fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell
1       2       3       …       23      
24
       25       …       85       86       end
   

Archive 2017 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
  
 
gdanmitchell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #1 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


Matt Grum wrote:
You can use a smaller aperture on the MF system before diffraction becomes apparent but you gain less from stopping down in terms of depth of field, so ultimately you end up back where you started - there's no advantage to a larger sensor when it comes to diffraction.

That wasn't my point, though I recognize that subtleties sometimes get lost in forum discussions.

Let's take an f/2 lens like the 100mm (?) on the Fujifilm roadmap for the new camera. With such a lens (pick the same focal length or your favorite calculation of equivalent angle-of-view focal length) on full frame, I would happily use:

f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16

On mini MF I'm sure I would be happy to use:

f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22

More usable apertures. At the smaller aperture end of the scale I get something equivalent on both systems. At the larger aperture end I end up with functionally smaller DOF at the same aperture.

Whether or not this makes a difference to any given photographer is one of the questions he/she will need to consider. And part of the thought process is to consider whether getting there with a smaller system and larger maximum aperture makes more or less sense.

Dan
Sep 20, 2016 at 01:23 PM
GMPhotography
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #2 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


gdanmitchell wrote:
One potential advantage of a larger format (though everyone needs to keep in mind that "mini MF" 33mm x 44mm is not that much larger than full frame!) is that it can provide a greater range of usage aperture options and potentially more control of DOF. (Note that "more control of" is not the same as "more.")

While acknowledging that in many cases the maximum aperture available may be smaller with larger format system lenses, one can use smaller apertures with less effect from diffraction blur in the final print at a given size. So while you might avoid using, say,...Show more →

Sorry Dan that is wrong . It's going to start diffracting at F8. I owned 5 Phase backs with tech cams and DSLR bodies as well. Diffraction is a big issue . tilt and shift lens mounts or tilt in body are huge pluses to avoid diffraction and gain DOF without stopping down. Focus stacking is another technique used very often. I had a tech cam where the lens mount itself would do tilt and shift, Cambo to be exact. Arca also has it in their lens mounting plate. FYI phase one 80 Mpx back actually starts diffracting at f5.6 given the pixel pitch and tech lenses. Hard to spot but it starts there.


DOF has less effect on this size back compared to the full frame backs.

Edited on Sep 20, 2016 at 01:31 PM · View previous versions
Sep 20, 2016 at 01:27 PM
Matt Grum
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #3 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


gdanmitchell wrote:
on full frame, I would happily use:

f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16

On mini MF I'm sure I would be happy to use:

f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22

More usable apertures.


But on full frame your lens would go to f/1.4, so you would have

f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16

and

f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22

i.e. exactly the same range of apertures. Unless you're saying that the MF lens is usable wide open and the full frame one isn't (which is another argument altogether).

For every focal length Fuji have announced there is a full frame lens with the same field of view which is more than a stop faster.
Sep 20, 2016 at 01:29 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.24 #4 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


gdanmitchell wrote:
One potential advantage of a larger format (though everyone needs to keep in mind that "mini MF" 33mm x 44mm is not that much larger than full frame!) is that it can provide a greater range of usage aperture options and potentially more control of DOF. (Note that "more control of" is not the same as "more.")

While acknowledging that in many cases the maximum aperture available may be smaller with larger format system lenses, one can use smaller apertures with less effect from diffraction blur in the final print at a given size. So while you might avoid using, say,...Show more →

Yes, the very expensive 53 x 40mm sensor used in bigger digital MF cameras is indeed larger but...
it's now easy to dismiss MF 44 x 33mm. Just call it "mini".

I think going from APS-C to Full Frame is very substantial.
Full frame to MF (44 x 33) is not much different and the same argument can be made.
Sep 20, 2016 at 01:29 PM
GMPhotography
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #5 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


Not found of the word mini myself. Far from it. I owned both MF sizes. end of day it made very little diffrence in actually quality of file. Obviously you had focal length changes , better said field of view
Sep 20, 2016 at 01:33 PM
gdanmitchell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #6 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, the very expensive 53 x 40mm sensor used in bigger digital MF cameras is indeed larger but...
it's now easy to dismiss MF 44 x 33mm. Just call it "mini".

I think going from APS-C to Full Frame is very substantial.
Full frame to MF (44 x 33) is not much different and the same argument can be made.

Fred, I don't mean it in a dismissive way at all — I just mean it as an easily understood way to express the difference.

It might be possible for some to think I'm dissing the mini MF format itself, but this not the case at all. Note that my particular perspective on this camera is directly tied to my own use case, and other will certainly feel differently about it.

In fact, I'm not quite ruling it out for me in the longer term. Two things (given what I can do with my current FF system in my photography) could sway me:

1. The availability of more lenses that I need for the purposes that make mini MF interesting to me. This could happen in the same way it did with the X-trans system, where Fujifilm has filled out the lens options quite nicely.

2. Higher sensor resolution that what I can achieve with my full frame system. (Yes, with the same roughly 50MP sensor resolution the larger sensor can produce somewhat higher system resolution, but that is already quite high with FF.)

So, no, I think "mini MF" is a good thing!

GMPhotography wrote:
Sorry Dan that is wrong . It's going to start diffracting at F8. I owned 5 Phase backs with tech cams and DSLR bodies as well. Diffraction is a big issue . tilt and shift lens mounts or tilt in body are huge pluses to avoid diffraction and gain DOF without stopping down. Focus stacking is another technique used very often. I had a tech cam where the lens mount itself would do tilt and shift, Cambo to be exact. Arca also has it in their lens mounting plate. FYI phase one 80 Mpx back actually starts diffracting at f5.6...Show more →

The aperture at which it "starts diffracting" is not the point.

The point is that whatever aperture you calculate you to produce 'too much diffraction' on full frame, this point will occur at a smaller aperture on a larger system. If you feel that it is f/5.6 on FF, it might be f8 on mini MF. If you are comfortable with f/16 on FF, you are likely to be equally comfortable with f/22 on mini MF.

Dan
Sep 20, 2016 at 01:33 PM
nehemiahphoto
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.24 #7 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


Has anyone heard if this will be 14 or 16 bit color?

And as an aside, is this often a hardware limitation like eating up extra processing? Why don't we see 16 bit an a FF camera?
Sep 20, 2016 at 01:42 PM
gdanmitchell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #8 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


Matt Grum wrote:
But on full frame your lens would go to f/1.4, so you would have

f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16

and

f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22

i.e. exactly the same range of apertures. Unless you're saying that the MF lens is usable wide open and the full frame one isn't (which is another argument altogether).

For every focal length Fuji have announced there is a full frame lens with the same field of view which is more than a stop faster.


And, indeed, as I acknowledged, if you find all of the lenses you might use with the apertures you want on either system, that will affect your choice.

Dan
Sep 20, 2016 at 01:43 PM
WestTexas Sky
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #9 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


Wides and ultra wides are the main landscape lenses I use and I think the 16-35 is probably the most common landscape lens. 14mm Samyang has become the Voigtlander 15mm on my Sony with a Samyang Fisheye for even wider. 21mm is practically a normal lens and my 55 is a telephoto lens.

For me it's wides all the way.

Matt Grum wrote:
I see this a lot, but what sort of landscape shots are people shooting at 14mm on FF? It seems like you would get a huge amount of the ground by your feet, and the picturesque mountains in the distance would come out tiny!

I do almost all of my landscape photography at 35mm, 50mm or longer!
Sep 20, 2016 at 01:46 PM
alundeb
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #10 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)




nehemiahphoto wrote:
Has anyone heard if this will be 14 or 16 bit color?

And as an aside, is this often a hardware limitation like eating up extra processing? Why don't we see 16 bit an a FF camera?


File size. As long as 14 bits is enough, most users would not appreciate the larger files and not see any difference in quality.


Sep 20, 2016 at 01:47 PM
nehemiahphoto
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.24 #11 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


alundeb wrote:
File size. As long as 14 bits is enough, most users would not appreciate the larger files and not see any difference in quality.

Thanks...But does more bits equate to better color accuravcy? Or what situations does it manifests?
Sep 20, 2016 at 01:49 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.24 #12 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


Dan,
I just think it's funny to see 'mini' when referencing this sensor. If that's mini, we have been shooting with micro sensors! lol

I see it as a compromise in IQ, size and price. (53x40 vs 44x33)
Fuji and Hasselblad gave us compact MF cameras which are smaller than most DSLRs…
For some applications, the lower noise and higher DR will be worth it.

Moving from Full Frame to MF may not make much difference depending on technique, application, and final output, but it’s great to have the choice.


Sep 20, 2016 at 01:50 PM
GMPhotography
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #13 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


Dan diffraction hits sooner on a larger sensor than it does on a smaller system. . Using f22 on a large sensor is like death even f16 is bad. You actually have to shoot more wide open than 35 FF . Why I brought up tilt is very popular to MF folks as we need it far sooner at like F8 . Avoiding diffraction is easier with 35

gdanmitchell wrote:
Fred, I don't mean it in a dismissive way at all — I just mean it as an easily understood way to express the difference.

It might be possible for some to think I'm dissing the mini MF format itself, but this not the case at all. Note that my particular perspective on this camera is directly tied to my own use case, and other will certainly feel differently about it.

In fact, I'm not quite ruling it out for me in the longer term. Two things (given what I can do with my current FF system in my photography) could sway me:

1....Show more →
Sep 20, 2016 at 01:53 PM
Matt Grum
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #14 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


seem to have posted twice

Edited on Sep 20, 2016 at 02:07 PM · View previous versions
Sep 20, 2016 at 02:00 PM
Matt Grum
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #15 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


nehemiahphoto wrote:
Has anyone heard if this will be 14 or 16 bit color?

And as an aside, is this often a hardware limitation like eating up extra processing? Why don't we see 16 bit an a FF camera?


Yes it's a hardware limitation - 16-bit ADCs are slower than 14-bit ADCs.

Also there's a dubious advantage to be had from 16-bit - most of the time you're just going to get 2 extra bits of noise (which you can add to your 14-bit files if you like!) With a well depth of 80,000e you would need less than 1e of noise to make full use of a 16-bit ADC.
Sep 20, 2016 at 02:00 PM
nehemiahphoto
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.24 #16 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


Matt Grum wrote:
Yes it's a hardware limitation - 16-bit ADCs are slower than 14-bit ADCs.

Also there's a dubious advantage to be had from 16-bit - most of the time you're just going to get 2 extra bits of noise (which you can add to your 14-bit files if you like!) With a well depth of 80,000e you would need less than 1e of noise to make full use of a 16-bit ADC.

Interesting--thanks Matt. This confirms my thoughts (no well researched) that 16 bit isn't practically useful but does gobble up precious processing bandwidth.


Sep 20, 2016 at 02:07 PM
Schlotkins
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #17 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


I am interested in the system, but I think it will come down to lens quality. I feel like the 645z is a nice system but at the end of the day, the optics of some FF lenses (loxia 21mm for example) end up giving more resolution than say the 25mm or 28-45 zoom. I can also use say my canon 24TSE to create a 20mm 4x3 shot with stitching that gives the "feel" of the MF camera with more resolution.

Anyway, this is a nice option to have.. see how it all works out.
Chris
Sep 20, 2016 at 02:22 PM
ryankarr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.24 #18 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


As a 645Z user, I'm pretty interested in this. My main question is how expensive the lenses will be. Very nice to see a full lens road map laid out at launch.

I bet the next Pentax 645 will move upmarket and use the full sized 645 sensor, although the Pentax 28-45mm being designed for crop sensors seemed like a dumb move by Pentax.
Sep 20, 2016 at 02:28 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #19 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


naturephoto1 wrote:
Hi Steve,

I also wonder about the possiblity of the 100 MP sensor for each platform and whether both companies will offer such a camera. I think that someplace in this thread that Fuji had suggested such a camera in the future. Whether that were to come to pass and also whether Hasselblad might do the same would cause someone toput in even more thought. However if either or both do offer such a camera in the future, making a decision based upon such a future camera would force someone to sit on the sidelines for sometime.

Rich

Rich, I don't remember Fuji stating this but Ricoh (Pentax) did state that they have the option to use that 100MP sensor. A current rumor is that they are working on a mirrorless medium format but I would be surprised if it did not retain the same mount/ register distance as the current Pentax 645Z. One thing is for sure - whatever camera uses that 645 100MP sensor is not going to be cheap!
Sep 20, 2016 at 02:30 PM
gdanmitchell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #20 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


Fred Miranda wrote:
Dan,
I just think it's funny to see 'mini' when referencing this sensor. If that's mini, we have been shooting with micro sensors! lol

I see it as a compromise in IQ, size and price. (53x40 vs 44x33)
Fuji and Hasselblad gave us compact MF cameras which are smaller than most DSLRs…
For some applications, the lower noise and higher DR will be worth it.

Moving from Full Frame to MF may not make much difference depending on technique, application, and final output, but it’s great to have the choice.

I agree with your observation that it is funny to call a bigger thing "mini." ;-)

I agree with you about the advantages of having the choice. I can imagine that for some folks having a cropped sensor system (for fast and light handheld photography) and a mini MF system (for the high quality, print-it-really-huge stuff) could be optimal.

Dan
Sep 20, 2016 at 02:59 PM
1       2       3       …       23      
24
       25       …       85       86       end
FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3       …       23      
24
       25       …       85       86       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account
Reset passwordNo account? Register