p.42 #1 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Lee it's not the Mpx that matters here it's really the jump in sensor size that's more the IQ advantage. Bigger is better still holds true in digital but things have gotten a lot closer than even 2 years ago.
p.42 #2 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's a game of semantics. If you want to dismiss it, there is no easier way to call it mini.
Regardless of the nickname, there are many Pentax and Hassy shooters reporting a noticeable IQ difference between this 50MP MF sensor and 35mm full frame. Instead of talking about the math behind sensor size differences, it would be more useful to test these sensors side by side in real world conditions and then reports our findings. I'm interested in doing just that...
I like to do the math after the fact also
The math says that the difference in long exposure potential, between 36x24mm and 44x33 mm, is barely larger than the difference between two 36x24 mm sensors with different well depths, and probably smaller than the accuracy by which you manage to get your exposure right (maximal exposure before clipping that matters).
p.42 #5 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
GMPhotography wrote:
Lee it's not the Mpx that matters here it's really the jump in sensor size that's more the IQ advantage. Bigger is better still holds true in digital but things have gotten a lot closer than even 2 years ago.
No matter what FF high mp camera I use (5DsR, A7rII or D810) I still can't match the look of the S-006 with any of them. Bigger sensor is definitely better.. Is it worth the price and other sacrifices? That's up to you!
Really wish the 110/2 was ready at launch of the GFX. Since I think it's the only lens I'm really interested in owning. I'd buy others, but REALLY wanna try that one specifically. Kinda wanna pit it against my 100/2 and 120/2.5 S lenses.
p.42 #6 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
That's exactly the question you have to ask yourself. Is it worth the extra 10,20,30 percent increase in IQ and do you need it or will in my case clients appreciate it. Plus add in the limitations . I'm a big fan of MF but you gotta need it folks. It's a big black hole. I have harder time saying yes you should get it. Things are closer than they ever where.
p.42 #7 · 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.
Yes I did mention that in my original post. But those terms already exist and people understand what they mean for the most part. I am merely advocating one change: miniMF -> 44x33.
gdanmitchell wrote:
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! ;-)
But what about 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 - do they become squareMF, slightlywiderthansquareMF and sameaspectratioas35mmMF?
p.42 #8 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
I actually think camera makers are going to have a hard time going forward, as I think the purchase schedule for bodies is soon going to start looking like it did in the film days. We're reaching a point where image quality is so good even in the prosumer space, that the improvements to be had will really only be tangible for a very small percentage of shooters. I think for the vast majority of shooters, 24MP full-frame or even 24MP APS-C is more than good enough for the vast majority of their shooting. 16MP would even cover most of these shooters. It's the top 5% that want better than that, and seek it, and an even smaller percentage really need more than what is capable with something like the A7R II.
I'm not saying they still shouldn't pursue advancement, because it'll be nice in 10 years to pick up a body that has an APS-C or FF sensor and similar detail and dynamic range to the PhaseOne XF100. And that'll likely happen.
Still, this is going to be a niche camera and a niche format. I won't buy it, but if I were to turn pro and start shooting architectural photography (something I'd likely do), I could definitely see getting one of these with a few T/S lenses, which hopefully will either be available from Fuji or available to adapt. Would be a great camera for that sort of work.
p.42 #9 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
GMPhotography wrote:
Dan it's the same crap...
Chill, OK?
Lee Saxon wrote:
But then there'd be people on forums arguing about whether we should've used horizontal or diagonal field of view
And, of course, which focal length will provide that angle-of-view on whatever format they are using! ;-)
It is what it is.
For those "doing math," a quick and dirty approximation is useful. Using a 50MP miniMF sensor provides you very close to what you would get by stitching two 24MP full frame images with a typical overlap.
But what about 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 - do they become squareMF, slightlywiderthansquareMF and sameaspectratioas35mmMF?
If I were King Of Format Naming — I'm not — I would do what we already do with, for example, at least one smaller format: we say "cropped sensor" while recognizing that there are two versions at 1.6x and 1.5x. It isn't that complicated.
When it comes to classic (?) medium format, we aren't really introducing a new problem, as the term "medium format" (or "MF") has always included quite a range of sub-formats, many of which have been listed in this thread.
In most naming schemes, at least where many things are possible, there is always some tension between the need to identify each possible variation precisely and the value of collecting some of them into useful groupings.
p.42 #12 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Well, the question is what did Fuji do with the sensor. They said they made some adjustments, but if it's fundamentally the 645Z, dxomark leaked some data they never published. (That means it could be wrong), but the numbers were 14.7 stops of DR and a sports score of 4500. This compares to (I think it's the same tech as the A7R) the A7r with 14.1 stops of DR and a sports score of 2750.
At this point, when looking at the same PRINT size (not pixel size), it seems that basically at the same tech stage and the same sensor size, it really doesn't matter what the pixel pitch is. For example, the a7r and a7s have similar DR even though one is 36 and the other is 12:
So, let's compare the A7r and a6000. The a6000 has a sensor that is 1/2.25 the size of the A7r sensor. It gives 13.1 stops of DR and a sports score of 1347. So 2.25 times the sensor size gives an extra stop of DR and 1 stop better noise.
The a7r sensor is 864. The fuji sensor is 1,452 mm sq. or 1.68 times bigger. The ratio change is 68% bigger to 125% bigger or about 0.6 So assuming things are linear, you should get about 14.7 stops of DR and 60% of a stop better ISO, which would be a sports score of 4400. Note these are pretty much EXACTLY what Dxomark had for the 645Z. Note the D810 has similar DR (but not resolution or noise).
The difference in file IQ - for a landscaper - is really going to come down to heat dispersion (the D750 is crazy good at it), lens quality (A7rII has some really good glass), and the different look due to more compressed scenes. For example will the Fuji 23mm be as good as the Batis 18mm? Or the Loxia 21mm? If not, the A7r II may be a better camera for many unless doing really long exposures - assume the Fuji is good at dispensing heat.
p.42 #13 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Jman13 wrote:
I'm not saying they still shouldn't pursue advancement, because it'll be nice in 10 years to pick up a body that has an APS-C or FF sensor and similar detail and dynamic range to the PhaseOne XF100. And that'll likely happen.
That is the next question. Seriously, I doubt we will see any more improvements in light gathering capability. QE and well depths are about maxed out for silicon-based sensors it seems. Unless we see a paradigm shift like organic sensors, I think the only way to increase light gathering capability for the next 10 years is with larger sensors.
p.42 #14 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Are you telling me to chill. Really what's up DAN who do you think you are. I'm 60 pal no ones tells me to chill especially when it's a fun conversation. Seriously you have some real issues. . I need to find the ignore button for you.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Chill, OK?
And, of course, which focal length will provide that angle-of-view on whatever format they are using!
It is what it is.
For those "doing math," a quick and dirty approximation is useful. Using a 50MP miniMF sensor provides you very close to what you would get by stitching two 24MP full frame images with a typical overlap.
If I were King Of Format Naming — I'm not — I would do what we already do with, for example, at least one smaller format: we say "cropped sensor" while recognizing that there are two versions at 1.6x and 1.5x. It isn't that complicated.
When it comes to classic (?) medium format, we aren't really introducing a new problem, as the term "medium format" (or "MF") has always included quite a range of sub-formats, many of which have been listed in this thread.
In most naming schemes, at least where many things are possible, there is always some tension between the need to identify each possible variation precisely and the value of collecting some of them into useful groupings.
p.42 #15 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
You need to add the whole quote Dan as well . That's not a attack of any sort and you know it. Put my whole comment in. Your quote is trying to start a fight. That's disrespectful and cheap. We are done as no one should take a cheap shot like that everyone can read the whole comment I made as a funny. You do not want to go down this path with me. You need to chill
Just for the record this exactly what I said it's about the industry. Back to the grandkids
Dan it's the same crap when someone called a lens a 18,24,21,35,50mm instead of what really makes more senses is angle of view. None of it made sense but that's what happened how the hell they got 18mm instead of 100 angle if view. Or whatever a 18 is. History proves they made a few naming mistakes. Seriously you hear 18mm the first thing you say to yourself , how wide is that.
p.42 #16 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
The only honest way to do the defining of sensor size would be to mark sensor size based on the diagonal, like they do with televisions, but in mm. Unfortunately I think the chances of getting a "FF" sensor called a 43mm sensor are pretty slim.
At least most of the people looking at a Fuji/Pentax/Blad will know enough about formats that miniMF makes some sense.
As far as how much better than 35mm (43mm ) this sensor is? I have the Pentax and the Sony's (A7R and A7R2) and to my eye the difference is as obvious as a slap in the face. Pentax are also know for getting the best out of a sensor and what they get with the 645Z is fabulous. I've essentially lost all interest in the Sony's as a landscape camera and would always carry the bulk of the 645Z over the A7R2.
There's actually very little resolution difference between the 645Z and A7R2 on the horizontal plane (about 300 pixels). But the 645Z is at least a stop better in base ISO DR and that improves at high ISO where the Pentax colour retention at 1600 is incredible.
When the A7R and A7R2 came out I was certain that I had no need for more DR and that a MF sensor was just a few more pixels. And those sensors are fantastic. I was wrong. There's a bigger jump from 35mm to miniMF than from APSC to 35mm. There's also less stress on the lenses when looking for a wide angle of view (it's not that hard to build a good 28mm in miniMF compared to a good 21mm in 35mm).
This thread need a photo. Pentax 645Z. 8 minute exposure with a 3 stop shadow push in Lightroom. No LENR.
p.42 #17 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
That is a great shot - I guess for me I'd want something wider than the 25mm to shoot with. that's only 20mm on FF. I which there was a 20mm for that system and I'd get that, the 25mm, and the 28mm-45mm zoom.
p.42 #18 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
GMPhotography wrote:
That's exactly the question you have to ask yourself. Is it worth the extra 10,20,30 percent increase in IQ and do you need it or will in my case clients appreciate it. Plus add in the limitations . I'm a big fan of MF but you gotta need it folks. It's a big black hole. I have harder time saying yes you should get it. Things are closer than they ever where.
Wholeheartedly agree. It's a lot of money for the incremental improvements. I had a Hassy digital system before and got rid of it because I saw the rate of improvements in the Sony FF sensors. Now that MF are also using Sony sensors, it changes the calculation, but I still think the rate of change in the FF sensors will exceed the MF sensors, given the low volume. On balance, I still think the overall feature and quality of FF mirrorless will appeal more to me. While I want the Fuji, it doesn't make sense for me to maintain both systems simultaneously. The only thing lacking in the FF Sony right now is more speed and improved video, and I'm betting that's in the wings, maybe as soon as next year.
p.42 #19 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
GMPhotography wrote:
Are you telling me to chill. Really what's up DAN who do you think you are. I'm 60 pal no ones tells me to chill especially when it's a fun conversation. Seriously you have some real issues. . I need to find the ignore button for you.
p.42 #20 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
flash wrote:
The only honest way to do the defining of sensor size would be to mark sensor size based on the diagonal, like they do with televisions, but in mm.
I think I finally figured out that there really isn't a perfect way to do it, at least not with a single descriptor. Diagonal is an interesting idea, but it doesn't work quite a well when comparing different aspect ratios. (It works fine when comparing, say, micro 4-thirds to miniMF, or when comparing full frame to crop.) Angle of view (which is what we are most likely actually interested in) makes a lot of logical sense, but then we still have to select a lens with some focal length to get that angle of view with a particular format.
It is tricky.
Here's and example. How much bigger is a miniMF sensor compared to a full frame sensor and what lens would you use on miniMF to get the same angle of view that you got on FF?. There are several ways to answer that.
1. The first part is kind of easy. You can simply compare square millimeters of area. (Though some of you can probably think of at least one potential complexity with that, too.) But the second part — about lens comparability — is not so easy.
2. Let's say that you just love the 3:2 aspect ratio of full frame, but you would like to get that from the larger miniMF sensor. You could get a 3:2 Leica, but most folks aren't looking there — they are looking at the 4:3 miniMF sensors. You'll need to crop your 33x44 sensor image to about 29.33mm x 44mm. This means that your miniMF sensor doesn't give yo quite as much difference as you think if you go by, say, sensor area.
3. On the other hand, let's say you already like 4:3 (as I do) and you crop your full frame images to 4:3 or 24mmx32mm. For you (and me!) the size advantage of the miniMF sensor is actually larger, since you start with a smaller area on FF and can use the full area on miniMF.
I'm not recommending any single way of thinking of this over any other — just pointing out that the equivalence issue, even when limited to angle-of-view, is more varied and complex... precisely because the native aspect ratios are different.
