p.26 #1 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
I'm not wrong look at the micron size of the pixels They range IQ 180 at 5.2 and there 100mpx at 4.4. Than go check out that is some 35 mpx sensors. Endless debate but your not factoring in the very small pixel pitch of MF sensors. Now if I'm wrong than everyone at Phase One is wrong. Now if you still think I'm wrong I'll connect you to Phase One.
p.26 #2 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
RustyBug wrote:
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.
p.26 #3 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Guy,
You're making the assumption that micron size of the pixels is the determinant factor in the amount of diffraction being projected / captured. It's not. It's just a factor in whether you are containing the captured diffraction within a single given pixel or capturing it across multiple pixels. Slicing the sensor into 1,000,000,000 MP doesn't change the amount of diffraction ... it only changes how many pixels are making up the area of the diffraction (which will still be a constant compared to the projected image size capture by the whole sensor, and subsequent printing size @ magnification)
Certainly using smaller pixels will give the illusion of more diffraction on an individual pixel 100% basis comparison, but diffraction is a product of the optical projection, not how small you slice it.
p.26 #4 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Did you read my first response? Yes, smaller pixel pitch will show diffraction effects earlier when viewing at 100%....but they won't show an overall reduction in image sharpness for the entire image. (RustyBug puts it well as to why).
Think about it...think of a shot at, say, f/16, with each light ray spreading out a certain distance...a big array of all of them. This will be the same no matter what sensor is behind them, and there is a limit to how much information you can see in this little collection of overlapping circles. Except now you get to capture a larger area of those circles....more rays at the same size circles.....you get more information.
You were arguing that the format makes the difference, and it absolutely will not. You will see diffraction earlier with smaller pixels (at 100%), but that is independent of the sensor size, and when you have 100 million on a PhaseOne back, you may only resolve 90MP of resolution when shooting at f/11, but it's going to be a lot more detail than the 'perfect' 24 megapixels of resolution I would get with my A7 II with its larger (but fewer) pixels on a smaller area.
To compare formats directly, you should look at the same resolution. This Fuji at 50MP vs. a 5Ds at 50MP, the Fuji has larger pixels, the same resolution, and will show less diffraction at the same f-stop. If you increase resolution and reduce pixel size, at 100% you will see diffraction start to peek in at earlier f-stops, but the entire image will still be more detailed until you hit the diffraction limit, which is actually quite a bit beyond what most people are really willing to throw away. (for instance, the A7R II will show more diffraction effects at f/16 than the A7 II will when viewed at 100%, but if you reproduce those f/16 images at the same size, the A7R II shot will still show more detail.
If you ask the guys at PhaseOne, they'll tell you we're right.
p.26 #5 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
RustyBug wrote:
Guy,
You're making the assumption that micron size of the pixels is the determinant factor in the amount of diffraction being projected / captured. It's not. It's just a factor in whether you are containing the captured diffraction within a single given pixel or capturing it across multiple pixels. Slicing the sensor into 1,000,000,000 MP doesn't change the amount of diffraction ... it only changes how many pixels are making up the area of the diffraction (which will still be a constant compared to the projected image size capture by the whole sensor, and subsequent printing size @ magnification)
Certainly using smaller pixels will give the illusion of more diffraction on an individual pixel 100% basis comparison, but diffraction is a product of the optical projection, not how small you slice it....Show more →
Particularly if it were a lens optically designed for film with a more generous tolerance for angle of light. I imagine reducing pixel size on a digital sensor would definately cause more pronounced diffraction, possibly even earlier...
p.26 #6 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
In practical use terms, output size must be considered with sensel size and MP's. ie. if you are shooting a MF IQ 180 80MP sensor (or even the current 100MP 645 sensor)and downsize that image to match the MP's of current FF35 sensors (for instance, the Sony A7rII as it's almost half the MP's), then the IQ 180 will still show less diffraction effects at the same aperture vs the A7rII as a result of the downsizing. The MF will always hold the advantage anytime it's compared to the FF35 when compared at the same output size. At 100% view on screen without considering output size, then sensel size is the determining factor (if lenses, AA filter etc. are the same) but that's not as practically relevant.
p.26 #7 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
rbf_ wrote:
Particularly if it were a lens optically designed for film with a more generous tolerance for angle of light. I imagine reducing pixel size on a digital sensor would definately cause more pronounced diffraction, possibly even earlier...
No....this has nothing to do with pixel shading....this has to do with diffraction of photons as light rays pass through an opening. It's a physical property of light and is well defined by simple equations that very clearly describe the reaction of light to an opening.
p.26 #8 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Jman13 wrote:
No....this has nothing to do with pixel shading....this has to do with diffraction of photons as light rays pass through an opening. It's a physical property of light and is well defined by simple equations that very clearly describe the reaction of light to an opening.
But different lenses degrade image quality differently as they are stopped down on the same system and sensor and that is what is commonly called diffraction even if technically incorrect by definition...
p.26 #9 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
"Despite the obvious similarities to the imaging chips used in the Pentax 645Z and other cameras, Fujifilm is insisting that this is a new, Fujifilm-developed sensor" - Fuji Rumors.
So this is not a P645Z or X1D sensor? I'd think it's marketing BS. A tweaked 645Z/X1D sensor, but not a new sensor. Thoughts? Or is the Fujirumours guy lying to drum up hits? Did anyone else hear Fuji say this at photokina? Watch a video stream where Fuji said this?
p.26 #10 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
adamdewilde wrote:
"Despite the obvious similarities to the imaging chips used in the Pentax 645Z and other cameras, Fujifilm is insisting that this is a new, Fujifilm-developed sensor" - Fuji Rumors.
So this is not a P645Z or X1D sensor? I'd think it's marketing BS. A tweaked 645Z/X1D sensor, but not a new sensor. Thoughts?
They have been developing(w/panasonic) a sensor they call the 'organic sensor' but if it were that sensor I imagine they would boast that they are using their own sensor and of course refer to it by it's name. So probably marketing
p.26 #11 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Diffraction is always proportional to the physical size of the aperture. That's the simple truth. F/11 on a 50mm standard lens on 35mm format is exactly the same size as f/11 on a 50mm wide angle lens on 6x7 format, and half the size of f/11 on a 100mm standard lens on 6x7 format. By the way diffraction starts from wide open but its effects get more noticeable as the lens is stopped down.
p.26 #12 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
adamdewilde wrote:
"Despite the obvious similarities to the imaging chips used in the Pentax 645Z and other cameras, Fujifilm is insisting that this is a new, Fujifilm-developed sensor" - Fuji Rumors.
So this is not a P645Z or X1D sensor? I'd think it's marketing BS. A tweaked 645Z/X1D sensor, but not a new sensor. Thoughts? Or is the Fujirumours guy lying to drum up hits? Did anyone else hear Fuji say this at photokina? Watch a video stream where Fuji said this?
The numbers coincide with Sony's MF sensor, so it's very likely designed and manufactured by Sony. Perhaps through a collaboration, it's optimized with Fuji tweaks allowing them to make such statement.
I can't find anywhere more info about the focal plane shutter. Does this camera offers EFCS for this sensor size? That would be crucial for many applications. Remember the A7R shutter shock?
p.26 #13 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
+1 @ Fuji working toward "organic sensor" ... i.e. probably not it yet, or the heralding would be echoing around the world.
As to the "new" sensor ... well, it is a new size sensor.
I did notice the press release emphasis on: “X-Processor Pro” imaging processor.
At best, I'm thinking that it has some modest changes in algorithm processing. At worst, it's the same, only bigger ... but, that's quite a bigger jump from 16x24 to 33x44. Imo, very much worthy of "new" @ size, even if that's not what folks are thinking "new" is supposed to mean.
p.26 #14 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
rbf_ wrote:
But different lenses degrade image quality differently as they are stopped down on the same system and sensor and that is what is commonly called diffraction even if technically incorrect by definition...
Granted I'm talking about the best lenses around Rodenstock tech lenses which are of the highest resolving power of most lenses so diffraction along with small microns cause diffraction earlier . Now this was going against mostly 36 Mpx sensor which today at 42 like our Sonys the pixel pitch I think is 4.8 it has gotten closer . If we pair the new 50 1.4 Sony with something like a Rodenstock one may wonder how they would compare.
My point all along is on MF with best in class sensors and lenses I hit diffraction at F8. Today on just about every lens I tested on the Sony A7r II it hits at F11. Certainly a combination of factors but I know many MF shooters won't even go past F8. I sneaked in F11 without too much degradation but it still is their no question. I used 3 Cambo mount lenses from Rodenstock that had tilt and swing built into the mount so I can gain DOF with stopping down past F8. This is very common practice in MF digital. One reason we see many 3rd party adapters like Zoerk and such.
p.26 #16 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
RustyBug wrote:
+1 @ Fuji working toward "organic sensor" ... i.e. probably not it yet, or the heralding would be echoing around the world.
As to the "new" sensor ... well, it is a new size sensor.
I did notice the press release emphasis on: “X-Processor Pro” imaging processor.
At best, I'm thinking that it has some modest changes in algorithm processing. At worst, it's the same, only bigger ... but, that's quite a bigger jump from 16x24 to 33x44. Imo, very much worthy of "new" @ size, even if that's not what folks are thinking "new" is supposed to mean.
I thought it was exactly the same sensor size Sony produces for Phase, Hassy, Pentax and Credo . This is a well proven sensor these folks are using in their backs. Now each OEM has them built to order and add their own algorithms in their backs. For instance and I need to look this up again. Phase says 1 hour exposure times . Pentax is 30 minutes. Now we are talking the same sensor. I'm going to double check this to be sure. But a example of what each OEM is doing
p.26 #17 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
RustyBug wrote:
+1 @ Fuji working toward "organic sensor" ... i.e. probably not it yet, or the heralding would be echoing around the world.
As to the "new" sensor ... well, it is a new size sensor.
I did notice the press release emphasis on: “X-Processor Pro” imaging processor.
At best, I'm thinking that it has some modest changes in algorithm processing. At worst, it's the same, only bigger ... but, that's quite a bigger jump from 16x24 to 33x44. Imo, very much worthy of "new" @ size, even if that's not what folks are thinking "new" is supposed to mean.
They mentioned some custom work done on the microlenses too and we all know about their custom CFA's so probably just referring to the fact that it's a modded Sony sensor custom done in house, which is what they do. It's seems they are doing some rebranding there, they have done some heavy work in image processing algorithms in software and I was wondering when they would brand their software like everyone else does in my industry. I'm a comp sci major working in software systems so I do pay attention to the software side of all this. It's quite substantial. I wish it were the organic sensor though!
p.26 #18 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Guy ... I think you are comparing apples to watermelons.
You're movement capable format requires your lenses to have significantly oversized image circles, and corresponding angles of projection to achieve that image circle are going to be different from FF lenses that are sized to a much smaller image circle (i.e. smaller at appropriate vs. oversized angle / spread of light).
I know that my TS-E starts showing diffraction a bit sooner than non-movement lenses (same format).
As I stated earlier, I wasn't going to try and dissuade what you experienced, but I think that the pieces of the puzzle as to why you experienced what you experienced are beginning to be unveiled. Which doesn't violate the physics of diffraction involved, but rather explains the amplification you feel you experienced.
p.26 #19 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
GMPhotography wrote:
Granted I'm talking about the best lenses around Rodenstock tech lenses which are of the highest resolving power of most lenses so diffraction along with small microns cause diffraction earlier . Now this was going against mostly 36 Mpx sensor which today at 42 like our Sonys the pixel pitch I think is 4.8 it has gotten closer . If we pair the new 50 1.4 Sony with something like a Rodenstock one may wonder how they would compare.
My point all along is on MF with best in class sensors and lenses I hit diffraction at F8. Today on just about every lens I tested on the Sony A7r II it hits at F11. Certainly a combination of factors but I know many MF shooters won't even go past F8. I sneaked in F11 without too much degradation but it still is their no question. I used 3 Cambo mount lenses from Rodenstock that had tilt and swing built into the mount so I can gain DOF with stopping down past F8. This is very common practice in MF digital. One reason we see many 3rd party adapters like Zoerk and such.
One thing I've noticed is that the performance once into "diffraction" (f/16, f/22) is different for different lenses on the same camera with same sensor! I'm not doubting clear definitions defined by equations but collecting and analyzing empirical evidence is Science too It seems we have multiple terms for "diffraction" one used in reviews and one defined in textbook. It also seems to imply there's alot more going on here that commonly gets referred as just "diffraction", it's complicated
p.26 #20 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
rbf_ wrote:
One thing I've noticed is that the performance once into "diffraction" (f/16, f/22) is different for different lenses on the same camera with same sensor! I'm not doubting clear definitions defined by equations but collecting and analyzing empirical evidence is Science too It seems we have multiple terms for "diffraction" one used in reviews and one defined in textbook. It also seems to imply there's alot more going on here that commonly gets referred as just "diffraction", it's complicated
Aperture size and f/stop are not the same thing.
A 400mm lens with an f-stop of f/4 has a (theoretical) aperture of 100mm
A 50mm lens with an f-stop of f/4 has a (theoretical) aperture of 12.5mm
100mm @ f/16 = 25mm
50mm @ f/16 = 3.125
Which (theoretical) aperture do you think will induce more diffraction (for a given format / distance of projection from the aperture to the film plane)?
My general rule of thumb is that when the math approaches the 4mm (theoretical for FF format) my concerns for diffraction are heightened.
Case in point, my 24mm TS-E starts showing around f/11, (maybe just past f/8 @ f/9).
At 24 / 8 = 3mm
At 24 / 16 = 1.5mm
All other things being considered, I will shoot my 24 @ f/11, but f/16 is definitely an "Do I really want to do this?" Knowing that 5.6 - 7.1 is really where I want to be @ 24/6 = 4.
It seems we have multiple terms for "diffraction" one used in reviews and one defined in textbook. It also seems to imply there's alot more going on here that commonly gets referred as just "diffraction", it's complicated