Comments on: MX may just mean Multi Format

By: Gard G

Gard G — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 01:16:55 +0000

I’d be pretty damn happy if they made such a thing – I’ve been using an Olympus OM-1 for a while now and love it to death for its interchangeable focusing screens, data backs, flash mounting brackets, motor drives and all of that. A digital, modular camera with F-mount would be bliss and heavens for me.

By: Adrian

Adrian — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:14:16 +0000

MX might just mean Modular format – the F4 had modular power options and it and the F5 had modular viewfinders (standard,waist-level and sports) and different backs (standard and enhanced to emprint data on the film).
No point throwing out that skill set just because we’re digital !!!

By: Chris V

Chris V — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:40:04 +0000

From a studio shooter’s (fashion and beauty)point of few this may just be the dog’s b@ll@cks… Been seriously considering the new Phase One offer, but might just put that off till this becomes either less vaporware or is busted alltogether…
Did a little mockup and the difference in image circle needed from 24×36 to 36×36 is not as big as you’d think. It could easily be done with ye good olde F-mount. Maybe some new primes that can accomodate it? I bet some wide angles can already, especially the new T&C’s
Just imagine, you can shoot square to easily crop to any current page layout size with bleed, or go for 2/3, 4/5, any size you need.. any orientation. For commercial shooters it could be a ‘one in all’ solution? And be honest, for 95% of all apllications, 24mp in the 2/3 format is sufficient and the 40+ at 36x36mm is the icing on the cake.
Yay! Cake!

By: Chris P

Chris P — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:53:57 +0000

In the 1980's I ran a small semi-pro, evenings and weekends by personal recommendation, portrait business using a Bronica SQ-A. It still remains, for me, the most comfortable camera I have ever used and I think that a lot of pro photographers would still prefer a square format to the 6 x 4.5 which they are now forced to use by Hassleblad in order to get medium format.

If this rumour turns out to be correct, another very strong rumour starts to make sense. That is that Fuji are pulling out of dslr manufacture and are selling all their research into dslr sensors to a third party. Fuji's niche has always been the wedding market because of the dynamic range of their sensor design. if Nikon produce a 36 x 36 square sensor based on Fuji's sensor technology then there will be a camera which could well be the wedding photographers' holy grail.

To support the above thesis there is the fact that adverts have already appeared stating that Nikon will have something big to announce at the wedding professionals' fair in February. If it is not something particularly of interest to them why announce it there?

Chris P

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:43:20 +0000

or we can just make multiple shots of the same location then stitch then voila! a 80+ megapixels?

actually these sizes are the resolution for 6×6 scans at medium resolution

By: PHB

PHB — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:21:58 +0000

Yes but some folk do not want to shoot in 2x3 format. Medium format is usually 4x5 which enlarges to 8x10 (I know that they quote it as 6x4.5 but its actually 56x45).

At 40MP, FX format would be limited to ISO 2000 unless they have found clever ways round the noise problem. I don't see that as a problem, we used to shoot 200 ISO film and think it was fast. And it is always possible to apply smoothing to eliminate sensor noise.

I don't think 100MP is the ultimate limit for MX or that 40MP is the ultimate for FX. We don't start hitting the quantum limits till 1000MP on MX and 320MP on FX. But absent new technology, every doubling of sensor resolution will cost an ISO stop. After folk have been spoiled with 6400 ISO they are going to be somewhat disappointed with 400 ISO for a 200MP FX camera. Going to MX format would allow a much more respectable 1200 or so.

There is certainly demand for higher resolutions. But not necessarily if you have to give something up to get it.

MX format looks like a logical move for Nikon. First and most important it completely changes the Nikon/Canon situation, Canon can respond to the D3x but they are unlikely to have an M1 killer at the ready. They would need to buy Mamiya to keep at parity. Second they serve notice that they will have a full pro-range available in the medium format as the limits are being reached in 35mm.

Third, if they hit the $10K price point (with lens) they will sell a lot of bodies. Probably not as many as they have sold D3s but more than the rest of the medium format digital market by far.

At $40K there are very few pro photographers who can afford the 40MP 'blad. But the lower priced ($10K) medium format digital cameras don't really deliver enough over and above what the D3/D3x do to make them worth while.

A 40MP the M1 looks like it would outsell the rest of the medium format digital market put together if Nikon can hit a $10K price point.

By: Loa

Loa — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:15:34 +0000

If I recall correctly, the sensor is the most expensive part of a DSLR. Having a third of that most expensive part not work when you shoot in standard 2*3 format seems hard to believe.

Maybe they expect that most users will switch to a square format??? I find that hard to believe as well.

Loa

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:41:33 +0000

*yawns* we shall ask joey for the confirmation for this ridiculous “MX” stuff