24, 2011 The flip side to bbb's argument is - "How come today's "35mm" DSLR's are so bloated that they are as big as a Leica S2 and as heavy as a Hasselblad 500C - without even offering the bigger image area?" If Nikon and Canon want to "advance" - how's about following Leica's lead and figuring out how to put a FF sensor into a body the size and weight of their 1985 cameras? A FF Nikon DSLR within 10% of the size and weight of an F3 (and preferably with the same manual controls) would get my attention real fast....a lot faster than a D3-sized body with an S2 or 645 sensor. Sheesh, are they bloated today! However I'm afraid this might be more of a widespread trend... Compare this: Apollo Computer (1960) quote This is the type of computer that went to the moon in the Apollo missions from 1969 to 1972. There was one computer in the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) and one the mothership (CM) circling above. It was the first use of integrated circuits, as still displayed in the timeline cabinet to the left. It's cycle time was 1 Mhz, 11 instructions. It had 1K of 16 bit words of erasable (RAM) core memory and 12K of read-only memory (ROM). The ROM held the "Colossus 249" flight control software. There were no disks or tapes in the flight system. unquote with this: System requirements for Windows Vista quote Recommended minimum hardware requirements for Windows Vista The following list describes the recommended minimum hardware requirements for basic functionality of the different editions of Windows Vista. Actual hardware requirements will vary, depending on system configuration and on the programs and the features that you install. If you install Windows Vista over a network, additional hard disk space may be required. Windows Vista Home Basic 800-megahertz (MHz) 32-bit (x86) processor or 800-MHz 64-bit (x64) processor 512 megabytes (MB) of system memory Note On system configurations that use system memory as graphics memory, at least 448 MB of system memory must be available to the operating system after some memory is allocated for graphics. DirectX 9-class graphics card 32 MB of graphics memory 20-gigabyte (GB) hard disk that has 15 GB of free hard disk space unquote What went wrong? Sometimes I think I'm sick for my longing of a past I never directly knew, but if the alternative is today's madness... Cheers, Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted July 24, 2011 Share #34 Posted July 24, 2011 The flip side to bbb's argument is - "How come today's "35mm" DSLR's are so bloated that they are as big as a Leica S2 and as heavy as a Hasselblad 500C - without even offering the bigger image area?" If Nikon and Canon want to "advance" - how's about following Leica's lead and figuring out how to put a FF sensor into a body the size and weight of their 1985 cameras? A FF Nikon DSLR within 10% of the size and weight of an F3 (and preferably with the same manual controls) would get my attention real fast....a lot faster than a D3-sized body with an S2 or 645 sensor. Sheesh, are they bloated today! However I'm afraid this might be more of a widespread trend... Compare this: Apollo Computer (1960) quote This is the type of computer that went to the moon in the Apollo missions from 1969 to 1972. There was one computer in the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) and one the mothership (CM) circling above. It was the first use of integrated circuits, as still displayed in the timeline cabinet to the left. It's cycle time was 1 Mhz, 11 instructions. It had 1K of 16 bit words of erasable (RAM) core memory and 12K of read-only memory (ROM). The ROM held the "Colossus 249" flight control software. There were no disks or tapes in the flight system. unquote with this: System requirements for Windows Vista quote Recommended minimum hardware requirements for Windows Vista The following list describes the recommended minimum hardware requirements for basic functionality of the different editions of Windows Vista. Actual hardware requirements will vary, depending on system configuration and on the programs and the features that you install. If you install Windows Vista over a network, additional hard disk space may be required. Windows Vista Home Basic 800-megahertz (MHz) 32-bit (x86) processor or 800-MHz 64-bit (x64) processor 512 megabytes (MB) of system memory Note On system configurations that use system memory as graphics memory, at least 448 MB of system memory must be available to the operating system after some memory is allocated for graphics. DirectX 9-class graphics card 32 MB of graphics memory 20-gigabyte (GB) hard disk that has 15 GB of free hard disk space unquote What went wrong? Sometimes I think I'm sick for my longing of a past I never directly knew, but if the alternative is today's madness... Cheers, Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 24, 2011 Share #35 Posted July 24, 2011 Not to mention the fact that I've never seen an f2 MF lens, go figure an f1.4... There are F/2 MF lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 24, 2011 Share #36 Posted July 24, 2011 Not to mention the fact that I've never seen an f2 MF lens, go figure an f1.4... There are F/2 MF lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbonthemoon Posted July 24, 2011 Author Share #37 Posted July 24, 2011 Well, of course there always will be small cameras for mass production. But these people do not buy exchangable lenses, and do not affect amateur-pro gear prices and trends for lens manufactors. But for serious hobbyst/professional, I believe, files quality is more important than the size, within some acceptable ranges(5d ii for DSLR or M9 for RF is OK). Otherwise everyone would drop their D3/M9 and went shooting with X100 So if MF digital camera appears, at affordable price and size, considering files quality boost it provides, many of the hobbyst/professional are supposed to switch. And now, they are the people, who affect the prices, and lens makers will be happy to address their new needs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbonthemoon Posted July 24, 2011 Author Share #38 Posted July 24, 2011 Well, of course there always will be small cameras for mass production. But these people do not buy exchangable lenses, and do not affect amateur-pro gear prices and trends for lens manufactors. But for serious hobbyst/professional, I believe, files quality is more important than the size, within some acceptable ranges(5d ii for DSLR or M9 for RF is OK). Otherwise everyone would drop their D3/M9 and went shooting with X100 So if MF digital camera appears, at affordable price and size, considering files quality boost it provides, many of the hobbyst/professional are supposed to switch. And now, they are the people, who affect the prices, and lens makers will be happy to address their new needs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 24, 2011 Share #39 Posted July 24, 2011 Didn't do the math but the Planar 80/2 must have less DoF than any Noctilux i guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 24, 2011 Share #40 Posted July 24, 2011 Didn't do the math but the Planar 80/2 must have less DoF than any Noctilux i guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.