p.44 #1 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
RustyBug wrote:
I'd like to see an OVF / EVF ... but, I think they've already made their bed on this one and it'll be EVF all the way.
+1 @ tonality / gradation for larger pixels.
While very arcane by today's standards of higher ISO, etc. the colors / files of the SLR/C especially when used with the relaxed (rates of transition) optics of MF glass have had a diff that I've liked. In that regard, it may not be ONLY the larger sensor / larger pixels, but in concert with the optical projection associated with the larger image circle / distance to the film plane that render the files diff. Kinda like raising / lowering the head on an enlarger.
I tend to think that folks focus exceedingly on the pixels, sometimes forgetting the impact of the glass (and distance to the film plane @ closer vs. farther) @ the quality of the optical projection. For tonality / gradation ... relaxed and more distant glass seems to hold some benefit to tonality / gradation while faster transitioning and closer glass can yield the more contrasty vibe.
In your comparison of the Pentax 645 to the Sony A7R ... did you ever get a chance to use the same glass (i.e. adapted Pentax glass) on each?...Show more →
I have found that my Hasselblad S-Planar has a totally different look that I really like even adapted and with a huge flange distance. As you say 'relaxed' would describe it I think, it's definately different. You might be on to something here
p.44 #2 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
chez wrote:
Do you have any side by side samples you can post showing the difference between the two sensors?
You'll need side by side raws to see the difference. An 8 bit jpeg aint going to do it, unfortunately. The uncompressed raws from both are pretty big files to upload. I might have the tests I did buried away somwhere but I'm not sure if I kept them.
p.44 #3 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
flash wrote:
You'll need side by side raws to see the difference. An 8 bit jpeg aint going to do it, unfortunately. The uncompressed raws from both are pretty big files to upload. I might have the tests I did buried away somwhere but I'm not sure if I kept them.
Gordon
It would be great if you could dig something up that shows the difference. I'm hearing from you that there is quite a substantial difference, yet Guy indicates not so much. It would be good to see both yours and Guys evaluations.
p.44 #6 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Matt Grum wrote:
ISO 64 with an accompanied increase in dynamic range can mean only one thing: increased well depth (number of photons a pixel can receive before becoming saturated). The well depth is an intrinsic property of the sensor, it's not like Nikon found some clever way to tweak it for extra performance, so the credit belongs to Sony.
It sounds like the d810 sensor is a generation 4 Exmor:
"With the first [three] generations of Exmor technology addressing the pixel/sensor noise issue, it only seemed natural that the fourth generation Exmor technology addresses the NIR sensitivity by introducing deeper pixel wells to help capture these longer wavelengths. Not only do deeper pixel wells provide a higher dynamic range of pixel values that can be achieved, i.e. could capture and hold more electron data before saturating, it also increased the chances of detecting longer wavelength photons in the deep red to NIR range"
Whereas the A7RII sensor is a generation 5 Exmor R, which was based on generation 3:
"When Sony created their first sensors with the Exmor R technology, they based it on the third generation’s pixel well depth. Though these sensors showed a dramatic improvement in sensitivity and responsiveness in the visible spectrum, they did not have the same performance in the NIR spectrum as was previously seen with other Exmor fourth generation based sensors."...Show more →
Thanks for positing Matt. I did not know this. Sorry if I gave create to Nikon. I know they Sony the sensors but I didn't know if Nikon's electronics made the difference.
p.44 #8 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
rbf_ wrote:
Since they already have a hotshoe communication protocol for talking to the modular EVF I think they could do the same thing. The could perhaps put a loupe on it to have it extend back like on the EVF. I would like to see this myself
Yeah, I don't see any reason why it couldn't happen if there's a demand for it, and it may be Fuji's plan. The accessory EFV on a camera large enough to support a built in makes more sense, to me, anyway, if you're planning to have more than one accessory VF available in the long run.
p.44 #9 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
freaklikeme wrote:
Yeah, I don't see any reason why it couldn't happen if there's a demand for it, and it may be Fuji's plan. The accessory EFV on a camera large enough to support a built in makes more sense, to me, anyway, if you're planning to have more than one accessory VF available in the long run.
Yeah it would be a smart way to do it since they could have common body with VF options for people who wanted them. Keeps costs down and people wouldn't have to choose between two models like on the X series. The extra cost of the hybrid OVF/EVF is why the XP2 costs more than the XT2. I'm finding that I really like the OVF/EVF.
p.44 #10 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I created this comparison a while back which really puts the smaller size of this "mini" medium format sensor (dark blue below) in perspective, particularly when compared to traditional medium format sizes.
p.44 #12 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I don't think so. Even if that size sensor could physically be crammed into the mount, I suspect it would cause major issues optically.
This design works fine on all FF Sony mirrorless cameras:
Of course, when I say "fine", I really mean that they pushed the limit of the mount's intent, but it is possible non-the-less, and we still have other sensor sizes to consider like 37x49mm, which is what Hasselblad had on some of their cameras.
With such a short flange distance, getting a big-enough image circle is no problem, but having the light arrive parallel to the sensor is, so it remains to be seen how this pans out.
p.44 #13 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Kolor-Pikker wrote:
This design works fine on all FF Sony mirrorless cameras:
Of course, when I say "fine", I really mean that they pushed the limit of the mount's intent, but it is possible non-the-less, and we still have other sensor sizes to consider like 37x49mm, which is what Hasselblad had on some of their cameras.
With such a short flange distance, getting a big-enough image circle is no problem, but having the light arrive parallel to the sensor is, so it remains to be seen how this pans out.
I mean, that doesn't contradict what he said. Sticking with e-mount did cause Sony major problems. Corner issues with adapted lenses, not that they have the sense to care about that like they should. And it seems to be widely suspected that if the lenses hadn't had to be so telecentric they wouldn't be so gigantic as to defeat the point of having tiny cameras.
p.44 #14 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Lee Saxon wrote:
I mean, that doesn't contradict what he said. Sticking with e-mount did cause Sony major problems. Corner issues with adapted lenses, not that they have the sense to care about that like they should. And it seems to be widely suspected that if the lenses hadn't had to be so telecentric they wouldn't be so gigantic as to defeat the point of having tiny cameras.
The corner issues with adapted lenses have nothing to do with the mount.
One could also argue that the native lenses had to be telecentric to avoid corner issues anyway, so with a larger mount and smaller native lenses we would have ended up with corner issues with them as well.
p.44 #15 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Lee Saxon wrote:
Sticking with e-mount did cause Sony major problems. Corner issues with adapted lenses, not that they have the sense to care about that like they should. And it seems to be widely suspected that if the lenses hadn't had to be so telecentric they wouldn't be so gigantic as to defeat the point of having tiny cameras.
They could have made their lives slightly easier with a wider mount, but steep ray angles are fundamentally a problem with digital sensors.
They could have got better [but still less than perfect] performance with symmetrical wides but there was probably a desire to use the same sensor toppings as their DSLR sensors, and not take risks with thinner stacks (had the A7 been released with the same IR problems the M8 had it would have been costly for Sony).
p.44 #16 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Kolor-Pikker wrote:
This design works fine on all FF Sony mirrorless cameras
Those images are not 100% comparable as the Fuji flange distance is longer, also variations in the way the camera is photographed can make the overlap seem larger or smaller. What you want is a measurement of the mount inside diameter, which I can't find anywhere for the Fuji. For the A7, I've measured it to be 47mm, which is greater than the diagonal of the sensor (43mm). What you see obscuring the corners of the sensor is actually a piece of plastic well behind the mount which appears to serve no purpose. Additionally the part that is obscured does not appear to be part of the active area (it's part of the slightly different coloured border).
Even if the mount is physically compatible with a larger sensor, I still can't see it happening. Unlike Pentax, Fuji have no legacy lenses for their medium format offering and I very much doubt they are going to make lenses that are larger than they need to be if they're going for the lighter/cheaper niche. So if we see a larger sensor GFX then it will need a new lens line. This is essentially what happened with Sony and the A7 series, the difference here is that the medium format market is so much smaller hence I doubt it would make sense for Fuji to do this.
p.44 #19 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
This is a very interesting youtube and commentary regarding the latest on the target pricing of the GFX 50S. It is being suggested the pricing will be between 4,800 to 6,000 USD for the body alone. This will be cheaper than the Nikon D5 body
This marketing strategy would not surprise me, as Fuji has no presence within the FF market, and this would really up the ante in competition At this pricing level I am definitely interested.
p.44 #20 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
charles.K wrote:
This is a very interesting youtube and commentary regarding the latest on the target pricing of the GFX 50S. It is being suggested the pricing will be between 4,800 to 6,000 USD for the body alone. This will be cheaper than the Nikon D5 body
This marketing strategy would not surprise me, as Fuji has no presence within the FF market, and this would really up the ante in competition At this pricing level I am definitely interested.
Woah--that would be an impressive price. I wonder if Fuji announced the GFX, and is just watching and monitorig the reaction and chatter as influencing what they charge. That, and waiting to see how the market responds to other products (k-1, new photokina lenses, A99ii, etc.) from now till widespread availability to inform price and stratagy.
I am a bit surprised we haven't seen a fixed lenses mini-MF camera like the RX1/X100/Leica Q type before Hassy and Fuji announced their systems.
In your comparison of the Pentax 645 to the Sony A7R ... did you ever get a chance to use the same glass (i.e. adapted Pentax glass) on each?
