p.40 #1 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
I am probably in a minority, but I am interested in the GFX camera for adaption of EF mount compatible lenses only. It will be as a complementary body to the 5DSR. We know for sure that lenses for FF 35 mm format that don't have internal baffles for 3:2 aspect ratio, will cover 31x31 mm square. That is a crop factor of 1/1.3 and it is still significant.
p.40 #2 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Jman13 wrote:
That's never been how Fuji's operated, though. First, the PhaseOne XF is considerably larger, so it wouldn't be a small difference. Second, the lenses will all be designed around this sensor. That's one real benefit to a new system: the lenses won't have a compromise in focal length, they'll be designed with this exact sensor in mind. It would be awkward to design to this sensor, then go with the larger one and need to make all new lenses so that the focal ranges made a bit more sense. Think about the annoyance of the lenses with the Canon 1D series when it was APS-H. Everything was just a bit off.... ...Show more →
The use of a larger sensor doesn't seem to bother the users of the XF or the Hasselblad systhem. And the gain in IQ in all aspects could be significant. About the same amount going from APS-C to FF.
p.40 #3 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
I agree with Guy on the potential issue with C1. I love using it more than any other raw convertor. They do offer support for the apsc fuji's, but there is no competition there.
p.40 #4 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Orestis.Ch wrote:
The use of a larger sensor doesn't seem to bother the users of the XF or the Hasselblad systhem. And the gain in IQ in all aspects could be significant. About the same amount going from APS-C to FF.
Exactly.
It is the cost not the size for those systems. If I could afford a Phase One XF system, I wouldn't care about mirrorless or adaption.
The cost part would still apply to the lenses if they were designed for full frame coverage.
A future Fuji MF camera with that large sensor sensor would be out of my price range anyway.
So even if Fuji could have made the mount larger with the existing lenses, it would have been pointless since the day it would come to use, everything would be so much more expensive.
p.40 #6 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Can we call it 44x33 instead of "mini-MF"? Then we have a series of designations that refer to the actual size of the sensor (even if it referring to the gross size of the film and not the actual recording area):
p.40 #7 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Matt Grum wrote:
Can we call it 44x33 instead of "mini-MF"? Then we have a series of designations that refer to the actual size of the sensor (even if it referring to the gross size of the film and not the actual recording area):
35mm
44x33
645
6x6
6x7
6x9
4x5
8x10
Hi Matt,
Unfortunately the Leica S is not quite this format/dimensions and should also be included as a Mini MF.
p.40 #8 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
naturephoto1 wrote:
Hi Matt,
Unfortunately the Leica S is not quite this format/dimensions and should also be included as a Mini MF.
Rich
Which reinforces Matt's point. With all these different sensor sizes and designations, the only accurate description is to refer to the actual sensor size.
The problem with it is that we don't always remember exactly those numbers. I don't remember the exact sensor size of the Phase IQ1 100 MP back.
p.40 #9 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
alundeb wrote:
Which reinforces Matt's point. With all these different sensor sizes and designations, the only accurate description is to refer to the actual sensor size.
The problem with it is that we don't always remember exactly those numbers. I don't remember the exact sensor size of the Phase IQ1 100 MP back.
Yes, but on that basis, I believe that the Leica S would be an orphan with the only camera with a 45.0mm x 30.0mm sensor and the only Medium Format camera with the same proportions of 35mm FF. I believe that that would confuse things since it is certainly a comparable size to the 44mm X 33mm sensor size. The Leica S has a 1350mm square mm sensor size while the 44mm X 33mm sensors have a 1452mm square mm sensor size.
p.40 #10 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Totally agree 200 percent. Really bad name that is very confusing. There is nothing mini about it . If anything CMOS 50 is a far better description
Matt Grum wrote:
Can we call it 44x33 instead of "mini-MF"? Then we have a series of designations that refer to the actual size of the sensor (even if it referring to the gross size of the film and not the actual recording area):
p.40 #11 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
GMPhotography wrote:
Totally agree 200 percent. Really bad name that is very confusing. There is nothing mini about it . If anything CMOS 50 is a far better description
Hi Guy,
OK. Then do we also have a separate listing entirely for the Leica S, the only camera with a 37.5 MP 45mm X 30mm sensor as well? This is beginning to sound like a paleontologist naming specimens as being the same or different species and being either a splitter or a lumper.
p.40 #14 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Matt Grum wrote:
Can we call it 44x33 instead of "mini-MF"? Then we have a series of designations that refer to the actual size of the sensor (even if it referring to the gross size of the film and not the actual recording area):
35mm
44x33
645
6x6
6x7
6x9
4x5
8x10
There are problems with your "actual size of the sensor" basis:
35mm does not refer to the "size of the sensor," which in full frame is nominally 24mm x 36mm
645 (and the other "6" formats) are not the actual size, either — the "6" dimension is actually always smaller than 6.
FF, miniMF, and MF are simple, clear, and consistent in their use of adjectives to modify "format." They are also three in number... rather than ten! ;-)
Conversation:
A: "Do you use FF, miniMF, or MF?"
B: "That's too complicated. Let me simplify this and make it more logical for you. 24 x 36 full frame should actually be called 35mm. miniMF should (mostly) be called 44x33 or 33x44, unless it is a bit different than that, and maybe 45 x 30. MF should be called 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 4x5, or 8x10. Unless it is one of the other digital MF formats that isn't one of those. Oh, and that 6? You are probably thinking those sensors are 6cm in one dimension, right. Well, not really. Maybe, or maybe not, more like 56mm."
A: "OK, I think I get it. So, 4x5 is smaller than 6x7, then, right? And 44 x 33 must be HUGE compared to things like 6x6, yes?"
p.40 #16 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
gdanmitchell wrote:
There are problems with your "actual size of the sensor" basis:
35mm does not refer to the "size of the sensor," which in full frame is nominally 24mm x 36mm
645 (and the other "6" formats) are not the actual size, either — the "6" dimension is actually always smaller than 6.
FF, miniMF, and MF are simple, clear, and consistent in their use of adjectives to modify "format." They are also three in number... rather than ten! ;-)
Conversation:
A: "Do you use FF, miniMF, or MF?"
B: "That's too complicated. Let me simplify this and make it more logical for you. 24 x 36 full frame should actually be called 35mm. miniMF should (mostly) be called 44x33 or 33x44, unless it is a bit different than that, and maybe 45 x 30. MF should be called 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 4x5, or 8x10. Unless it is one of the other digital MF formats that isn't one of those. Oh, and that 6? You are probably thinking those sensors a 6cm in one dimension, right. Well, not really. Maybe, or maybe not, more like 56mm."
A: "OK, I think I get it. So, 4x5 is smaller than 6x7, then, right? And 44 x 33 must be HUGE compared to things like 6x6, yes?"
I think it's a rare case where the term exactly describes the object in the most fitting way. It's clearly a mini medium format frame and that's what's attractive about it. It's smaller size & cost are what will make it likely more popular than the bigger 645 sensors. It's not small format however.
p.40 #17 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
alundeb wrote:
B: "I use FF MF"
I think "Full Frame" is the odd, conjured up, totally ambiguous and historically absent term prior to digital that we should dispense with. I think it's a marketing term put forth by duopolists that connoted that once you had a 24mm x 36mm sensor you needed nothing else. Which was convenient because their lenses just happened to be designed around that particular format. Then they proceeded to call every format smaller than "small format 35mm" a "crop format" even if they already had other names like "super 35" or "APS". Which is strange because I remember when crop format referred to non 1:1 square formats in any category.
p.40 #18 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
rbf_ wrote:
I think "Full Frame" is the odd, conjured up, totally ambiguous and historically absent term prior to digital that we should dispense with. I think it's a marketing term put forth by duopolists that connoted that once you had a 24mm x 36mm sensor you needed nothing else. Which was convenient because their lenses just happened to be designed around that particular format. Then they proceeded to call every format smaller than "small format 35mm" a "crop format" even if they already had other names like "super 35" or "APS". Which is strange because I remember when crop format referred to non 1:1 square formats in any category. ...Show more →
Agree for cameras and sensor sizes, but when it comes to lenses, we now have lenses that do not cover the full image circle or frame the lens mount was designed for. Within one lens mount, the designation "FF" for a lens is unambiguous.
p.40 #19 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
alundeb wrote:
Agree for cameras and sensor sizes, but when it comes to lenses, we now have lenses that do not cover the full image circle or frame the lens mount was designed for. Within one lens mount, the designation "FF" for a lens is unambiguous.
Agreed from the perspective of a particular lens mount (like say EF) to sensor relationship. But now that mirrorless is really disrupting the older lens mounts we have a bunch of new lens mounts which are all "FF". It ends up not really being all that descriptive anymore but seemingly used as a pejorative towards other formats even if they are FF themselves. Like the iPhone or the GFX50 which are both "FF". But it seems like FF has come to be synonymous with 35mm (24mm x 36mm) small format and I think as pejorative to the other small formats. I do remember when 35mm was popular due to it's small system size & cost as well, that's why everyone loved it. I was at a camera store recently and noticed how small the old 35mm film lenses and camera's were and it really reminded me of the size of Fuji APS-C and the Micro 4/3's camera's.
p.40 #20 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
You guys don't get it there is about 4 sizes in MF digital all under a FULL Frame 645 . If you look at the backs . There is no 6x7 or anything like that in digital. You using old film names. I don't have the specs in front of me but a Phase P45 is a little smaller than 645 than the Phase P30 was a little more cropped. I can't remember their dimensions but regardless their are a couple crops from 645. No MF dealer or manufacture calls this stuff miniMF it's a really bad description. I bought 5 diffrent backs and out of 5 I think I had 3 diffrent sizes. Now some of those backs are no longer made P25 22mpx back, P30 31mpx back, p40 40 Mpx , IQ 140 same 40 Mpx all crops of 645 full frame. Hassy had the same ones but called diffenterly. Stop bringing 35 into the fold that's a completely diffrent beast. The industry does not name them by dimensions but by MPX if anything . This sensor is a CMOS 50 the ONLY CMOS in MF. The Leica S is the odd ball because it's a 3:2 sensor all the rest follow a 4:3. Format regardless of size or CCD or CMOS. So mini could mean 4 or so sizes. Makes no sense and just my 2 cents . 5 OEMS share this same CMOS 50. In the industry that's the reference they are using. You going to tell Pentax, phase, Hassy, Fuji and leaf they are wrong actually 6 Mamiya. Good luck with that. They make them we are just users.
I know it's easier to say but it's not descriptive enough or worse coming from the industry.
