Why don't Canon or Nikon make medium format

<p>I was wondering just why it is that Canon or Nikon don't make medium format cameras? Im not sure if they ever made one in the film days. </p>

<p>Nikon used to make lenses for Bronica medium format cameras. Presumably they didn't see profit in making their own.</p>

<p>Nikon made lenses for medium (and larger) formats - most notably for Plaubel and Bronica cameras.<br>

Why no medium format? Because they figure they can't make a profit? Market too small? Not enough company resources?</p>

Right, years ago Nikon made medium format lenses for Bronica. A teacher of mine had them in the 1970's. Nikon also

made large format lenses. Today, the medium format market is smaller than before.

There was at least one Plaubel medium format camera, the Makina67 with a Nikkor lens, and the large format Nikkors

were great lenses too.

 

But basically There never was enough money in that market segment to build their own cameras

<p>Apart from the resources Canon/Nikon would have to spend, the Medium Format market is nearly professionals only, who mostly already have a system. Changing systems is a costly matter, so the amount of people that would actually jump onto a Nikon or Canon medium format system is even lower - they would have to bring significant benefits, at a reasonable cost, to convince people to try this system.<br>

<br /> Leica is the only one I recall who is trying to get into that market recently (their S system; Pentax entered back in - but they already have a legacy). Leica has a brand-benefit that Nikon and Canon do not really have, and Leica is a smaller business more set to "exploit niches", Nikon/Canon are optimised for high volumes instead. Effectively, Nikon/Canon would have to compete on price, which in a niche market is a tough order.</p>

The Leica S is not a medium format camera though. It is in between 35 mm format and medium format.<br>It's biggest drawback is that it is not modular. That means it is in between 35 mm format based cameras and medium format cameras in more than just the sensor size: in the 35 mm format based world, whenever you want to move on to newer sensor or other technology, you get a new camera. Expensive, but not as expensive - by far - as medium format cameras are. In the medium format world, whenever you need to move on you get a new back for your camera. Also very expensive, but not as expensive as having to get a completely new camera. The Leica S is in between. It offers the 35 mm format based swap-the-entire-camera route for medium format pricing. Ouch.<br><br>Nikon and Canon are doing well in their market segment. The medium format market is indeed a fraction of that market segment's size. Cameras and backs cost a lot, but the volume is low, so no great amounts of money to be made (always has been like that). The medium format segment has seen brands drop out because of the massive move to 35 mm based digital. The few that remain have the segment covered, with no slack left to take up by newcomers. If anything, the segment is shrinking.<br>Canon and Nikon (and Sony) could try to compete with suppliers of medium format digital backs, i.e. put their digital technology into only parts of a medium format camera. But again, that market is taken and unless Nikon or Canon could produce an amazing back (many hundreds of megapixels for a couple of hundred Dollars) there is no chance that they will be able to get a large enough share of the market. No money. And if they do anyway, it wil also hurt the rest of the suppliers, reduce their share to below what is sustainable, and instead of boosting their sales the newcomers will help put an end to the medium format market altogether, making a loss while they do so.<br>In short: there is no incentive at all to venture out into the medium format market.<br><br>Now if someone would bring a good 4x5" digital back that's still affordable to the market...

<blockquote>

<p>The Leica S is not a medium format camera though.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Neither is the Pentax 645Z then - seeing that its sensors is just barely larger than the S/S2 sensor (33mm x 44mm vs 30mm x 45mm)? Guess many of the Hasselblads and the Mamiya645DF (depending on the back used) then don't qualify either (32.9mm x 43.8mm)? Are the 40.2mm x 53.7mm sensor cameras/back then finally medium format - i.e. close enough to the 6x45 film format (42mm x 56mm)? Seems to me the Leica S/S2 is a lot closer to "medium" format than it is to the "full frame" (24mm x 36mm).</p>

<p>In this digital era, I suppose the new definition for the lower-bound of medium format is anything larger than 24x36mm. A 6x4.5cm digital sensor is still very expensive to produce for even the pro market, and that kind of quality is rarely needed.</p>

Yes, a sensor needs to be very close to at least 6x4.5 (ca. 56x42 mm) to qualify as full frame medium format. Anything smaller is to medium format what APS-C or DX format is to 35 mm format.<br><br>I disagree, Shun, that the quality produced by such a sensor is rarely needed. Today, it is rarely demanded. That's something else.

<p>Medium format is in large part, like LF, required for very large prints, which tax smaller cameras, digital or film. </p>

<p>The market for large prints is very specialised. Nikon or Canon would not be comfortable (or sufficiently profitable) therein. Anyway, kudos to Nikon and Fuji for making (or having made) some very fine optics for MF and larger formats (Fuji also making many MF cameras). My Plaubel 670 (unfortunately passed on to another) had an excellent 80mm f2.8 Nikkor, as did the 55mm wide angle version, 67W. Interestingly, it was designed not by highly experienced Plaubel, but by a Japanese rapid photo service company, DOI, together with a professor or two in Germany. Brilliant design and reasonable execution, with a few faults (noisy shutter, damageable wiring from meter to shutter, sometimes erratic film transport) but filling a great niche. </p>

<p>Nikon made lenses for a wide number of formats, medium and large format as well as enlarging lenses. They never made a medium format camera. In the beginning they were to make a medium format TLR and a rangefinder 35mm but in the end only the 35 rangefinder was made. They cancelled the project to make the medium format TLR. Their success however started with the 35mm SLR. </p>

<p>Simple Economics I guess, the research and development costs for them to get such a camera to market would make any such model hugely more expensive than their current full frame camera models and probably wouldn't sell in high enough quantities to give them the return they would expect on their investment.</p>

<p>If they thought that there was a good market for such a camera, they might well make it but there are probably a few more years of sensor tweaking to maximise the performance of full frame cameras before that would even get on to the drawing board. But, there has to be a limit to how much better you can make full frame sensors before the possible future improvements become so miniscule that many users will stop upgrading their cameras as often. When that day comes the quality difference from using a substantially larger sensor in an "affordable" body would be massive compared to even the very best full frame camera but only if sensor costs come down substantially for larger sizes than what they are at present. In which case it might come about more rapidly if major camera makers could agree a new standardised lens mount for a new larger than full frame sensor size, like a kind of jumbo version of micro four thirds or a reinvention of true medium format with image sizes much nearer to 6 x 4.5 cm or even 6 x 7 cm. Instead of manufacturers doing similar but slightly different sizes, some kind of a recognised standard would help to get the critical mass you would need in user numbers adopting a new system.</p>

<p>Saying that, for what I am doing just now I really can't complain about the image quality I can get from my D800 and am at an age where I don't really want to start to carry bigger and heavier cameras again!</p>

<p>I see it from a slightly different perspective. The Korean war launched Nikon and to some degree Canon into mainstream consumer photography following the use of advanced Japanese lenses (high speed optics) by war photographers from the west. A ten year reign of the RF-VF system camera then occurred (the Nikon S2 or SP was prized by photojournalists) and the major Japanese high end 35mm camera makers competed with Leica. Most photojournalists used such cameras in the 50s and very early 60s. The SLR was around since 1936 (Exakta) and in the 50s (Contax, Pentax, etc.) with a number of other makes but the encumbrement of the system before the automatic diaphragm and through the lens metering slowed its progress. The wide range of focal lengths and metering options made possible with the later Nikon F or Canon F-1 and other SLR cameras sounded the death knell for the limited lens range of the RF-VF camera for most users. The limited 35mm SLR camera size allowed relatively economic camera bodies and optics but to simulate that in MF required both heavier and more expensive bodies and lenses and most 35mm manufacturers, Nikon and Canon included, no doubt saw little sales demand to compete with the limited Hasselblad and Rollei and others, who also had a fairly restricted market (Hassy in N.A. and Rollei in Europe). Fuji makes most of its money in areas other than camera making, yet has produced cameras of a great range of shapes, function and sizes. Perhaps it is more a hobby of this multi business unit company, one which may not endanger its overall bottom line. On the other hand, Nikon seems to be purely camera business related and even imports its digital sensors from another manufacturer. They have perhaps less flexibility and absorbing power to go after other than their mainstream business. A curious small venture for them was their production in 2000 of copies of their successful RF cameras of the 50s and early sixties, but those were limited productiuon runs, but a small deviation for them and one directed at the historical interest of their fans and their image.</p>

<p>Why would they? I don't think it makes economic sense.<br>

Nikon and Canon are into mass-produced high turnover and moderate profit-margin production, whereas the market for medium-format digital cameras or backs is low-volume and premium priced. I can't speak for Canon, but Nikon's after sales service is pretty poor - at least here in the UK. I don't think they'd want to be bothered with over-picky pros that have paid many K for a camera, and expect personal backup service as a result.</p>

<p>Beside all that, I perceive that the market for MF digital is dwindling as Full-Frame DSLRs catch up to the pixel count and image quality for a fraction of the price. Especially now that lens manufacturers have woken up to the fact that they need to raise their game.</p>

<p>It's my view that once the stricture of film grain is removed, then there must be an "ideal" format that provides the best compromise between Depth-of-Field control, diffraction immunity, portability, cost, optical-design freedom, and overall image quality. That ideal compromise, IMHO, lies somewhere close to the 35mm frame size, but not quite. I'd rather see a format with a less overlong aspect ratio; 4:3 or thereabouts. Therefore my "ideal" format would be 27mm x 36mm, and could easily be contained within a current DSLR body shell. I don't see that going larger has any practical merit these days. Although removing the reflex mirror from cameras would give a lot more freedom to optical designers.</p>

<p>It's a limited market and they probably tossed it out at some point and decided it was not worth it. </p>

<p>My simple thoughts on this are market demand. I used to shoot weddings on 645 format way back in the 80's to early 90's but these days most of my work is for the web or small format print work so APSC/4:3rds is more than adequate. The cost of even a MF back for my Bronica would wipe out my potential profits for years so it is not going to happen yet. But Moore's Law does apply so larger sensors will get cheaper over time but I still think that really the market for large format cameras is dead which is why I like my Olympus and two lenses for travelling, one camera bag=camera,lenses and flash + a small tripod on a strap over the shoulder and I am good to go!</p>