p.25 #1 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
GMPhotography wrote:
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
That doesn't make any sense. The diffraction effect is a physical property of photons moving through a small opening. That doesn't change regardless of what sensor is behind it. The 'point' light source becomes diffused through the scattering of photons through a small opening, and the smaller opening relative to the focal length (f-stop) is what determines how large that airy disk is. The point at which this becomes visible at 100% will depend on the f-stop and the size of the pixel microlens...if the airy disk covers more than one photosite, you will see softening from diffraction. If it covers a bit of adjacent ones, you see a little, if it covers multiple photosites you see major softening. Based on the physics, the aperture at which diffraction softening depends mostly on pixel pitch, then, rather than format per se, but only when viewing files at 100%.
So, a 50 megapixel FF sensor and this sensor have difference in pixel size of around 1.27 (4.14 microns vs. 5.3 microns.) Therefore, you'd expect diffraction at the PIXEL level (viewing at 100%) to show identical quality at around 2/3 stop smaller aperture (so f/14 on the Fuji would have identical pixel level diffraction as f/11 on the Canon).
At the pixel level, a 100 MP mini MF sensor would show diffraction much earlier than on this Fuji due to the smaller pixel pitch, but the final effect on the image would be roughly the same, as the size of the airy disk on to the sensor would be the same, it would just use more pixels on the denser sensor....so you wouldn't get the full resolution advantage when you're diffraction limited. That's what makes something diffraction limited.
To the point you are making, however, f/22 will look pretty soft on this sensor at 100%. f/22 looks soft at 100% on my A7 II, and that has a pixel size of 5.97 microns, so larger than the Fuji. So, at f/22 diffraction will look slightly worse at 100% with this Fuji vs. my A7 II. Due to the higher resolution due to the larger area, the final image will look a fair bit better. Personally, I'll use f/8-f/11 on full frame for most stuff if I need some depth of field, but have no real qualms going to f/16 if I need the depth of field. I'll focus stack if I need more DOF.
p.25 #2 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
GMPhotography wrote:
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 .
Maybe I misunderstand, but I don't think this is accurate as a blanket statement.
Actually, we can say that if sensel size is the exact same for the larger sensor as smaller sensor (thus the larger sensor has higher MP's), the visual appearence of diffraction is always going to be less with the large sensor than with the smaller sensor at the same output/print size (and, of course, when both are shot at the same aperture).
p.25 #3 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
GMPhotography wrote:
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 .
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Maybe I misunderstand, but I don't think this is accurate as a blanket statement.
Actually, we can say that if sensel size is the exact same for the larger sensor as smaller sensor (thus the larger sensor has higher MP's), the visual appearence of diffraction is always going to be less with the large sensor than with the smaller sensor at the same output/print size (and, of course, when both are shot at the same aperture).
You might be able to see the effects of diffraction sooner with a medium format sensor if it has the same size pixels, but that's a function of the pixel count, not the sensor size, a higher megapixel FF sensor would give you the same effect.
For the same pixel count / FOV / entrance pupil diameter, diffraction is the sme regardless of sensor size.
p.25 #4 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
GMPhotography wrote:
Dan diffraction hits sooner on a larger sensor than it does on a smaller system.
You have that backwards.
You can stop down to smaller apertures on larger format systems with the same effect from diffraction on your photograph that you would get at larger apertures on a smaller format. In other words, "it hits" later and is less noticeable at any compared aperture. You could shoot at f/32 on your 4x5 with fine results or smaller on 8x10, but don't try that on a 1" sensor digital camera.
Think of it this way. For diffraction with measured diameter X, X is a smaller percentage of the frame size with larger formats, thus a particular measured absolute size of "blur" from diffraction has less effect with a larger sensor/film format.
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.25 #5 · 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
Hi Rich,
Given the history of digital photography it is of course only a matter of time before there is a 100mp mini MF and probably FF 35mm camera. Pixel density is going to increase for some time. That said, I think 50mp allows for some pretty big prints and is a good size for mini MF. In a number of different formats I seem to prefer cameras with a pixel size of about 4.5 to 5 microns, which for mini MF might let you push it to about 70 to 75mp. Sure they will make one with smaller pixels, but I think the tradeoff are about right at that size. So, this camera isn't too far off from ideal in my view. I bet both Hassy and Fuji make a 70-75mp version that will come out in about 3 years, but if one of them fails the other will hopefully be around as an option. One advantage of having two makers is that the long term availability of such a camera seems a lot more likely.
p.25 #6 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
gdanmitchell wrote:
You have that backwards.
You can stop down to smaller apertures on larger format systems with the same effect from diffraction on your photograph that you would get at larger apertures on a smaller format. In other words, "it hits" later and is less noticeable at any compared aperture. You could shoot at f/32 on your 4x5 with fine results or smaller on 8x10, but don't try that on a 1" sensor digital camera.
Think of it this way. For diffraction with measured diameter X, X is a smaller percentage of the frame size with larger formats, thus a particular measured absolute size of "blur" from diffraction has less effect with a larger sensor/film format.
Beg to differ. Don't care what anyone says. I lived it. Case closed
I shot MF digital backs for years it don't work like film. Once again a typical 35mm setup with great lens it's about F11. In MF with a full frame digital back and a great lens it's F8 when diffraction hits. Pixel pitch also plays a roll for sure. Why part of the complaint of MF is loss of DoF one reason is diffraction the other everything is bigger. I test this stuff let's not forget. I spent hundreds of thousands in MF digital. I know what wall I'm hitting
p.25 #7 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Looks nice, but I'm not sure why the format is compelling.
"The first three lenses will be released at beginning of 2017. They are the GF 63mm F2.8 R WR, a GF32-64mm F4R LM WR and GF 120mm F4 Macro. (~50mm, 25-50mm and 95mm full frame equiv.)
These will be followed by a GF23mm F4 R LM WR and GF110mm F2 in Mid 2017 and a GF45mm F2.8 R WR in late 2017 (~18mm, 100mm and 35mm equiv.)"
So in 24x36 equivalents it will have a 50/2.2, 25-50/3.2, 96/3.2 macro initially, with an 18/3.2, 88/1.6, and 36/2.2 later. I know the comparison may be more nuanced than those numbers show (please don't start debating the "MF Look"), but still, for me, not compelling.
p.25 #8 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Matt Grum wrote:
You might be able to see the effects of diffraction sooner with a medium format sensor if it has the same size pixels, but that's a function of the pixel count, not the sensor size, a higher megapixel FF sensor would give you the same effect.
For the same pixel count / FOV / entrance pupil diameter, diffraction is the sme regardless of sensor size.
I do understand where Guy is coming from, Matt, but I think, from what you're saying and from my own experience, it has more to do with the lenses. The digital tech camera lenses that were designed with this sensor spec in mind, like the Rodenstock HR 35/4, for example, typically peak a single stop down from their max aperture and then start to lose resolution to diffraction on this sensor. That same 35 on the a7rII peaks at about f/4.5 and then starts to lose resolution. That's much different from the way my Canon 35L II performs on the a7rII, where diffraction isn't apparent until a little past f/8, and is mild in comparison to the loss on the Rodenstock.
So would the performance difference in those two lenses of like focal length on the a7rII come down to a difference in the entrance pupil diameter?
p.25 #9 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
I was looking forward to two cameras, the 5div and the rumour of this. At some stage i need to replace my 5dii, and it was the 5div that i was thinking might be the camera, however this fuji has provided an interesting alternative.
I use ts lenses on the 5dii, so i am often able to double the existing sensor size of my canon when using the 17 tse. In many cases i am unable to step any further back and have no choice but to shift top and bottom otherwise i cant fit the building or architectural feature in. This is not always the case with landscapes however, but it does allow me to crop later if i need to. Therefore, using the camera in this way, it is almost up at the size of this 'mini MF sensor'.
Would they be able to produce an electronic adaptor for this given the lens registration distance difference that they have to work with is only 17.3mm (44 - 26.7mm). The metabones EF-E adaptor is 25mm.
The image circle of the 17 tse is 67.2, and the ic of the 45 tse is 58.6, so it should easily cover the format with a bit extra for shifting. How much though I am not able to work out.
p.25 #10 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Btw I was not referring DOF at all
freaklikeme wrote:
I do understand where Guy is coming from, Matt, but I think, from what you're saying and from my own experience, it has more to do with the lenses. The digital tech camera lenses that were designed with this sensor spec in mind, like the Rodenstock HR 35/4, for example, typically peak a single stop down from their max aperture and then start to lose resolution to diffraction on this sensor. That same 35 on the a7rII peaks at about f/4.5 and then starts to lose resolution. That's much different from the way my Canon 35L II performs on the a7rII, where diffraction isn't apparent until a little past f/8, and is mild in comparison to the loss on the Rodenstock.
So would the performance difference in those two lenses of like focal length on the a7rII come down to a difference in the entrance pupil diameter? ...Show more →
p.25 #11 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Taylor Sherman wrote:
Looks nice, but I'm not sure why the format is compelling.
"The first three lenses will be released at beginning of 2017. They are the GF 63mm F2.8 R WR, a GF32-64mm F4R LM WR and GF 120mm F4 Macro. (~50mm, 25-50mm and 95mm full frame equiv.)
These will be followed by a GF23mm F4 R LM WR and GF110mm F2 in Mid 2017 and a GF45mm F2.8 R WR in late 2017 (~18mm, 100mm and 35mm equiv.)"
So in 24x36 equivalents it will have a 50/2.2, 25-50/3.2, 96/3.2 macro initially, with an 18/3.2, 88/1.6, and 36/2.2 later. I know the comparison may be more nuanced than those numbers show (please don't start debating the "MF Look"), but still, for me, not compelling.
Taylor, I am exciting because potentially, I can adapt 80lux, 55OTUS, 135APO etc or even LEica S, contax645 lens to the system to play with the look. I don't think it will change my photography fundamentally (but which system can?) but it will be more fun.
I prefer 4X3 format for everyday life images. That is make "significant" difference to me. I predict Fuji will make color right, another significance for me and Fuji will make ergonomics right. (a big assumption) and I know price will be high but will not be unreasonable as others(you know who)
Also, if my experience from contax645 and Leica S lenses on S format is correct, even with equivalent similar aperture, the larger format always give slightly rendering advantage from either tonality difference or because Lens I used were intended for even larger format, so I was using the sweet point of cycle, the image just looks more relaxed. (OTUS 55mm on 35mm format give me similar feeling I'd say.)
It is a niche need, and spending/return ratio may not make much sense to many people but for me, it is a exciting product.
And don't forget IQ wise, there isn't really anything better before you spend 40K for 100M back.
p.25 #13 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
freaklikeme wrote:
I do understand where Guy is coming from, Matt, but I think, from what you're saying and from my own experience, it has more to do with the lenses. The digital tech camera lenses that were designed with this sensor spec in mind, like the Rodenstock HR 35/4, for example, typically peak a single stop down from their max aperture and then start to lose resolution to diffraction on this sensor. That same 35 on the a7rII peaks at about f/4.5 and then starts to lose resolution. That's much different from the way my Canon 35L II performs on the a7rII, where diffraction isn't apparent until a little past f/8, and is mild in comparison to the loss on the Rodenstock.
So would the performance difference in those two lenses of like focal length on the a7rII come down to a difference in the entrance pupil diameter? ...Show more →
Yes, there are many variables and I too was thinking maybe both the lenses (better lenses will reveal diffraction effects sooner) and the fact that all medium format sensors did not have AA filters at a time when most smaller sensors did (except Leica of course) could account for the difference as well. If all these variable are kept constant, then the larger sensor will show diffraction effects less than the smaller sensor (same sensel size, technology, lenses aperture, output size and so on.)
p.25 #14 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
GMPhotography wrote:
Beg to differ. Don't care what anyone says. I lived it. Case closed
I shot MF digital backs for years it don't work like film. Once again a typical 35mm setup with great lens it's about F11. In MF with a full frame digital back and a great lens it's F8 when diffraction hits. Pixel pitch also plays a roll for sure. Why part of the complaint of MF is loss of DoF one reason is diffraction the other everything is bigger. I test this stuff let's not forget. I spent hundreds of thousands in MF digital. I know what wall I'm hitting...Show more →
I'm stunned, and not sure how to respond.
You are wrong, and you can easily confirm that at the link I posted or any number of other sources printed or online. I also have shot and do shoot multiple formats ranging from medium format on down to tiny digital sensors, and I've been doing it for decades. It is utterly clear, as optics predicts, that one can "get away" with smaller apertures on larger formats and still get sharp results, not the other way around.
That makes me also old enough to have had the experience — more than once — of discovering that something that I "knew" to be true (e.g. — "case closed") was dead wrong. Rather than being defensive or scared of admitting it, look at it as an opportunity to learn.
Perhaps I'm so totally misunderstanding what you write that I have your statement backwards? I interpret it to mean that you assume that you can shoot at smaller apertures on cameras using smaller formats. For example, it sounds to me like you are suggesting that as we stop down we will encounter diffraction caused problems with the sharpness of our photographs sooner with large formats than with small formats,.
Is that not what you are saying?
The case is not "closed" because you say it is. Take this as an opportunity to continue your life's work of learning and improving.
p.25 #15 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
gdanmitchell wrote:
Before I got a 51MP full frame DSLR the 50MP capability of some of the MF cameras (notably the Pentax 645z) interested me. While understanding objectively that MF can produce higher system resolution than the smaller FF systems with the same MP, given the quality of the FF systems I'm less enthusiastic than I might otherwise be.
Intrigued? Yes. Willing to buy into a whole new system? Not so sure.
Dan
I feel the same, and I was a Fuji 6x7 and 6x9 user back in the day.
Part of the issue is that the sensor is just not really that large, not even 645 sized.
The 4:3 ratio is not so great for me either.
p.25 #16 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
karlfoto wrote:
I was looking forward to two cameras, the 5div and the rumour of this. At some stage i need to replace my 5dii, and it was the 5div that i was thinking might be the camera, however this fuji has provided an interesting alternative.
I use ts lenses on the 5dii, so i am often able to double the existing sensor size of my canon when using the 17 tse. In many cases i am unable to step any further back and have no choice but to shift top and bottom otherwise i cant fit the building or architectural feature in. This is not always the case with landscapes however, but it does allow me to crop later if i need to. Therefore, using the camera in this way, it is almost up at the size of this 'mini MF sensor'.
Would they be able to produce an electronic adaptor for this given the lens registration distance difference that they have to work with is only 17.3mm (44 - 26.7mm). The metabones EF-E adaptor is 25mm.
The image circle of the 17 tse is 67.2, and the ic of the 45 tse is 58.6, so it should easily cover the format with a bit extra for shifting. How much though I am not able to work out. ...Show more →
Is it typically relatively easy to find documentation for the image circle of a particular lens? I have some zeiss glass from a couple different lines I'd like to know the image circle of...
p.25 #17 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
zhangyue wrote:
Taylor, I am exciting because potentially, I can adapt 80lux, 55OTUS, 135APO etc or even LEica S, contax645 lens to the system to play with the look. I don't think it will change my photography fundamentally (but which system can?) but it will be more fun.
I prefer 4X3 format for everyday life images. That is make "significant" difference to me. I predict Fuji will make color right, another significance for me and Fuji will make ergonomics right. (a big assumption) and I know price will be high but will not be unreasonable as others(you know who)
Also, if my experience from contax645 and Leica S lenses on S format is correct, even with equivalent similar aperture, the larger format always give slightly rendering advantage from either tonality difference or because Lens I used were intended for even larger format, so I was using the sweet point of cycle, the image just looks more relaxed. (OTUS 55mm on 35mm format give me similar feeling I'd say.)
It is a niche need, and spending/return ratio may not make much sense to many people but for me, it is a exciting product.
And don't forget IQ wise, there isn't really anything better before you spend 40K for 100M back. ...Show more →
Oh good point about the image circle of FF lenses, thanks!
p.25 #18 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'm stunned, and not sure how to respond.
You are wrong, and you can easily confirm that at the link I posted or any number of other sources printed or online. I also have shot and do shoot multiple formats ranging from medium format on down to tiny digital sensors, and I've been doing it for decades. It is utterly clear, as optics predicts, that one can "get away" with smaller apertures on larger formats and still get sharp results, not the other way around.
That makes me also old enough to have had the experience — more than once — of discovering that something that I "knew" to be true (e.g. — "case closed") was dead wrong. Rather than being defensive or scared of admitting it, look at it as an opportunity to learn.
Perhaps I'm so totally misunderstanding what you write that I have your statement backwards? I interpret it to mean that you assume that you can shoot at smaller apertures on cameras using smaller formats. For example, it sounds to me like you are suggesting that as we stop down we will encounter diffraction caused problems with the sharpness of our photographs sooner with large formats than with small formats,.
Is that not what you are saying?
The case is not "closed" because you say it is. Take this as an opportunity to continue your life's work of learning and improving.
Dan it's pretty simple you get diffraction at more wider open apertures than 35 given you using good lenses to start with. Different way to put it all things being relatively equal MF starts even at 5.6 and 35 really hits about F11. That's all I'm saying This has nothing to do with DOF except that you have to rely more on lens tilt in MF to make up for the DOF that 5.6 won't give. Why do you think there are many T/S options in MF digital.
Dan case closed is me , be it you like it or not I could care less . Let's make that perfectly clear. I made a comment I stand by what I said . Don't like it tough. I answer to now one unless I want to and I already have the 5 star been here and have done it badge. Have you even shot. Tried. Borrowed , stole a MF back to even challenge me. I'm done with this.
BTW your talking about good results I am NOT . I'm talking when diffraction hits only. You need to read better I said it 3 times now . Printed piece can hide a lot that's not remotely what I was saying.
DAN if there is a shooter with a MF digital back and a tech cam or even DSLR and shooting at F22 than he has no clue what he is doing. No one will give up that much resolution. We may go to F11, F16 but we know full well the images are being degraded by diffraction. Anyone worth their salt knows this, is it still usable is a total separate conversation. It's why many MF shooters are looking for tilt solutions so we don't have to stop down that far. I taught 28 workshops with the real brains in the industry that sell , service and with tech gurus that are tops in the industry and most of us try and buy tilt solutions to solve the DOF and avoid the diffraction. MF digital is no picnic.
p.25 #19 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Guy, sorry, you are wrong. All the literature says you're wrong, and more importantly, physics says you're wrong. Did you read the link I posted, showing what diffraction actually is? There is no physical way for larger pixels on a larger format with the same resolution as a smaller format to show greater effects of diffraction at a larger f-stop. It's simply not physically possible. You say you've seen it, well you're either misremembering or not comparing apples to apples, because what you are describing doesn't follow the laws of physics.
I have a feeling what you are seeing is simply an effect that a large format with a sharp lens and oodles of resolution shows so much more detail at the optimal apertures that any loss of detail stands out to you more, though if you were to compare it side by side you'd notice that 35mm suffers more at the same aperture.
You'll notice that the airy disk stays exactly the same size regardless of the sensor behind it....as it obviously has to. There's no physical way for the lens to behave differently with regards to scattering light based on the size of the medium behind it. Look at something like the 1D X and then switch to a similar resolution APS-C camera like the 7D, and look how many more of the pixels are covered at the same f-stop. Then open the aperture one stop and see that the amount covered is similar to the smaller aperture on the larger sensor....
Also, simply look at the apertures used in large format photography. f/64 is very commonly used in large format photography...and those shots are brilliant, with oodles of detail, and if you shoot with f/64 on a full frame body, you'll be left with a pile of mush. Medium format isn't some magic zone where the physics of the universe invert themselves.
It's worth noting that there is no inherent advantage or disadvantage here. For the same resolution sensor on different formats, it's a wash for the same depth of field. f/5.6 on APS-C, f/8 on full frame, f/10 on this Fuji will all have roughly the same depth of field for a lens with the same field of view, and each will show essentially identical levels of diffraction in the image.
p.25 #20 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Guy,
You are wrong. Diffraction is a physical property of the optical projection based on the dimension of the orifice it is passing by (physical interference). As Jordan has noted, you are advocating against very well established physics that have been scientifically proven, tested, taught, reproved, retested, retaught for eons (note: science by physicists, not by photographers trying to explain what they think is happening).
That being said, which brand of lens and the optical properties of the lens design you were using may have had the aperture farther away from the film (sensor) plane such that the EFFECT of the size of the airy disk is larger by the time it reaches the film plane. I won't try to dissuade you from what you believe you experienced (fool's errand) ... but, as to the fundamental principles of the physics of diffraction ... you are wrong.
There are a few other aspects to consider regarding pixel density @ how small we are slicing the projected image, such that you could cut the pieces small enough that the the airy disk is now larger than the pixels and thus associate that with diffraction limits.
But, just because you cut the pieces smaller ... really doesn't change the size of the airy disk, now does it? I mean, a pizza cut into 24 squares and one that is cut into 8 triangles is still the same size. And if you put the same amount of pepperoni on each, it doesn't matter if the pepperoni gets sliced or remains wholly intact. When you eat the whole pizza, you still get the same amount of pepperoni ... no matter how refinely you cut the slices.
Same goes for printing a projected image onto a 100 piece jigsaw puzzle, or a 10,000 piece puzzle (which is really what the sensor is). The size of the diffraction remains constant regardless of how small the sizes are once you "reassemble the pieces". The physical properties of diffraction size are relegated to the orifice size and the distance projected beyond the orifice (and the angles, but that's too far in the weeds).
)