carstenw wrote:
"Grâce a une nouvelle disposition des photosites colorés par motifs aléatoires de six au lieu de quatre réguliers sur la classique mosaïque de Bayer."
My translation:
Thanks to a new placement of colored photosites following random patterns of 6 instead of 4 regular ones on the classic Bayer mosaic.
Ah! I was going to look that up, and then forgot before I posted. I don't presume they mean really random, as in Fuji doesn't know where they are, but rather stochastically jittered beforehand, and the best pattern chosen for production.
"Grâce a une nouvelle disposition des photosites colorés par motifs aléatoires de six au lieu de quatre réguliers sur la classique mosaïque de Bayer."
Yes, indeed I did not really read this passage exactly first, but it sounds very "Fuji" and interesting. It really shows that they think different. Not technical, but more - how to say - "perceptional". Human perception does not follow mechanical, computer- designed patterns, and their new perception does sound fascinating. Their Super CCD in the S2/ S3/ S5pro was a first attempt, and although not very well liked by the mass market, it's real print results were much better than it's technical specs.
As others have translated correctly, Fuji will replace in the new sensor "4 regular" coloured photosites by "irregular/ random patterns of 6" photosites.
Honestly, whether 16MP end up with more detail than a 5dII or D3x or not is of much smaller importance to me than the question whether the colour and the general "look" of this camera will remind the film look (in a good sense) and have emotional impact.
After all, in digital, there is still and always that impression that images captured can look sterile and somehow unreal, which they never do on film. Fujis attempt to mimic the look of film has to be applauded, but of course this is all still theoretic, and we have to see the results first.
But it may be as so often before with Fuji cameras: I first think "this one is not for me", but once the first real world samples hit the web, I ended up buying it. It was like that with the S3pro, S5pro, x10, always the same story :-)
carstenw wrote:
Ah! I was going to look that up, and then forgot before I posted. I don't presume they mean really random, as in Fuji doesn't know where they are
Hahaha, yes, I thought the same, in that case no RAW converter would know what to do. Anyway I predict that 3rd party converter makers will hate Fuji for not implementing a standard tech.
I hope nevertheless that in the future, Fuji can get rid of the Bayer filter alltogether and bring to market their once announced 3 layer organic sensor.
sebboh wrote:
how can you tell by the lens mount? it looks like it'll definitely be thicker, but it's hard to judge size without any other objects of known size in the picture.
They are both APS-c image circle, AF lenses, One would expect the diameter of the overall lens mount to be similar. Now, the Fuji lens mount on the prototype seem is substantially taller than the lens mount. The Sony Nex-7 is roughly as high as the lens mount. Chances are, therefore, the Fuji will be noticeably bigger than the Sony NEX-7. Quite frankly, I think it is the optical viewfinder that assures this. The Fuji also, using the "similar" lens mounts as a yardstick, looks to be longer.
Question on the external autofocus system....I'm assuming this is to help speed up the AF that plagues the X100. How is an external af system better than a ttl? Would this provide for more accuracy as well?
Lotusm50 wrote:
They are both APS-c image circle, AF lenses, One would expect the diameter of the overall lens mount to be similar. Now, the Fuji lens mount on the prototype seem is substantially taller than the lens mount. The Sony Nex-7 is roughly as high as the lens mount. Chances are, therefore, the Fuji will be noticeably bigger than the Sony NEX-7. Quite frankly, I think it is the optical viewfinder that assures this. The Fuji also, using the "similar" lens mounts as a yardstick, looks to be longer.
Man, I saw a pic where someone made a mockup of the X-Pro1 and compared it to the X100, and the X-Pro1 wasn't all that different in size, but now I can't find the darn link. Granted, that wouldn't be much of a trusted source.
I'm interested in the depth of the camera with lens compared to the NEX-7. If the X-Pro1 is much shallower with the 35/1.4, I can deal with a little extra size in the other dimensions.
It will be interesting to see what they do with the CFA. Just some observations:
- They don't necessarily say there are six different colors, they could be specifying the arrangement of fewer colors (like 3) into different arrangements of six.
- I don't speak French, and context is so important, but it seems like "six-sided" is a valid translation. Perhaps a hexagonal grid instead of a square grid?
- The key is definitely "random" (of course pseudo-random is what it would be really) which would allow one to remove the AA with a significantly reduced risk of objectionable color moire.
Anyway, looks like an interesting camera - and an interesting target market if they really launch with three primes and no zooms. I suppose besides the sensor performance the other question will be the UI as Fuji has often done "quirky" rather than "functional".
kwalsh wrote:
- I don't speak French, and context is so important, but it seems like "six-sided" is a valid translation. Perhaps a hexagonal grid instead of a square grid?
Well the article just says "organized in irregular (rather than "random" which does not make sense) patterns of six rather than regular patterns of 4", no hint to hexgonal.
alba63 wrote:
Well the article just says "organized in irregular (rather than "random" which does not make sense) patterns of six rather than regular patterns of 4", no hint to hexgonal.
But this will a get clear over the next weeks.
Thanks for the clarification! And yep, there probably isn't a much of a point to me guessing when we'll soon know the truth.
"The viewfinder is hybrid (optical and electronic). The optical viewfinder changes the view depending on the kind of prime lens you use. This again is an idea coming from the Contax G2!"
I wonder if this will work (well) with adapted lenses.
Yes, that might be a concern, but at least one can always fall back to using the EVF, which certainly will be necessary anyway for accurate alt lens focus at wider apertures.
As for it compared to the NEX system... different target market. Sony is going after as many possible buyers as they can, rather than focusing on a more specific, niche segment. Thankfully that leaves a lot of room for the likes of the Fuji, Ricoh's GXR and even whatever Leica has coming.
Lotusm50 wrote:
It is interesting that Fuji hasn't disclosed or leaked the number of pixels in this new sensor. It would also be interesting, and quite competitive with with any other current offering (if the combination of sensor features are both true and successful) including specifically the Leica M9, if it came with 18 (or more) mp. It could kill the M9 for all but Leica die-hard collectors.
The M9 is more than just a FF sensor.
From a technological perspective I agree that the Fuji will likely surpass the M9 in many ways. But, the M9's dated sensor is no slouch at lower ISOs. And what the Fuji doesn't even offer is 'real' manual focus. This might seem like a trivial point, and I would have thought so as well a year ago, but having now used an M9 during that time, I can appreciate the speed and ease provided by mechanical rangefinder focusing. Or even just hyperfocal focusing based on the lens's distance scale. The M9 is far from perfect and has numerous quirks that can make it frustrating at times, but at its core, it's a very, very competent, minimalist camera. And IMO, that's what makes it so appealing.
It's the M10 that will kill the M9, or perhaps Leica's own non-FF EVF offering, depending on how it's implemented.
carstenw wrote:
Now this is interesting! Where did you see the word random mentioned? That is what computer graphics does to better filter, instead of just softening everything with a blunt AA filter.
There are a couple of issues here. One is that if the pattern is very irregular then the problem of routing the signal lines from photosites to read circuitry will become rather complex unlike the regular structure. Also eventually the camera has to produce a regular grid of pixels so that will mean that you have to interpolate from this irregular structure to get back the regular grid which might offset some of the gains.
As for the graphics case, it is true that they do random sampling but they do that at a higher resolution than the intended output resolution. I am not sure what will happen when you do random sampling at the same resolution as the output resolution and then interpolate those random samples to get back the regular samples at the same resolution.
corposant wrote:
The whole "it's not full frame" thing won't matter if the lenses really deliver and are as fast as the rumor sites claim.
Lens designers can make very compelling optics for APS-C sensors... the Tokina 11-16, 50-135, and Sigma 50-150 come to mind.
The biggest issue with most half-frame cameras is the supposed drop in performance once your favorite FF lens gets mounted on it.
I like my APS-C sensor cameras, but its just not the same as FF. A true fast 35mm on FF produces a perspective that is very difficult to replicate on APS-C.
Give me a FF mirrorless camera for me to use my MF 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm lenses and I'll be a happy camper.
