Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       5              8       9       end
  

Archive 2017 · Tempted by A7rIII ?

  
 
rbf_
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #1 · p.4 #1 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


molson wrote:
Technically, only Canon has FF (24x36 mm) cameras - all the Sony sensors are slightly smaller than 24x36, so I guess we should start calling them "miniFF"...?


Perhaps...



Nov 01, 2017 at 07:19 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #2 · p.4 #2 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


molson wrote:
Where did the silly "miniMF" name come from? By definition, medium format is anything larger than 24x36mm and smaller than 4x5.


Your presumption is incorrect on several counts.

Traditional MF was a variety of film formats that were possible with 120/220 film, which is 6cm wide. Various flavors include 6 x 4.5 (645), 6x6, 6x7, 6x17, etc. What they all had in common was the 6cm film width. (For the record, there were also other sheet film LF formats smaller than 3x5.)

Digital sensors larger than full frame have come in a range of sizes. A few extremely expensive backs actually are comparable to the smallest of the original MF sizes, but most are a little bit smaller. However, the 33mm x 44cm miniMF format is quite a bit smaller, and actually closer to full frame 24mm x 36mm than to the film MF formats.

When Pentax introduced the excellent and ground-breaking 645d in 2010, it was almost universally regarded as something quite special. However, quite a few people felt that the use of the "645" naming was misleading, meant to suggest the use of the formal that was already known as 645. The 33mm x 44mm sensor in the Pentax camera most certainly was not the same as that 645 format.

There is no complete agreement about any of this, but lots of MF film folks recognize that the 33 x 44 digital format is a lot smaller than what they called MF. So the term "miniMF" gained some acceptance as a way to acknowledge that the format is larger than full frame but smaller than traditional MF formats.

Personally, I don't see why miniMF would be a problematic label. It indicates the positive (bigger than full frame) of the format and openly acknowledges ("mini") that it is smaller than what most people think of as MF. It also brings come clarity to the comparison to the larger digital MF back systems that preceded it.

The naming doesn't change the capabilities of the 33 x 44mm sensor systems at all, but it does provide a more accurate way to describe them relative to other formats.

molson wrote:
So I guess anything less than 6x9 cm would be considered "miniFF" then.


Probably anything less that 645, though so far I've only seen the term applied to 33mm x 44mm. It is specific to the 33 x 44 format used in the Fujifilm GFX, Pentax 645d and 645z, and Hasselblad X1D.

molson wrote:
Technically, only Canon has FF (24x36 mm) cameras - all the Sony sensors are slightly smaller than 24x36, so I guess we should start calling them "miniFF"...?


The differences among full frame sensors amounts to nothing of consequence. You wouldn't notice it if you held them in your hand.

Example:
D850: 35.9 x 23.9 mm
A7rII: 35.9mm x 24.0mm
5DsR: 36mm x 24mm

A total difference range of .1mm at most. :-)

Take care,

Dan

For a fun comparison, calculate the crop factor relationship between full frame and miniMF. You'll find that the difference is a lot smaller than that between full frame and 1.5x crop, much less 1.6x crop.

Edited on Nov 02, 2017 at 09:49 AM · View previous versions



Nov 01, 2017 at 09:24 PM
rbf_
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #3 · p.4 #3 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


I would also add that at $50k-60k for a new 53.7 x 40.4mm MF digital back never mind lenses and a camera body; a $7k-10k 33 x 44mm miniMF body competes more with 35mm FF systems that are in the same approximate price range. They meant to do that.


Nov 01, 2017 at 09:47 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #4 · p.4 #4 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


rbf_ wrote:
I would also add that at $50k-60k for a new 53.7 x 40.4mm MF digital back never mind lenses and a camera body; a $7k-10k 33 x 44mm miniMF body competes more with 35mm FF systems that are in the same approximate price range. They meant to do that.


And they are doing it increasingly well! The price of the new miniMF bodies is competitive with (or even a bit less than) the former prices of the high end "pro" series full frame DSLR bodies a few years back!



Nov 01, 2017 at 10:16 PM
rbf_
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #5 · p.4 #5 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


gdanmitchell wrote:
And they are doing it increasingly well! The price of the new miniMF bodies is competitive with (or even a bit less than) the former prices of the high end "pro" series full frame DSLR bodies a few years back!


They are aren't they! There just isn't a really big market for system cameras for which costs range in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not to say there isn't a market for them just saying it's pretty much dominated by Phase One and a different market and set of businesses. Under $10k for a single camera body is a totally different market.



Nov 01, 2017 at 10:31 PM
Kit Laughlin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #6 · p.4 #6 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


Getting back to the OP, I would not be in the market for the new Sony A7RII. I have two rather special 40mm lenses that want a 135-format home, though: Konica 40/1.8 and an Olympus OM 40/2.

But the A7RII does not have a silent shutter mode (and in the workshop and on-set environment, that is essential) and the older A7S bodies (which are silent) do not have enough pixels (my R brain says).

So no to the new Sony. A possible "yes" to an old A7S when cheap enough. And many other OM lenses would work well on that body.



Nov 03, 2017 at 02:40 AM
mortyb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #7 · p.4 #7 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


^ A7rII and the new A7rIII both have silent shutter mode - like the old A7S.


Nov 03, 2017 at 04:46 AM
Kit Laughlin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #8 · p.4 #8 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


Is that riiiiiiiiight? Thank you for that.

[later]:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56291766

That's 1/12", in real time. vs. the A7s's 1/30". 1/12" is very slow. Too slow for me, I believe.



Nov 03, 2017 at 05:44 AM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #9 · p.4 #9 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


Kit Laughlin wrote:
Is that riiiiiiiiight? Thank you for that.

[later]:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56291766

That's 1/12", in real time. vs. the A7s's 1/30". 1/12" is very slow. Too slow for me, I believe.


What you would want in Sony land is the A9: 1/150th in real time. It is the camera that does silent shooting like no other.



Nov 03, 2017 at 06:37 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #10 · p.4 #10 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


Since this is appearing in the Fujifilm forum...

... my XPro2 also can operate in complete silence by using the electronic shutter mode. I use this for photographing in situations where any sound will be problematic, including concert photography. The camera is utterly silent in this mode — to the point that there is virtually no feedback that one has made an exposure!

By setting the camera to not display the post-exposure image on the rear screen — instead displaying it on the EVF — I can also eliminate the visual distract that might otherwise appear after the exposure.

Dan



Nov 03, 2017 at 11:28 AM
lexvo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #11 · p.4 #11 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


gdanmitchell wrote:
Since this is appearing in the Fujifilm forum...

... my XPro2 also can operate in complete silence by using the electronic shutter mode. I use this for photographing in situations where any sound will be problematic, including concert photography. The camera is utterly silent in this mode — to the point that there is virtually no feedback that one has made an exposure!

By setting the camera to not display the post-exposure image on the rear screen — instead displaying it on the EVF — I can also eliminate the visual distract that might otherwise appear after the exposure.

Dan


And the same goes for the X-T2




Nov 03, 2017 at 12:57 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #12 · p.4 #12 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


lexvo wrote:
And the same goes for the X-T2


Figured that was true, but didn't know for sure. I wonder if it is the case for the tiny XE3, too? If so, that could be a fine option for folks trying to be unobtrusive.



Nov 03, 2017 at 01:01 PM
notherenow
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #13 · p.4 #13 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


Kit Laughlin wrote:
Getting back to the OP, I would not be in the market for the new Sony A7RII. I have two rather special 40mm lenses that want a 135-format home, though: Konica 40/1.8 and an Olympus OM 40/2.

But the A7RII does not have a silent shutter mode (and in the workshop and on-set environment, that is essential) and the older A7S bodies (which are silent) do not have enough pixels (my R brain says).

So no to the new Sony. A possible "yes" to an old A7S when cheap enough. And many other OM lenses would work well on that
...Show more

Silent shutter on probably all cameras so far (except to a large extent the A9) has some limitations.

Each generation gets better and better though and the day is not too far off when there will be no or little need for a mechanical shutter.

The A7s as an earlier silent shutter camera can have banding in certain light and panning can have rolling shutter in stills easy enough and some other things are turned off when using it (EG flash) but it does have its uses.

silent shutter is not something I need often but it is VERY handy to have with the A7s especially for quieter/seated concerts where a mechanical shutter can distract.

I have another (Panasonic) camera with a silent shutter and it has a little worse rolling shutter and banding but with a touch screen is even more of a stealth street camera than the A7s (except at night).

I used the silent shutter exclusively at a gig this week at a pub that normally hosts rock/blues bands ETC that don't need a silent shutter but with allocated seats mostly and a much older crowd it was just more appropriate.

A7s silent shutter and ancient Tamron 300 2.8






Genevieve Chadwick




Nov 03, 2017 at 01:02 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #14 · p.4 #14 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


^^^
Good reminder about the potential issue, especially banding in some light. I always make a few test frames to check. Especially watch out if you are using higher shutter speeds in these situations.



Nov 03, 2017 at 01:21 PM
Kit Laughlin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #15 · p.4 #15 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


OT I know, but interesting. Dan, My oldX-E2 was perfectly silent in electronic shutter mode, as was the electronic shutter on my X-100s, and I used both these cameras in these modes most of the time, except when using fill flash outdoors (X-100S).

But as I have written about elsewhere, I have moved to all µ4/3rds now (live-to-disk video is most of my work for the next six months) but want to leave those three Panny GX85 bodies permanently set up for that. And with the prices on the Sony bodies dropping, and those two 40mm lenses sitting in my cupboard, I hear the Siren call of FF for personal work.

And (thanks Steve) I did know about the effective max shutter speed of the A9, but 99% of its wizardry and speed would be wasted the way I shoot (not to mention the massive cost difference.



Nov 03, 2017 at 03:11 PM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #16 · p.4 #16 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


gdanmitchell wrote:
Figured that was true, but didn't know for sure. I wonder if it is the case for the tiny XE3, too? If so, that could be a fine option for folks trying to be unobtrusive.


Yes, but operating in silent mode is not enough to prevent artifacts if there is movement in the scene. The Sony A9 has a sensor read out of 1/150th of a second. The Fuji cameras I believe are 1/30th of a second and you will get lots of rolling shutter effect in silent mode. It is great if things aren't moving, but can cause real problems if things are moving. The A9, because of its much faster sensor read out does not have basically any rolling shutter effect and is in a different league for shooting movement with a silent shutter.



Nov 03, 2017 at 03:17 PM
Kit Laughlin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #17 · p.4 #17 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


@Steve: exactly. A 1/150" real SS is enough to freeze most slow-to-medium speed human movement (of the sort that we come across in portrait work, for example) while not fast enough to freeze a running person (though their body might be frozen, with blurred hands and feet, which could look interesting).

Apart from flash, I use electronic shutters most of the time with the GX85, and its readout time is somewhere between 1/15–1/25". I have not seen rolling shutter effect on any images yet, but my subjects tend to be slow, or still. The GX85 has in-body stabilisation, too, to counter hand-holding camera movement. Nowhere as good as the OMD-EM10 mkii I just sold, but still useful.



Nov 03, 2017 at 04:14 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #18 · p.4 #18 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


Steve Spencer wrote:
The Fuji cameras I believe are 1/30th of a second...


Can you point me to the source of your information for Fujifilm readout on current cameras being 1/30 second, Steve?

So far I haven't been able to find an authoritative source. Best I've found in my brief-so-far search is a reference to some cameras (not identified as Fujifilm) having readouts that may be as slow as 1/30, plus one second-hand report claiming that the readout for the X100T is only 1/15 second..

I'll watch for your reply.

Dan

So far, in my own use of XPro2 electronic shutter I have seen none of the artifacts that might be produced by this. I'll admit that I haven't photographed, say, sports or birds in flight, but my subjects have been moving.



Nov 03, 2017 at 05:37 PM
notherenow
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #19 · p.4 #19 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


I think I have a lot more issues with silent shutter if the camera is moving (IE panning) rather than the subject.

Most times I use silent shutter, the subject is either static or doesn't move far (IE musician limited to a small area of a stage). They don't move fast at gigs that need silent shutter either except maybe for something like hands on an instrument.

Actors on a stage might be a bit different if they are moving faster.



Nov 03, 2017 at 05:47 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #20 · p.4 #20 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


notherenow wrote:
I think I have a lot more issues with silent shutter if the camera is moving (IE panning) rather than the subject.

Most times I use silent shutter, the subject is either static or doesn't move far (IE musician limited to a small area of a stage). They don't move fast at gigs that need silent shutter either except maybe for something like hands on an instrument.

Actors on a stage might be a bit different if they are moving faster.


From what I'm seeing, your point about panning the camera versus subject motion seems to be accurate. In most cases where I would use the electronic shutter setting — typically in very quiet situations such as concerts or theatrical performances — I'm unlikely to be panning much.

In situations where I'm more likely to do that — e.g. street photography, etc — I don't generally use ES.

Dan



Nov 03, 2017 at 05:54 PM
1       2       3      
4
       5              8       9       end




FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       5              8       9       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.