Naldo

Generally speaking, size does matter with regard to sensor design. . . apparently because the bigger the sensor is, the more light it encounters. If you say full-frame format sensors at 36 x 24mm are necessary for today's professional, there are others who will say (as I'm sure many on here will) that the APS-C, the APS-H and even the 1" sized sensors can be plenty good enough for the vast majority of pro photography.

But there are even medium format DSLRs with digital sensors at more than twice the size of 36 x 24mm full-frame sensors. Apparently the medium format DSLR camera systems are not as practical as are the lesser-sized-sensor based systems we are all familiar with. . . even for various reasons apart from the huge cost-barrier. But I wonder if an intermediate-frame format sensor (my term) at say 42 x 30mm might be worthwhile for use in for Nikon & Canon DSLR systems (that is if one were to be produced of course) as a modern compromise, improving upon the full-frame format without straying too far into the impracticalities of full-on medium-format DSLRs.

BebuLamar

Certainly larger size sensor has its advantages and there companies that make cameras in roughly the size you mentioned. To name a few Leica, Hasselblad, Fuji and Pentax. Canon and Nikon could do the same but it means that they must introduce new lens line and the sales of cameras with sensor of that size is still not very high due to cost. The 24x36mm sensor make the best use of Canon and Nikon lenses they have been making for decades.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

There are many variables to your assertion - most of which I daresay make it economically infeasible to make such a "slightly larger than 24x26MM sensor" worthwhile.

First, the cost of manufacturing sensors is greatly impacted by the size they will be - from a standard 12" diameter silicon wafer you can cut far more smaller sensors than larger ones. However, there are always imperfections that render the individual sensor on which it lands useless. As a thought experiment, (so you understand the concept) let's say that a single dust mote lands on a wafer during production. If that wafer is destined to create 100 sensors (say, for cell phones) then one of them will be tossed. If that wafer is being cut into 10 larger format sensors, one of those will be tossed. But the cost differential of losing 1% versus 10% of the manufacturing output is significant (which is why larger sensors cost more to make).

Then there is the issue of lenses, or, should I say a system of lenses that would be required by serious photographers. A larger sensor would require lenses that throw a larger light cone than today's "FF" lenses, else they will vignette. Too, those newly designed larger lenses will be bulkier (and probably more expensive) than the current crop of lenses for FF. As for the world of lenses out there for film based medium format cameras, the questions are a] would people purchasing this wonderful new larger format camera want to spend that kind of money and lose all the automation they enjoy in today's cameras (auto-focus, exposure, etc.) and b] would those designed-for-film-days lenses even have the higher resolving power that modern digital chips require?

And finally, there is the question of demand. I've sold poster sized enlargements up to 30x45" (printed on aluminum) taken with a 24MP camera. Would they look better had I used a 50MP camera (had one existed back then)? Perhaps, but the difference is not even a doubling of resolution - to double the resolve of a 24MP camera would require a 96MP imaging chip (double both dimensions of the 24MP) - and of course that would require that you have a pretty sophisticated computer system to handle the files. But that is moot - who would demand such a high resolution? In fact, given today that the vast majority of images viewed are seen on screens and not printed output, the entire resolution thing is a virtual non-starter.

No, there are two other directions the industry could attempt to really change the landscape of photography:

1. separate the EVF from the imaging chip part of the camera. With SLR design, obviously this is impossible as the photons of light must be reflected after passing through the lens to your eye. But with mirrorless (or as I like to call them - EVIL - Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) this is not a thing - there is nothing (beyond conventional thinking) that requires the eyepiece be centered and above the body of the camera. Of course, EVFs are still not as high quality as optical viewfinders - just try to see when a polarizing filter is at its greatest effect when using an EVF - but this will change; after all, it's technology. Once that happens, then I envision cameras as being two-part devices; one component with a chip and lens that is on a tripod or held in the user's hand, and the other (perhaps mounted to eyeglasses or embedded in a contact lens, who knows?) giving the shooter the ability to see exactly the shot being framed. Canon has been doing this for years with some of the pro level video cameras that are designed to be mounted on long jibs - the operator views a screen thethered to the main body with a 10 foot cable... no doubt a wireless connection (plus the improved EVF tech) will allow this to be commonplace.

2. A fundamental redesign of imaging chips - not in the number of photo sites but instead in the basic physical shape. Chips are flat because they are sliced from that bologna-log-like silicon wafer - that's how it has been for decades (also with computer chips). But if a way could be found to create imaging chips that are concave, then the design of lenses will also be changed in a fundamental way. Consider the 'focal point' of a lens is just that - a point. The glass elements of lenses today must be designed to correct for issues that arise when the edges of a flat surface behind them are further from that point than the center. If, instead, the imaging chip were curved, those corrections (and the subsequent size and cost of the lenses) wil be reduced greatly.

So, in the end, between the demands of a 'new format" that just falls between those that already exist being pretty much nil and the other directions the tech could go that could lead to real improvements, having a middlingly larger imaging chip is a non starter.

Naldo

Great responses! Very interesting

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

There are a few adapters aimed at adapting a FF lens to medium format cameras. I think these adapters move the lens further forward so that the circle is able to cover the larger sensor. Though I have not researched it enough to be sure.

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

Yes, we all need bigger cameras and bigger sensors. That's because we all hated film and we all print billboards.

Naldo

What are you shooting with theses days?

Lens Creep

advancing technology seems to dictate ever improving resolution, efficiency, and cost. Many makers are offering larger than 24x36 sensors and that will surely become more popular.

At least one medium format digital camera i know about(Pentax 645D) has a sensor that is a composite of 2 smaller CCD sensors joined side by side. This seems to be a workaround to the cost prohibitions of manufacturing a single large wafer without flaws as mentioned above.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I envision a pixel as a dot, similar to what you see when you magnify part of a comic book image. It may or may not be an accurate way to envision them, but when I look at them that way I envision that the 24 megapixels on a large sensor are individually bigger than the 24 megapixels on a smaller sensor. And therefor they would gather more light per pixel and are better in low light situations. That's my two bits worth.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

I got some really nice prints from my Yashica. Anybody wanting to shoot in medium format should think about picking up a Hasselblad. They're floating around for next to nothing.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

There are already several medium format sensors that measure 44x33mm: Fujifilm GFX 50S, Pentax 645Z, Hasselblad X1D-50c. All three are priced at $6,500 for the body only. They are only 1.68x the area of a 24x36mm sensor. The lenses are also expensive.

Used medium format film cameras are a bargain in comparison. They range from 6x4.5cm, 6x6 cm and up to 6x17cm. Excellent used lenses are already available That's a lot more area and much more potential resolution if you feel that is important. You can buy a lot of film, processing and a nice scanner for much less than a MF body.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

That's a kludge that won't focus to infinity.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

There's already a pretty crowded field of cameras like you suggest. Half a dozen or so manufacturers fighting for a VERY limited number of potential buyers. I'm sure Canon and Nikon have considered getting involved in the fray, but wisely stuck with their smaller format cameras.

Some medium format digital use approx. 44 x 33mm sensors (there is some slight variation), pretty close to the size you suggest.

Two that use a sensor that size are the mirrorless Fuji GFX and Hasselblad X1D. Compare size of even these mirrorless and their lenses to a full frame DSLR. Although they are some of the smaller medium format digital, they are quite a bit bigger than a FF DSLR.

Pentax and Leaf/Mamiya are making more traditional reflex design MF digital too.

One of the largest MF digital sensors is a 53 x 40 used in some Hasselblads.

Leica S is basically a medium format DSLR (45 x 30mm sensor).

None of them use sensors as large as the image area MF film cameras produced. So, they already ARE using sensors with image area "in between full frame and medium format" film.

Also notice the prices and somewhat limited lens selection available for MF. They tend to be FAR more expensive than FF or APS-C DSLRs.

Besides... the more "entry-level" MF digital are using 30MP to 50MP sensors. There are FF DSLR and MILC that rival those resolutions, albeit with a smaller size sensor.

In fact, very high resolution FF DSLRs have caused medium format digital manufacturers to have to greatly reduce their prices (and, no doubt, their profits). Even so, an entry-level MF camera body costs about double what a FF DSLR sells for.... And the lenses for MF are multiple times more expensive than comparable lenses for FF DSLRs.

Lens Creep

If you don't require high ISO performance, a used Pentax 645D (40mp CCD version) can be had for $2500 and there are scads of older 645 and 67 lenses, many in the range of $100-$250. It is easy to put together a great landscape/portrait/studio kit for $3K.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

It does if you go to print. And you are less likely to see any difference between a billboard printed from an iPhone capture compared to one made from a large format film camera, unless you have a really tall cherry picker that will let you get up close. At normal viewing distance human eyesight cannot see fine details.

Up close, however, say in an 8x12 or 12x16 print, you will definitely see the difference between a smaller sensor and a larger one, especially if the pixel count goes up and you are looking at uncropped images. Bigger image sensors do not see more light, they see more image - greater field of view. Bigger photosites see more light. A dense FX sensor may not see any more light than a 24 mp APS-C sensor.