p.21 #1 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
I am excited about this new Fuji announcement, it will make a great point and shoot camera for a medium format newbie like me. Can't wait to see some IQ samples.
p.21 #3 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Lee Saxon wrote:
Well, I don't know about "much" better, but they certain did "better."
63/2.8 is much much better than Hasselblad having no standard lens
110/2 is much better than 90/3.5
but
45/2.8 is not enormously better than 45/3.5
23/4 is arguably about even with 30/3.5
32/4 using the zoom is probably a little worse than 30/3.5
As for neither of them being done yet, I'm sure there will be other focal lengths coming (30/2.8 or 30/3.5 from Fuji seems likely, Hasselblad will want a ~60), but I'm not imagining these systems having the volume to justify multiple speed options at each focal length. Even in the medium format heydey we saw very little of that (Mamiya 80's being perhaps the only exception). Maybe I'll be proven wrong though.
Well, to be honest with you, I was giving Fuji the benefit of the doubt given their long history with optics. I'm fairly certain they could've made the same two lenses Hassy's releasing and done a better job of it, but I could be wrong. I do think Fuji's got room for a couple of higher end specialty lenses, like a 55/1.4 APD, perhaps? Maybe a 35/4 TS? A longer tele seems likely as well. I think the lens line will grow (and get refined) just as it has for the X-mount because I think this is going to be just as big a deal for them, if not bigger.
There's an untapped market for this camera. People who want the appreciable difference mini-MF offers over the 135 format but aren't impressed with pricing and/or the bulk associated with other implementations. People who don't need the wide range of lenses SLR's offer because 18-180 or so could cover their needs handily. People who would happily spend DxII or D5 money if it meant getting something focused more on IQ and less on being the do-it-all speed demon. And people like me, who have been wishing/hoping for this since Sony started making the larger format CMOS sensors.
Fuji's also got mirrorless momentum on their side and overall high respect for their latest digital system. I predict great success for the GFX, assuming there are no huge disappointments lying in wait.
p.21 #4 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
If I were to guess, I'd say that full Fuji lineup would set someone back 25k. Maybe my FF setup will do just fine. Maybe I'll add an RX100 or LX10 instead.. I do look forward to seeing photos from this camera.
p.21 #5 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
cputeq wrote:
On the videos, it looks like that guy is using a hoodman (?) to use the rear LCD as a big EVF.
Seems to me that would feel really unstable, but he's hand-holding it. Anyone else ever use one of those in this particular fashion?
This is pretty common for motion shooting, less so for stills. I do it on some of my cameras. The most common such product the Zacuto Z-Finder. They make plates that put a mounting frame in front of your LCD, or if you want to maintain LCD articulation they have a stick-on frame that you can attach to your camera. Both are actually quite solid. The only problem is that, depending on how the LCD articulates, the weight of this can make the LCD "droop." I actually made a product called a Kickstand Plate that addressed this problem with the original A7 series (you can still see it in the cover image of my company Facebook site, for a demonstration of how this type of thing would be used http://www.facebook.com/ellisphotographic/)
It's so great because it's not just a hood but also a loupe / magnifier (and you can still see the whole LCD!). It's wonderful if you have presbyopia or even are an eyeglass wearer. Beats the pants off jamming your nose into the LCD trying to look into an EVF.
Here's what makes me nervous: the new X-T2 inexplicably still has a garbage ~720x480 LCD (and the X1D actually has a 640x480 [middle finger emoji]) like we've been stuck with since the D700 generation. To some extent you're just magnifying pixels, and not helping yourself see the image better. With the glorious-but-four-years-too-late 1024x768 LCD of the D5/D500 series, these loupes are a million times more useful. The X-Pro2 has the 900x600 model Canon is using on the 5D IV and 1D X II; hopefully this camera gets at least that.
This is how sick I am of looking into viewfinders: assuming their aren't other serious problems in the as-yet-vague specs, which LCD this camera gets will literally determine my level of interest.
Yes, you're right. I put the wrong number in 768, instead of 864. So my correction was wrong. Sorry!
The GFX cropped to 3:2 would give a 45.7mp image. Still larger or similar to most competing FF cameras. The Sony a9 that's around the corner is rumored to have a 72mp sensor for those who are into billboard photography
I often crop even narrower than 3:2 for landscapes. As I see it with a 4:3 sensor and plenty of resolution you will have freedom to shoot the aspect ratios you want without worrying about resolution. So if you like square you will still have a 38.6mp file, at 4:3 and you have 51.4mp, 3:2 gives 45.7mp and 38.6mp for 16:9.
p.21 #8 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Lee Saxon wrote:
The thing disappointing me about the X1D as well as the GFX is that the lenses are pretty narrow aperture. In some cases more so than lenses from the 645 days (though I realize many of those may not hold up to the current 50-100 megapixel sensors). Given that 44x33 is a fairly moderate size for medium format, I was thinking we might see max apertures a little closer to FF35.
Fuji is just focused on size and weight I think. The 23/4 lens is exactly the lens I'd design for a system like this if someone asked me. A "tiny" portable ultra-wide that isn't any trouble putting in your backpack. The theme is compact and I'm glad Fuji went that way. Faster, larger, heavier lenses may come later.
..and maybe the Otus lenses will adapt well to the system.
p.21 #9 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Curious what the base ISO will be. I see 100 on the dial, but that doesn't have to be its lowest limit. Same goes for SS @ dial goes down to 1, but obviously you would expect it go have SS speeds longer than one second (inferring digital driven), so the ISO could also be lower than 100 yet.
IIRC, Fuji has historically been based @ 200 ... I would love to see this have a base of 50, 32 or 25. The industry has (imo, too long) been marching to impress folks with ISO's of 12,800, 25,600, etc. (which don't do anything for me). I'm thinking that if you're gonna jump, jump big (i.e. crop to MF), so you might as well make the big jump to the low side of ISO things as well. I think a very low base ISO is a good match for this format ... leaving the higher ISO race to others.
p.21 #10 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
it was funny there was a guy yesterday complaining about the lens speed. Lol he was griping that the fastest lenses are f2, 2.8, and 4 where 35mm has f1.2 and such lol. People these days
p.21 #11 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
RustyBug wrote:
IIRC, Fuji has historically been based @ 200 ... I would love to see this have a base of 50, 32 or 25.
Why? Lower ISO settings are not intrinsically better.
Making a sensor more efficient has the side effect of raising the base ISO - but that doesn't mean the sensor is any nosier.
RustyBug wrote:
The industry has (imo, too long) been marching to impress folks with ISO's of 12,800, 25,600, etc. (which don't do anything for me).
That's because cleaner high ISOs are difficult to achieve, and useful. On the other hand manufactures can make the base ISO as low as they like by making the sensor less sensitive but that would have no real value as you can just use an ND filter if you want longer shutter speeds (without crippling high ISO performance).
p.21 #12 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yes, reading the Fuji press release, they will be coming out with a mechanism that fits between the hotshoe and EVF to allow it to tilt AND rotate.
I hope you can rotate the viewfinder a full 180 degrees - I love selfies but hate having to use the LCD screen
He uses a flash trigger on it throughout and you can see the contacts when it's off.
WEIRD because when you look at the stock images it's not hot.
Which is what makes me think that the EVF is wireless.
But if you've seen the contacts in the video, then maybe the stock image just had the contacts photoshopped out for some reason? Or they shot a preproduction model for the stock imagery.
p.21 #14 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Thanks. I think I asked the question poorly; should probably just do the math myself but was trying to ask how it compared with regards to aspect ratio/magnification. I think there are some comments later in the thread that have various attempts at this - problem (for myself) is the thread is receiving comments faster than I can process them.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The dark blue format labeled "Sony MF":
p.21 #15 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Matt Grum wrote:
Why? Lower ISO settings are not intrinsically better.
Making a sensor more efficient has the side effect of raising the base ISO - but that doesn't mean the sensor is any nosier.
.
If we make two assumptions, that the ISO values are correctly calibrated and that the QE is identical at state of the art, the sensor with the lowest base ISO has the highest full well capacity, and that has a range of benefits. About the only thing that makes MF attractive to me, is the effect the larger sensor has on total light capture. The main benefits are:
Higher SNR and tonal range when exposed for the highlights. (Not light limited scenario)
Longer exposure time possible at the same effective diffraction (Long exposure scenario)
Higher DR potential, especially when using a stricter noise limit than SNR=1
If a larger sensor has as much lower FWC as to negate the increased size, that makes ithe whole system pointless for me.
p.21 #16 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
RustyBug wrote:
Curious what the base ISO will be. I see 100 on the dial, but that doesn't have to be its lowest limit. Same goes for SS @ dial goes down to 1, but obviously you would expect it go have SS speeds longer than one second (inferring digital driven), so the ISO could also be lower than 100 yet.
IIRC, Fuji has historically been based @ 200 ... I would love to see this have a base of 50, 32 or 25. The industry has (imo, too long) been marching to impress folks with ISO's of 12,800, 25,600, etc. (which don't do anything for me). I'm thinking that if you're gonna jump, jump big (i.e. crop to MF), so you might as well make the big jump to the low side of ISO things as well. I think a very low base ISO is a good match for this format ... leaving the higher ISO race to others....Show more →
The 645Z has an ISO 50.
I agree. I have no issues with good high ISO's but anytime I can reduce the need for ND filters is a good thing. Two stops is the difference between frozen and blurred water or cloud movement. I'd love to see a good low ISO. If the sensor is related to the 645Z it certainly will be.
p.21 #17 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Matt Grum wrote:
Why? Lower ISO settings are not intrinsically better.
Making a sensor more efficient has the side effect of raising the base ISO - but that doesn't mean the sensor is any nosier.
That's because cleaner high ISOs are difficult to achieve, and useful. On the other hand manufactures can make the base ISO as low as they like by making the sensor less sensitive but that would have no real value as you can just use an ND filter if you want longer shutter speeds (without crippling high ISO performance).
Not necessarily. The density of the colour array also makes a difference. Micro lenses and IR filters also have an effect. It's not all sensor sensitivity.
The issue is that on a bright summers day I can't always have the option of f2.0 if the base ISO is 200. That means ND filters, which I have to apply and remove.
Good low ISO doesn't mean poor high ISO. The 645Z sensor has an ISO of 50 but still maintains incredible high ISO performance and colour retention/dynamic range.
p.21 #18 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
RustyBug wrote:
Curious what the base ISO will be. I see 100 on the dial, but that doesn't have to be its lowest limit. Same goes for SS @ dial goes down to 1, but obviously you would expect it go have SS speeds longer than one second (inferring digital driven), so the ISO could also be lower than 100 yet.
IIRC, Fuji has historically been based @ 200 ... I would love to see this have a base of 50, 32 or 25. The industry has (imo, too long) been marching to impress folks with ISO's of 12,800, 25,600, etc. (which don't do anything for me). I'm thinking that if you're gonna jump, jump big (i.e. crop to MF), so you might as well make the big jump to the low side of ISO things as well. I think a very low base ISO is a good match for this format ... leaving the higher ISO race to others....Show more →
You're probably not going to be toting one of these systems around doing night street photography. Very interesting thoughts you raise here. I think you might be amazed at how good 12,800 and 25,600 is on the XT2 & XP2 though if you haven't seen it yet
p.21 #19 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
alundeb wrote:
If we make two assumptions, that the ISO values are correctly calibrated and that the QE is identical at state of the art, the sensor with the lowest base ISO has the highest full well capacity, and that has a range of benefits.
Sure, but if we make no assumptions (which is always safer) then you can't say that a lower ISO brings any image quality advantages.
That's the point I was trying to make. Most people tend to assume it would.
flash wrote:
Not necessarily. The density of the colour array also makes a difference. Micro lenses and IR filters also have an effect. It's not all sensor sensitivity.
Of course. But you can't assume the lower ISO is the result of more selective CFA, deeper wells etc. therefore you shouldn't long for lower base ISOs (unless the ND filter thing is a really big deal for you), you should long for wider DR and better colour response!
. I do look forward to seeing photos from this camera.