p.6 #1 · 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.
Dan, you are right in that the different aspect ratio's "feel" very different. I've always found that wide just does not feel as wide when one does the equivalency conversion, esp on 4x5, but the 1.3 multiplier is correct and in common use for 645. I use 1.33 just because. It should be noted also that only a very few 645 labeled digital products so far have ever actually used the surface area of film. So it gets kind of confusing (for me anyways) there is a 1.1 to a 1.3 crop factor on top of the nomally used 1.3.
but the way a medium format looks and feels is hard to quantify with a pure mathematical approach. I've heard is said how much the bokeh is less, but I think that is inacuarate on it's own. Medium format does not just have thinner dof, but the way objects fall out of focus is not linear in the same way as FF. The slope is more pronounces in my view and give a look that is unique (for better or worse).
A sixty megapixel FF will never look the same as a 60 megapixel 645. I find the difference pronounced and easy to feel. FF digital and 1.5 crop? Can't tell the difference in truth.
It's kind of like shooting Film and scanning it. It does not come close to the look of a wet print, no matter how you cook the FF chicken to be life medium format beef.
But Fuji is full of surprises. I consider them to be one of the two or three most innovative companies out there. That has me cautiously optimistic that this rumour is founded on some kind of reality and the we may have a new unique format to argue the merits of. Could Fuji have the panache to go where no one else has gone before. Hey it worked for Captain Kirk!
I'm starting the rumour that Fred Miranda is already a beta tester. He's out there, secretly taking the most amazing images ever with the prototype. And he knows it's gonna be "Killer". I mean, why else would he start this new Fuji Forum? Just because he's a nice guy?
p.6 #2 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Lets keep in mind that the long telephoto lenses that Nikon and Canon put out - don't sell in volume.
They give credibility and prestige, that is their main worth. Fuji was under no volume sales illusions when for all those many years they created arguably the very best heavy weight medium format monster. I've always had Hasselblad and mamiay back in the old medium format film days. Still have a 645. But I was always wanting the Fuji system, secretly. It has unique advantages for a decent price.
So this is not something that Fuji is without experience with. This is simply round two. Or it's just smoke.
p.6 #3 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
I think they view the APS-C market as much bigger and that as technology get's better it will be capable of satisfying the majority of photographers needs. But to do so they need to keep the X system true to what has made it successful, being small, high quality, fun to use and a very good value. It's easy to get into and just try out due to lower cost. Having a second product designed for photographers who have different priorities and requirements like as you say, dedicated studio & landscape photographers has some advantages. You can really tailor the design and tradeoffs of the system tailored to that smaller market and at that point why FF? Why not something a little bigger to have a potential quality edge? They can design all their own lenses just for that system just as they've done for the X system and have a newly designed high quality product targeted specifically for the high end. Then they do not have to worry about large segments of the market who would (according to them) be better served by the APS-C X system. Seems to be a divide and conquer strategy
p.6 #5 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Pavel wrote:
but the way a medium format looks and feels is hard to quantify with a pure mathematical approach. I've heard is said how much the bokeh is less, but I think that is inacuarate on it's own. Medium format does not just have thinner dof, but the way objects fall out of focus is not linear in the same way as FF. The slope is more pronounces in my view and give a look that is unique (for better or worse).
A sixty megapixel FF will never look the same as a 60 megapixel 645. I find the difference pronounced and easy to feel. FF digital and 1.5 crop? Can't tell the difference in truth....Show more →
I agree that MF — especially old-school real MF, with its much larger size — does have a different look. It can be subtle and it isn't critical in all kinds of photography, but we cannot deny that it is there. It may be a combination of higher system resolution (even with the same MP sensor) and the different ways that aperture and DOF play out.
As you write, 60 MP FF will never look the same as a 60MP 645.
However, the mini-MF systems are not really "645" — i.e. 6cm x 4.5cm. They are perhaps half that at 4.4cm x 3.3cm (usually described as 33mm x 44mm). There still is a difference, but it is even smaller than that between FF and true 645 (rather rare in digital backs, and super expensive!).
From what I've seen, the visible differences between 33 x 44 mini-MF and 24 x 36 full frame with the same MP is going to be pretty subtle! The main previous difference also incorporated a higher MP sensor — 51MP at a time when 36MP was the highest in full frame.
It is, as always, a bit of a game of pluses and minuses, a bit of this and a bit of that, and a balancing of contrasting elements, all against a backdrop of "how much will it really matter?" ;-)
- - -
Regarding the previous message, with its link to the "no x-trans" sensor rumor, I'm fine with that. In my view, the x-trans sensor is not really a big deal, and especially so with higher density sensors. It works fine, but I'm not convinced that the real world benefits are all that significant.
p.6 #6 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
You know, thinking about this realistically (tough to come down from the clouds, sometimes) I'd not be a customer of this MF thing. I'm enthusiastic about the possibility for others, and the growth of the reach of the Fuji brand, but as someone earlier alluded, everything is a compromise - and the current Fuji system is my perfect set of compromises. I kind of resisted that actually. Well, the engineering side of my brain did, but for me, there is something just right about the size, performance and feel in hand. Goldilocks knew it right away. "it just feels right" I had to take the long way to learn that - why ruin that groove with the next bit of "more".
I still hope Fuji does it. One thing to mention about large vs small sensor sizes (or film size) is that as the capture area increases - tilt shift lenses work more and more effectively. Med Format and two wide angle Tilt shift lenses later on ... The architecture crowd would be racing to Fuji. A few other segments as well. And this would be a system that would grow and perhaps in time sensors will get relatively cheaper, and so it may sow the seeds for things we can't imagine now - in ten years time. Groundwork for the future, perhaps? Besides; megapixels are sooo yesteday.
It could be a marvelous stride forward, even if not for us that are now content.
p.6 #7 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
IMHO the relatively small difference in IQ and look between FF and 44x33 is precisely why this would make sense for Fuji.
If they can pull this off, they would be able to keep their product line from being cluttered with FF, while gaining prestige and the bragging rights to claim better IQ than Sony, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and Leica FF. They can play off of the MF mystique without having to have a body or lenses that are hugely larger than FF.
The difference in surface area between APS-C and 44x33 is about 4x, a 2x crop factor - analogous to the step between m43s and FF. This 44x33 camera, in a way, allows their entire product line to leap from over everyone else in digitalland but boutique digital MF. Key to this is the pricing - about the same as high end FF, not too much higher - so it's seen as a competitor to FF rather than PhaseOne.
p.6 #8 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
arduluth wrote:
IMHO the relatively small difference in IQ and look between FF and 44x33 is precisely why this would make sense for Fuji.
If they can pull this off, they would be able to keep their product line from being cluttered with FF, while gaining prestige and the bragging rights to claim better IQ than Sony, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and Leica FF. They can play off of the MF mystique without having to have a body or lenses that are hugely larger than FF.
The difference in surface area between APS-C and 44x33 is about 4x, a 2x crop factor - analogous to the step between m43s and FF. This 44x33 camera, in a way, allows their entire product line to leap from over everyone else in digitalland but boutique digital MF. Key to this is the pricing - about the same as high end FF, not too much higher - so it's seen as a competitor to FF rather than PhaseOne. ...Show more →
I agree about the pricing and the likely target market being current high end FF users rather Phase One. And not being seen as a competitor to Phase is important to me so they will continue supporting X series with Capture One
p.6 #9 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Pavel wrote:
You know, thinking about this realistically (tough to come down from the clouds, sometimes) I'd not be a customer of this MF thing. I'm enthusiastic about the possibility for others, and the growth of the reach of the Fuji brand, but as someone earlier alluded, everything is a compromise - and the current Fuji system is my perfect set of compromises. I kind of resisted that actually. Well, the engineering side of my brain did, but for me, there is something just right about the size, performance and feel in hand. Goldilocks knew it right away. "it just feels right" I had to take the long way to learn that - why ruin that groove with the next bit of "more".
I still hope Fuji does it. One thing to mention about large vs small sensor sizes (or film size) is that as the capture area increases - tilt shift lenses work more and more effectively. Med Format and two wide angle Tilt shift lenses later on ... The architecture crowd would be racing to Fuji. A few other segments as well. And this would be a system that would grow and perhaps in time sensors will get relatively cheaper, and so it may sow the seeds for things we can't imagine now - in ten years time. Groundwork for the future, perhaps? Besides; megapixels are sooo yesteday.
It could be a marvelous stride forward, even if not for us that are now content.
I agree with much of this, and it expresses my "on the fence" position regarding whether or not I would get such a camera. 51MP full frame can produce truly excellent large prints, and the difference between them and mini MF 51MP sensors, while real, is also very small. (I've looked at carefully produce large prints at 30" x 40" made from both for comparison.)
if the sensor had more than 50 MP the mini-MF option would be a bit more appealing to me. At 50MP is will, no doubt, be very good. However, for my type of photography (at least the types done from the tripod, and where I anticipate the potential for very large prints) there are some downsides, mostly related to lenses in my case, since I use long lenses quite a bit.
I still am fascinated by how things are evolving and I'll be looking at whatever Fujifilm comes up with. And I'm cognizant of the fact that we have all underestimated Fujifilm in the past.
p.6 #10 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
gdanmitchell wrote:
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.
For landscape, product, and architectural photographers they could make the camera a flex body type with some decent movements. That's the ONLY thing that would make me interested. Give me something I can't already get from Nikon--lens movements with every lens.
p.6 #11 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
gdanmitchell wrote:
I agree with much of this, and it expresses my "on the fence" position regarding whether or not I would get such a camera. 51MP full frame can produce truly excellent large prints, and the difference between them and mini MF 51MP sensors, while real, is also very small. (I've looked at carefully produce large prints at 30" x 40" made from both for comparison.)
if the sensor had more than 50 MP the mini-MF option would be a bit more appealing to me. At 50MP is will, no doubt, be very good. However, for my type of photography (at least the types done from the tripod, and where I anticipate the potential for very large prints) there are some downsides, mostly related to lenses in my case, since I use long lenses quite a bit.
I still am fascinated by how things are evolving and I'll be looking at whatever Fujifilm comes up with. And I'm cognizant of the fact that we have all underestimated Fujifilm in the past.
I imagine they would be trying to differentiate the system by exploiting the shorter focal flange distance mirrorless can use to make relatively small high quality lenses for miniMF format. How they would compare size wise against FF lenses designed for a SLR focal flange I don't know. Perhaps even going retro back to some of the older MF designs and other differentiators that are more subjective.
p.6 #12 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Two23 wrote:
For landscape, product, and architectural photographers they could make the camera a flex body type with some decent movements. That's the ONLY thing that would make me interested. Give me something I can't already get from Nikon--lens movements with every lens.
Kent in SD
They could do some very interesting things once they have separated the product lines. Not have different models/formats be stepping stones to one final destination but rather different products designed for different use cases...
I once heard an executive say something that stuck with me, he said "All business models can be broken down into one of two types; bundling and unbundling".
p.6 #14 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Two23 wrote:
For landscape, product, and architectural photographers they could make the camera a flex body type with some decent movements. That's the ONLY thing that would make me interested. Give me something I can't already get from Nikon--lens movements with every lens.
Kent in SD
Hi Kent,
Even if Fuji only made the new camera without the ability to offer camera movements, it may be able to team up the camera with either the Cambo Actus or more likely the Cambo Actus db/db2 (providing the lenses could operate on manual and without the need for electrical contacts unless Cambo designed such a lens board similar to the one that they designed for the Canon EF system). Yes this would add some to the cost and weight but it would add dramatically to the capability of the system.
p.6 #15 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Time will tell, but I'd bet against anything too "tweaky" from Fujifilm, and bet on something more basic, especially since keeping the cost down is likely to be one of the goals. (But that GX680III photo is certainly sexy...)
p.6 #16 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
I am not particularly interested in super high resolutions, and after selling off my D800, have resisted the urge to move above 24MP again. What _would_ interest me from Fuji would be a 40-50MP Super CCD SR sensor, with amazing highlight handling and dynamic range. If the camera was compact, the ergonomics good, the lens range good and the price reasonable, I could imagine myself selling off a whole bunch of stuff to get my hands on one, and let's be honest, Fuji is a bit of a specialist in the four areas I named.
p.6 #17 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
carstenw wrote:
I am not particularly interested in super high resolutions, and after selling off my D800, have resisted the urge to move above 24MP again. What _would_ interest me from Fuji would be a 40-50MP Super CCD SR sensor, with amazing highlight handling and dynamic range. If the camera was compact, the ergonomics good, the lens range good and the price reasonable, I could imagine myself selling off a whole bunch of stuff to get my hands on one, and let's be honest, Fuji is a bit of a specialist in the four areas I named.
I was thinking about Fuji's Super CCD SR tech the other day as it seems Canon is now using a dual pixel technology which can be used to extract more highlight headroom form raws. It would be ironic if Canon, who has lagged far behind with regard to DR, all of a sudden ends up ahead.
p.6 #18 · 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.
Tarkiq, the smallest Medium format is 2.6 times larger in area compared to FF. The largest reduction I've seen (could have missed some old cameras) in the medium format digital world was a 1.3 crop. the math (done quick - so maybe someone can double check) would mean that in such a case the Fuji would be exactly double the sensor area.
p.6 #19 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
...it seems Canon is now using a dual pixel technology which can be used to extract more highlight headroom form raws. It would be ironic if Canon, who has lagged far behind with regard to DR, all of a sudden ends up ahead.
When it comes to photography equipment, especially in the faster moving field of digital gear, it is almost axiomatic that whoever is "ahead" on specs today will not be for long. These things swing back and forth, to the extent that switching to something because it is "ahead" today is often not a very good long term strategy.
p.6 #20 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
I may be wrong on this but I though I read, a long while back, that one major advantage to Fuji's X-trans sensor is that due to the extra green cels, so in effect less blue, it helps with "seeing" with less noise and is in some way a significant reason that black and white conversions look good. Any ideas on that scale?
