p.5 #2 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Pavel wrote:
Many of the mamiya 645 lenses are in the same size ballparks as Nikon or Cannon FF lenses. Rangefinder's also, it should be added, have an advantage where wide angle lenses can be made smaller and of higher quality due to flange depth allowing completely different design possibilities. I'm drooling now. This better not be a rumour only!
True about the size of equivalent focal length lenses. I have a Pentax 80-160mm lens that I use occasionally with a tilt shift adapter, and it is in roughly the same size range as my Canon 70-200mm lenses.
But you need longer versions to get the same angle of view coverage. A 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens on mini-MF, but it is also then a wide angle lens. And my 80-160mm lens is still a 80-160mm lens, but it provides a significantly larger angle of view on MF than on my FF camera. To get the same functionality (in angle of view terms) that the 80-160 gives me on full frame I would need a considerably longer and larger lens on MF.
So, if you were — for purposes of explanation — comparing a full frame camera with, say, thee lenses that give you some angle of view coverage to the three lenses you would need for the same coverage on mini MF you will need longer focal length lenses on MF.
No way around it, there are some lens issues to think about.
p.5 #3 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
There's no argument regarding SONY's intentional obsolescence policies. One look at the long string of A7 boxes with some sporting clattering/banging shutters reveals that truth. Loud shutters ... in a Leica small camera clone? Really? Then we have the near 4-inch diameter black PVC pipe FE 50 f/1.4za approaching a kilo in weight. Great images to be true. What happened to the small form factor thesis of mirrorless? The market has been hoodwinked by SONY. Of course they had Apple as a mentor in the dept. of obsolescence.
What we see today is Fuji apparently planning to round up from APSC to the high end of the digital imaging Gaussian Bell Curve with–in all likelihood, a duplicate of the latest PENTAX 645Z 50MP sensor. The proximity of the October large optics/photo meeting in Germany (PHOTOKINA) suggests some big releases are in store and we already have Hasselblad arm-waving with their (so far) vaporware MF system.
Save your money your digital camera ... you might get a better deal.
BTW I wouldn't be surprised if Leaf/Mamiya/Capture One is operating optics design for Hasselblad these days.
Fuji on the other hand ,needs no assistance. Their MF offering should be primo and just under $10,000 with a kit prime lens. You want color? They have color ... like nobody else. They actually have a secret weapon–Young Japanese women.
p.5 #4 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
gdanmitchell wrote:
True about the size of equivalent focal length lenses. I have a Pentax 80-160mm lens that I use occasionally with a tilt shift adapter, and it is in roughly the same size range as my Canon 70-200mm lenses.
But you need longer versions to get the same angle of view coverage. A 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens on mini-MF, but it is also then a wide angle lens. And my 80-160mm lens is still a 80-160mm lens, but it provides a significantly larger angle of view on MF than on my FF camera. To get the same functionality (in angle of view terms) that the 80-160 gives me on full frame I would need a considerably longer and larger lens on MF.
So, if you were — for purposes of explanation — comparing a full frame camera with, say, thee lenses that give you some angle of view coverage to the three lenses you would need for the same coverage on mini MF you will need longer focal length lenses on MF.
No way around it, there are some lens issues to think about.
It's actually not a huge amount at close to 1.3x a FF 35 lens for equivalent angle of view. A "true" normal (which is around 43mm's on FF 35 gives us 55mm's for the mini MF for instance, which is what the Pentax 645Z uses as a normal lens). I doubt lenses will pose much of a design issue being so close to FF 35.
Sep 04, 2016 at 09:59 PM
jim allison Offline • • • [X]
p.5 #5 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
I think that this product is a solution in search of a problem. If it isn't a rumor I think that it would be a mistake for Fuji to male this. IMHP, they would be much more successful with a full frame camera to compete with the Leica rangefinders.
p.5 #6 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
I don't think Fuji is making a rangefinder in the typical manual focus lens sense. I also don't think the system will be hybrid. If anything it'll be a mirrorless bloated X-T1 w/some medium sized lenses. I would also find it hard to believe that Fuji would go the way of the Pentax 645z in body size (mirror) when Hassy already has the X1D. And Fuji has good EVF tech as it is.
p.5 #7 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It's actually not a huge amount at close to 1.3x a FF 35 lens for equivalent angle of view. A "true" normal (which is around 43mm's on FF 35 gives us 55mm's for the mini MF for instance, which is what the Pentax 645Z uses as a normal lens). I doubt lenses will pose much of a design issue being so close to FF 35.
I don't think your 1.3x value is right, though it is complicated to decide what conversion factor to use when moving between the 3:2 aspect ratio of full frame and the 4:3 ratio of MF digital. Do you use the diagonal? Do you regard 3:2 as the ideal and then calculate based on a 3:2 crop of the 4:3 sensor? Or do you prefer 4:3 and thus begin your calculation with a cropped version of the 3:2 FF frame.
For me... I usually crop 3:2 to 4:3 since the latter is my preferred aspect ratio in most cases. So I'm already "throwing away" a few millimeters of frame width with full frame and I would not be doing so with 4:3.
I'll stop there, but just point out that it isn't so simple to determine a crop factor when aspect ratios are different.
p.5 #8 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
On another note following the rumour format of two primes and one zoom.. I'd like to see a 65/2 a 110/2 and I guess a wide zoom 24-45/4 but that's probably not going to happen.
Though would be lovely if we could get some fast lenses.. One of the things thats keeping me from buying a X1D kit.
p.5 #9 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
For me it make sense to compare the width of the sensors when calculating the crop factor since it tells you how much width a lens will cover when shooting in landscape mood compared to a camera with another sensor size. I don't know if it is the most correct way but it is a method that is both easy to calculate and to understand.
p.5 #10 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
adamdewilde wrote:
On another note following the rumour format of two primes and one zoom.. I'd like to see a 65/2 a 110/2 and I guess a wide zoom 24-45/4 but that's probably not going to happen.
Though would be lovely if we could get some fast lenses.. One of the things thats keeping me from buying a X1D kit.
That would certainly give them an advantage over Hasselblad but I think they probably start with something slower to keep the price down making a starter kit more attractive, unfortunately.
Sep 05, 2016 at 12:24 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #11 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
joakim wrote:
For me it make sense to compare the width of the sensors when calculating the crop factor since it tells you how much width a lens will cover when shooting in landscape mood compared to a camera with another sensor size. I don't know if it is the most correct way but it is a method that is both easy to calculate and to understand.
It is 1.37X if you are cropping to 4:3 or squarer, and it is 1.22X if you are cropping to 3:2 or skinnier rectangle. In between you would have to calculate it. Obviously if you use one format or the other almost exclusively then you can know the number, but for me I think of the 1.37X number for portraits and macro that I usually end up with a more square crop and 1.22X for landscapes which I usually shoot in a skinnier rectangle.
p.5 #12 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
I'm waiting to see what Fuji offers. If it's a bloated DSLR like MF camera, no thanks. If it's a smaller rangefinder type mirrorless, I'll see.
So far, Hasselblad has me lusting for their offering. But I'll wait and see. The proof will be in the pudding when tested.
Sep 05, 2016 at 01:24 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #13 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
joakim wrote:
That would certainly give them an advantage over Hasselblad but I think they probably start with something slower to keep the price down making a starter kit more attractive, unfortunately.
When Fuji started their APS-C line they made some pretty sound decisions about lenses, IMO. I would expect them to do a pretty good job. One way to do that would be to make lenses faster than Hassy, but still a bit slower and Hassy has left them a fair bit of room to do so. Remember Fuji started their APS-C kit with a 18 f/2, a 35 f/1.4, and a 60 f/2.5 macro. Why not something like a 30-45 f/4.5 zoom, a 70 f/2.5, and a 120 f/2.8 (this could even be a macro). I don't think any of these would be too huge nor all that expensive to make, but maybe I am wrong. it wouldn't be too far different from what they did to kick off the APS-C line either.
p.5 #14 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
I'm surprised Fuji thinks there's a market worth exploring here. I mean, surely these 33x44 cameras are selling better than the absurdly priced XF and H systems, but that's not saying a whole heck of a lot. FF35 is already more than expensive and large enough for the overwhelming majority of the (shrinking) market for "real" cameras. I thought that's why Fuji decided not to build an FF35, in fact. Why go even more niche?
p.5 #15 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
sector99 wrote:
There's no argument regarding SONY's intentional obsolescence policies. One look at the long string of A7 boxes with some sporting clattering/banging shutters reveals that truth. Loud shutters ... in a Leica small camera clone? Really? Then we have the near 4-inch diameter black PVC pipe FE 50 f/1.4za approaching a kilo in weight. Great images to be true. What happened to the small form factor thesis of mirrorless? The market has been hoodwinked by SONY. Of course they had Apple as a mentor in the dept. of obsolescence.
What we see today is Fuji apparently planning to round up from APSC to the high end of the digital imaging Gaussian Bell Curve with–in all likelihood, a duplicate of the latest PENTAX 645Z 50MP sensor. The proximity of the October large optics/photo meeting in Germany (PHOTOKINA) suggests some big releases are in store and we already have Hasselblad arm-waving with their (so far) vaporware MF system.
Save your money your digital camera ... you might get a better deal.
BTW I wouldn't be surprised if Leaf/Mamiya/Capture One is operating optics design for Hasselblad these days.
Fuji on the other hand ,needs no assistance. Their MF offering should be primo and just under $10,000 with a kit prime lens. You want color? They have color ... like nobody else. They actually have a secret weapon–Young Japanese women.
Photokina is actually later this month running from Septemter 20-25. PhotoPlus in NYC runs next month from October 20-22. I would expect to stop by the Fujifilm booth on October 20 at PhotoPlus.
p.5 #16 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
jim allison wrote:
I think that this product is a solution in search of a problem. If it isn't a rumor I think that it would be a mistake for Fuji to male this. IMHP, they would be much more successful with a full frame camera to compete with the Leica rangefinders.
p.5 #17 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
gdanmitchell wrote:
I don't think your 1.3x value is right, though it is complicated to decide what conversion factor to use when moving between the 3:2 aspect ratio of full frame and the 4:3 ratio of MF digital. Do you use the diagonal? Do you regard 3:2 as the ideal and then calculate based on a 3:2 crop of the 4:3 sensor? Or do you prefer 4:3 and thus begin your calculation with a cropped version of the 3:2 FF frame.
For me... I usually crop 3:2 to 4:3 since the latter is my preferred aspect ratio in most cases. So I'm already "throwing away" a few millimeters of frame width with full frame and I would not be doing so with 4:3.
I'll stop there, but just point out that it isn't so simple to determine a crop factor when aspect ratios are different.
Yes, agree that the different aspect ratio does complicate the conversion - and this difference in aspect ratio is why I think one would actually choose either FF 35 or this mini MF. Still, it's not going to make a huge difference being so close to FF with regard to lens design. We are still not even close to talking 2X as we might be with full frame - "true" medium format.
p.5 #18 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
When Fuji started their APS-C line they made some pretty sound decisions about lenses, IMO. I would expect them to do a pretty good job. One way to do that would be to make lenses faster than Hassy, but still a bit slower and Hassy has left them a fair bit of room to do so. Remember Fuji started their APS-C kit with a 18 f/2, a 35 f/1.4, and a 60 f/2.5 macro. Why not something like a 30-45 f/4.5 zoom, a 70 f/2.5, and a 120 f/2.8 (this could even be a macro). I don't think any of these would be too huge nor all that expensive to make, but maybe I am wrong. it wouldn't be too far different from what they did to kick off the APS-C line either....Show more →
Fuji also has the advantage with regard to lens design of not using a leaf shutter within the lens. That's going to allow them from the start to more easily design a faster lens vs Hasselblad. I expect they will do something similar to what they did with the X-Pro 1 as well. I would be surprised if the zoom was on the wide end though. I think that will be a single focal length, followed by a normal with the zoom going from moderate wide to moderate tele.
Sep 05, 2016 at 09:32 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #19 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yes, agree that the different aspect ratio does complicate the conversion - and this difference in aspect ratio is why I think one would actually choose either FF 35 or this mini MF. Still, it's not going to make a huge difference being so close to FF with regard to lens design. We are still not even close to talking 2X as we might be with full frame - "true" medium format.
This is also a reason for Fuji to go mini-MF. Fuji's system now is APS-C and mini-MF is a bit over 2X APS-C and a change in format, so a very noticeable change from their APS-C cameras. If they had FF 35mm, it would be less of a change, but for Fuji shooters, this should be a pretty major difference. A FF 35mm would be much less so.
p.5 #20 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
This is also a reason for Fuji to go mini-MF. Fuji's system now is APS-C and mini-MF is a bit over 2X APS-C and a change in format, so a very noticeable change from their APS-C cameras. If they had FF 35mm, it would be less of a change, but for Fuji shooters, this should be a pretty major difference. A FF 35mm would be much less so.
That is pretty much what I wrote earlier about my take on their strategy of zigging when others zag. Though I appreciate your clarity about the fact that the crop factor among Fujifilm systems would be roughly 2x.
Fujifilm has, I think, taken a position that they are not going to try (at least not in the foreseeable future) to compete in the crowded full frame camera space. Their position is that their 1.5x cropped sensor cameras provide excellent image quality for almost all photographers and that the difference between that and full frame is not that significant.* Therefore, the smaller market that needs/wants a higher system resolution will get that from them in a mini MF system that is price competitive (more or less) with the most expensive full frame systems.**
I doubt that Fujifilm has any expectations that a mini MF camera system will be a big mass market seller. I would guess that they might hope that its sales might be along the lines of the old Canon 1Ds types of cameras — solid but a very small segment of overall sales.***
So who would be the likely users of such a camera system? Folks doing certain kinds of commercial work could well be interested. A certain portion of folks doing landscape photography would like it. (A number of them are already moving to the Pentax 645z or are thinking about the new Hasselblad system.) And, of course, some percentage of folks who don't believe that a cropped sensor body is for them and who might otherwise get a full frame system from another manufacturer might be interested if the price is in a range that makes the system more affordable.
This is not a big market, but it is a real market.
I think it is a gutsy move on Fujifilm's part — assuming the rumors pan out. There are plenty of reasons to express doubt, but given the fact that Fujifilm's success with the x-trans systems seemed pretty unlikely just a few years ago it may be premature to count them out on this.
Dan
* I'm not necessarily stating my own belief about this, but rather what I think Fujifilm's position might be. I use a full frame DSLR! At the same time, I also use a Fujifilm 1.5x cropped 24MP sensor system, and the results are very good. No, not equal to full frame.
** Here an intelligent photographer could also point out that one change over the past decade has been a move by serious photographers away from believing that they needed cameras like the 1Ds — a change that likely explains why Canon no longer makes that series of high resolution, full frame bodies. (The 1Dx is a different thing, more like the 1D series bodies.)
*** It would be fair to point out that the 1Ds system did use lenses that were shared with other Canon bodies, and that a prospective Fujifilm mini MF system would not have that advantage. On the other hand, as Sony did with the A7r, Fujifilm may point out that there are a lot of lenses out there from the olds days of MF that could work, especially for the landscape and studio photographers who might be most interested in such a system.
