p.7 #1 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Pavel wrote:
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.
If you are talking about digital MF, I don't think that is quite right.
864 square millimeters for 24mm x 36mm full frame
1452 square millimeters for 33mm x 44mm mini MF
If I'm right, that is about a 1.6x area relationship
Perhaps a more meaningful way to compare might be to look at edge lengths, either horizontal or vertical.
vertical: 1.375
horizontal: 1.22
If you compare "useful area" and prefer one or the other aspect ratios, things can become even more complicated.
As I wrote earlier, it isn't easy to come up with a single value to describe the relationships between sensors/formats with different aspect ratios.
One way to think about it is that two stitched vertical full frame images are roughly equivalent to a singe horizontal mini MF frame.
p.7 #4 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
the actual used area of 645 film is 56x42, and 56x56 on the Hassy. Varied a bit film to film.
I really like the more square format of 645 until I get to wide angle where I like the 35mm 2x3 ratio. Can't we finally have it all?
Checking Phase one's specs there are three backs with a 1.3 crop factor and sensors at ~ 44x33 and six backs at ~ 53.7x40, so there is a wide range of possibilities. Interestingly Phase one says that the 54x40 is a 1x factor, and 2.5 times the size of the old mini format 35.
p.7 #6 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
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.7 #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.7 #11 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
The 44x33 sensor is appreciably bigger than the 135 FF. This becomes particularly evident when you make a pano with both using the same lens and bellows unit. The problem that cameras like this potential Fuji and Hassy X1D address is rightsizing the camera and lenses for the sensor. Hassy and Mamiya/Phase design everything with the 70mm IC in mind for their SLRs, so using the 44x33 sensor with those cameras and lenses would be akin to dropping a M4:3 sensor in a 1DXII and using nothing but slow FF lenses on it. Going mirrorless has a lot of things to offer MF digital, and cameras like the X1D are one of them. They offer a way to baby-step into MF digital for those who are interested at prices that don't force a second mortgage.
To my mind, from the looks of the body, Hassy got a lot right with the X1D, even though it lacks a focal plane shutter. Good overall size, good grip size and shape, enough fingertip room between the mount and grip, not enough buttons for my taste, but I'm sure I could figure out a way to use it if I was motivated enough and could use the lenses I want to use. Because that's where I think Hassy went wrong, in both the focal length choice and the speeds. A 30/2.8, 55/2 and 110/2.8 would've generated a lot more initial excitement and kept people satisfied while they continued to build on the system because those would be very easy, very familiar focal lengths for people on that size sensor.
If Fuji actually does this, I'm betting the initial lenses will be a bit more exciting in specs. They do an excellent job designing specifically for the APSC-sized sensor, so I'm betting we'll see the same care go into a mini-MF lens.
p.7 #14 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
gdanmitchell wrote:
Actually, there is no single "medium format" size — it varied up to size quite a bit larger than this on film.
You should go edit the wikipedia page for 120 film then--make the world a more accurate place for all of us.
p.7 #15 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
MAubrey wrote:
You should go edit the wikipedia page for 120 film then--make the world a more accurate place for all of us.
I had looked at a "medium format" page there earlier, but the "120 frames sizes" chart on the page you mention illustrates what I was writing about. (I stand corrected on the actual size of so-called 4.5 x 6cm — the chart says that nominal size is 56 × 41.5. The first new thing I'll learn today! :-) )
In any case, it is an interesting chart, and many here might enjoy reading it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_film. There are two primary variations — the aspect ration and whether the long edge of the frame is oriented with the line side parallel to the direction of film travel or across it.
If the latter is the case, the long size is limited to 56mm since the film width is 60mm. This gives, for example the familiar square 6 x 6 format that is 56mm square, and the slightly smaller 645 format. (One advantage of the 645 is that it fits more images on a roll of film.)
When the former is the case, the 56mm measurement is on the short dimension (the "height" in landscape mode) of the image and the width can be huge —from 67mm all the way up to the panoramic 224mm of 6 x 24. (I don't know anyone who used that, though I do know people who used 6 x 17.)
My own experience with these formats was a long time ago. The first cameras I used shot 120 film, and I believe that the very first (a foldable bellows camera) likely used the 645 format. Later I used the TLR cameras from (mostly) Yashica and (rarely, and when I was lucky) Rollei — they used the 6 x 6 square format. Yes, we actually were OK with the idea of getting about a dozen shots or a few more before changing film.
On that subject, a friend of mine shot 4 x 5 (that's inches, non millimeters) for decades until he moved to a Phase One back some years ago. He felt that this transformed his photography in some remarkable ways, at least partially as a result of getting what seemed like unlimited images. He was able to produce photographs of subjects that he rarely tried to shoot when he was limited to the amount of film he could carry, including some remarkable photographs of moving water in the High Sierra.
Note that the 56mm 41.5mm "645" format is the smallest in the chart... and that it is a lot larger than the digital mini MF 33mm x 44mm size.
p.7 #16 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
I pretty much agree with what Dan is saying, especially in respect to how significant the aspect ratio can be. For me I've always found that it affects,strongly, the wide angle lenses especially. it does not however change the conversion factor of the lenses. They are traditionally calculated on the diagonal. That leaves us with the reality that was if there were two FF systems (or any other) with different aspect ratios we would use the same lens multipliers to get an apporximation of what a certain focal length would have as angle of view, but two 21, or 55 equivalent lenses would give us images that feel very different. Why could not "they" have picked angle of view in the ancient days of photography - and confuse us a lot less now?
I feel it should be noted, because it is more significant to us nowadays, that 645 vs the larger medium format choices is not only about sensor (film size) it completely determines the lens and system size. That is stating the obvious - but a 645 rather than a 6x7, is really a completely different intent. Towards that, and seeing that we are used to keeping track of multiplier (or crop) conversions in our heads anyways - I actually hope fuji goes with the smallest available med format choice. That would hopefully "right size it" and give options of say F 2.8 rather that 3.5 or 4.0 as a maximum apperture while still not requiring a sherpa. I mean, they sort of got it perfect in the middle there between FF and M43. FF is yesterdays standard, just like MF was for my grandfather. Now I feel it is too large. It's glory simply in that it is the largest of the tini formats. m43 is kind of too small. I often wish Olympus and Panasonic would provide the missing accessory. A tootpick. It would help with those buttons. And the half button on my OM-D ... that is Kafkaesque. No, Fuji did it "just right".
the 44x33 or so smallest option on MF, would possibly be the "just right" option - except for those that always want more for the sake of more. Or is that most of us?
p.7 #17 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Pavel wrote:
I pretty much agree with what Dan is saying, especially in respect to how significant the aspect ratio can be. For me I've always found that it affects,strongly, the wide angle lenses especially. it does not however change the conversion factor of the lenses. They are traditionally calculated on the diagonal. That leaves us with the reality that was if there were two FF systems (or any other) with different aspect ratios we would use the same lens multipliers to get an apporximation of what a certain focal length would have as angle of view, but two 21, or 55 equivalent lenses would give us images that feel very different. Why could not "they" have picked angle of view in the ancient days of photography - and confuse us a lot less now?
I feel it should be noted, because it is more significant to us nowadays, that 645 vs the larger medium format choices is not only about sensor (film size) it completely determines the lens and system size. That is stating the obvious - but a 645 rather than a 6x7, is really a completely different intent. Towards that, and seeing that we are used to keeping track of multiplier (or crop) conversions in our heads anyways - I actually hope fuji goes with the smallest available med format choice. That would hopefully "right size it" and give options of say F 2.8 rather that 3.5 or 4.0 as a maximum apperture while still not requiring a sherpa. I mean, they sort of got it perfect in the middle there between FF and M43. FF is yesterdays standard, just like MF was for my grandfather. Now I feel it is too large. It's glory simply in that it is the largest of the tini formats. m43 is kind of too small. I often wish Olympus and Panasonic would provide the missing accessory. A tootpick. It would help with those buttons. And the half button on my OM-D ... that is Kafkaesque. No, Fuji did it "just right".
the 44x33 or so smallest option on MF, would possibly be the "just right" option - except for those that always want more for the sake of more. Or is that most of us? ...Show more →
What's wrong with the current full frame systems? They have very fast glass, produce outstanding images and are fully developed including niche lenses and flash systems. What are you expecting to gain from a mini medium format system that today's full frame assortments cannot give you?
With my film cameras, I jumped directly to 6x9 and 4x5 as those formats give me abilities to print much larger from film than with 35mm formats...but I really don't see needing a mini medium format system in order to print larger than with say an A7R2 or 5dsr.
Just curious what people see this mini medium format will bring that cannot be purchased today.
p.7 #18 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
What I like about the (what I'll call) "mini-MF" format (I don't think we should call it 645!) is that...
- compared to crop formats it is probably a significant difference for those who can use the extra system resolution.
- compared to traditional (larger) film MF formats, it allows smaller and lighter gear.
- compared to film MF it can produce system resolution and other qualities that at least equal or perhaps exceed MF film.
Yes, there still is a difference based on the size of the format and it can make a difference in some uses. The difference, however, is quite subtle and in most cases it really isn't significant. It will matter to some and matter less or not at all to others. YMMV.
And, yes, full frame digital (24mm x 36mm) is capable of producing really excellent results and quite large print sizes, too. That is going to be the issue for me when I consider new digital mini-MF offerings. As I've written many times over the past few years, for my photography there could be both pluses and minuses in using the larger mini-MF systems and, as always, I'll have to do some careful thinking about whether or not the advantages outweigh the disadvantages for me.
Nonetheless, I'm pleased to see that digital image technology continues to evolve and advance and that options once thought to be out of the reach of most photographers (at one time this was full frame and more recently it has been MF) are increasingly available options.
We'll see...
Dan
Pavel wrote:
I pretty much agree with what Dan is saying, especially in respect to how significant the aspect ratio can be. For me I've always found that it affects,strongly, the wide angle lenses especially. it does not however change the conversion factor of the lenses. They are traditionally calculated on the diagonal. That leaves us with the reality that was if there were two FF systems (or any other) with different aspect ratios we would use the same lens multipliers to get an apporximation of what a certain focal length would have as angle of view, but two 21, or 55 equivalent lenses would give us images that feel very different. Why could not "they" have picked angle of view in the ancient days of photography - and confuse us a lot less now?
I feel it should be noted, because it is more significant to us nowadays, that 645 vs the larger medium format choices is not only about sensor (film size) it completely determines the lens and system size. That is stating the obvious - but a 645 rather than a 6x7, is really a completely different intent. Towards that, and seeing that we are used to keeping track of multiplier (or crop) conversions in our heads anyways - I actually hope fuji goes with the smallest available med format choice. That would hopefully "right size it" and give options of say F 2.8 rather that 3.5 or 4.0 as a maximum apperture while still not requiring a sherpa. I mean, they sort of got it perfect in the middle there between FF and M43. FF is yesterdays standard, just like MF was for my grandfather. Now I feel it is too large. It's glory simply in that it is the largest of the tini formats. m43 is kind of too small. I often wish Olympus and Panasonic would provide the missing accessory. A tootpick. It would help with those buttons. And the half button on my OM-D ... that is Kafkaesque. No, Fuji did it "just right".
the 44x33 or so smallest option on MF, would possibly be the "just right" option - except for those that always want more for the sake of more. Or is that most of us? ...Show more →
p.7 #19 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
chez wrote:
What's wrong with the current full frame systems? They have very fast glass, produce outstanding images and are fully developed including niche lenses and flash systems. What are you expecting to gain from a mini medium format system that today's full frame assortments cannot give you?
With my film cameras, I jumped directly to 6x9 and 4x5 as those formats give me abilities to print much larger from film than with 35mm formats...but I really don't see needing a mini medium format system in order to print larger than with say an A7R2 or 5dsr.
Just curious what people see this mini medium format will bring that cannot be purchased today....Show more →
Chez ... I was just going over the top a bit (a lot?) ... nothing wrong with 35 at all. Choices. I was alluding to how once 35 was regularly denigrated as a "mini" format (gives my age away .. actually my fathers era, more) and look how convenience always leads the market.
No, 35 FF is great. I preffer the tradeoffs of APS personally and so it makes me doubly hypocritical ( or self delusional) even thinking how great this would be - but mostly I think it would be marvelous to have choice, whether it's for me or not, is hardly important. For some people, assuming the system is similarly good and similarly unique, as the Fuji APS - and more affordable that MF currently is ... we all win big time, even if we chose to shoot with M43.
So I was being sarcastic towards the older days ... but didn't do it well.
I do think however that the genius of this could be that the Market for 35 is well saturated and MF, affordable MF is a new playing field. That is a lot of ifs of course - but we can day dream.
one last point ... is that for some of us ... it's not AT ALL, about printing. I don't print except in my darkroom. Digital has stayed in binary, more by lazyness than intent, but still - I and many others don't really print. The megapixels are not my need then - I get by great as I need about 2.5 good megapixels. What I DO, really enjoy about stepping up two sizes from APS is the completely different look. MF is bokeh-licious! There is, I feel a much larger step from FF to 645 that APS to 35. I do still of course have a Nikon D3 and a bunch of lenses ... as well as three M43 bodies. But somehow Fuji is what I seem to always pick up. It's not logical. Hey, logic dulls the important senses!
p.7 #20 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Pavel wrote:
Chez ... I was just going over the top a bit (a lot?) ... nothing wrong with 35 at all. Choices. I was alluding to how once 35 was regularly denigrated as a "mini" format (gives my age away .. actually my fathers era, more) and look how convenience always leads the market.
No, 35 FF is great. I preffer the tradeoffs of APS personally and so it makes me doubly hypocritical ( or self delusional) even thinking how great this would be - but mostly I think it would be marvelous to have choice, whether it's for me or not, is hardly important. For some people, assuming the system is similarly good and similarly unique, as the Fuji APS - and more affordable that MF currently is ... we all win big time, even if we chose to shoot with M43.
So I was being sarcastic towards the older days ... but didn't do it well.
I do think however that the genius of this could be that the Market for 35 is well saturated and MF, affordable MF is a new playing field. That is a lot of ifs of course - but we can day dream. ...Show more →
Pavel, I quoted you in my post, but I'm directing it at all. Just very curious what people see a mini medium format camera with limited system can deliver that today's full frame systems cannot? Is it just the novelty of medium format or do people actually see a need for it?
