p.67 #1 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
karlfoto wrote:
Has anyone worked out how much movement you would get using a canon 17tse with this sensor using it in landscape orientation and the 5:4 ratio?
I worked it out [much] earlier in this thread for the native 4:3 ratio of the GFX. I can't find that post so I've worked it out again:
6mm max diagonal shift 7.2mm max horizontal shift 8.8mm max vertical shift
So you're getting over half of the original shift capacity of the lens! (as I've said before, the GFX sensor isn't that much bigger than full frame).
If you're interested in cropping the GFX image to 5:4, then the numbers are:
7.1mm max diagonal shift 8.5mm max horizontal shift 9.9mm max vertical shift
karlfoto wrote:
I am hoping that they design a smart adapter for this combo.
Godspeed the Canon EF aperture control adapter.
Feb 13, 2017 at 09:36 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.67 #2 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Matt Grum wrote:
I worked it out [much] earlier in this thread for the native 4:3 ratio of the GFX. I can't find that post so I've worked it out again:
6mm max diagonal shift 7.2mm max horizontal shift 8.8mm max vertical shift
So you're getting over half of the original shift capacity of the lens! (as I've said before, the GFX sensor isn't that much bigger than full frame).
If you're interested in cropping the GFX image to 5:4, then the numbers are:
7.1mm max diagonal shift 8.5mm max horizontal shift 9.9mm max vertical shift
Godspeed the Canon EF aperture control adapter.
The numbers looks right, Matt, but if I recall rightly the performance suffers a bit on both the Canon 17 and 24 TSE lenses as you approach the limits of the shift capability, so the practical amount of the shift may be less than the numbers. Some lenses, (the Zeiss C/Y 35 f/2.8 PC for example) have a bigger image circle, but performance really suffers as you approach the limits of the shift. The Zeiss C/Y 35 PC, has published MTFs and although it has a 62 inch image circle, it will just barely cover 55mm with the resolution I would like and even then will suffer a bit in the corners. It actually will be better as a landscape lens shooting 3 X 2 or a skinnier rectangle.
So I just read this article. And it's new to me. Usually I totally dismiss whatever Fuji marketing teams have to say about their "new sensors" compared to the competitors. However, if the Fuji GFX actually turns out to be the first 44x33 back side illuminated sensor my interest for the Fuji GFX just went up a notch. To my understanding Hassy has the conventional front-illuminated Sony 44x33 sensor. That could potentially give the GFX edge over X1D in terms of dynamic range and high ISO performance.
Feb 15, 2017 at 03:54 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.67 #4 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
So I just read this article. And it's new to me. Usually I totally dismiss whatever Fuji marketing teams have to say about their "new sensors" compared to the competitors. However, if the Fuji GFX actually turns out to be the first 44x33 back side illuminated sensor my interest for the Fuji GFX just went up a notch. To my understanding Hassy has the conventional front-illuminated Sony 44x33 sensor. That could potentially give the GFX edge over X1D in terms of dynamic range and high ISO performance.
The sensor is not back side illuminated, it just has miniaturized the circuits that go out of the sensor and put them on the back so the sensor takes up less size. It won't really affect image quality but it lets the camera be a little smaller. The micro lenses are the only thing that may help here. If they describe it accurately, then the micro lenses should reduce cross talk and perhaps improve colour and sharpness in the corners and edges at the expense of losing a bit of high ISO performance. Not a bad tradeoff with such a large sensor, but don't expect a big impact either way. I don't know what the special manufacturing process that increased dynamic range is but it sounds like marketing BS to me. I am skeptical about any claims there, but I do think the camera will have excellent dynamic range, but probably not really any better than others with the Sony sensor. The increase read out will help with AF a little, but still expect AF to be fairly slow. So, in my view, this whole piece is marketing hype. These changes result in a bit smaller camera than they would have had otherwise (but it still isn't small). A small change with better edge and corner resolution at the cost of a bit of high ISO performance. Hype with little substance about dynamic range, and slow but a bit faster AF.
p.67 #5 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
The sensor is not back side illuminated, it just has miniaturized the circuits that go out of the sensor and put them on the back so the sensor takes up less size. It won't really affect image quality but it lets the camera be a little smaller. The micro lenses are the only thing that may help here. If they describe it accurately, then the micro lenses should reduce cross talk and perhaps improve colour and sharpness in the corners and edges at the expense of losing a bit of high ISO performance. Not a bad tradeoff with such a large sensor, but don't expect a big impact either way. I don't know what the special manufacturing process that increased dynamic range is but it sounds like marketing BS to me. I am skeptical about any claims there, but I do think the camera will have excellent dynamic range, but probably not really any better than others with the Sony sensor. The increase read out will help with AF a little, but still expect AF to be fairly slow. So, in my view, this whole piece is marketing hype. These changes result in a bit smaller camera than they would have had otherwise (but it still isn't small). A small change with better edge and corner resolution at the cost of a bit of high ISO performance. Hype with little substance about dynamic range, and slow but a bit faster AF....Show more →
Ah, thanks. I think I was carried away by certain Facebook group which claimed GFX having a BSI Sensor. But now it makes more sense indeed. So it just means future 100MP BSI 44x33 are more than likely
So I just read this article. And it's new to me. Usually I totally dismiss whatever Fuji marketing teams have to say about their "new sensors" compared to the competitors. However, if the Fuji GFX actually turns out to be the first 44x33 back side illuminated sensor my interest for the Fuji GFX just went up a notch. To my understanding Hassy has the conventional front-illuminated Sony 44x33 sensor. That could potentially give the GFX edge over X1D in terms of dynamic range and high ISO performance.
I feel sorry for the people who have to write these marketing articles, they've given a list of things that are different about a specific camera have to make each one sound like it's an important technical accomplishment - take for example point number 1:
The GFX50s sensor has the terminals on the back instead of the sides to make the sensor assembly a bit smaller. This contributes to it being "probably is the smallest medium format camera with the shutter unit inside". Note how they have excluded the much thinner Hasselblad X1D from this comparison, purely because it lacks an FP shutter! This would make sense if the shutter was the only thing responsible for the GFXs increased depth, but that clearly isn't true. So they're making a huge deal about saving a small amount of space on the sensor assembly when clearly there was much more space they could have saved elsewhere.
Point 2 is also economical with the truth. Trading efficiency of microlenses with sharpness is just fine. But they then try and justify the reduced efficiency by stating the pixels are 1.7x larger than on 35mm full frame sensor (with the same resolution). This ignores the fact that (unless they release some groundbreakingly fast lenses) that for every focal/length aperture combo you shoot the GFX at, you could, without compromising DOF, shoot a 35mm camera with a 1.22x shorter focal length and 1.22x faster aperture, and capture exactly the same amount of light per pixel.
So the GFX doesn't have any sensitivity advantage based on the sensor size alone (unless they release some f/1.7 or faster lenses, which seems unlikely).
p.67 #7 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Yes, if the sensor was BSI both Fuji and Sony would be crowing pretty loud about it being the 1st MF sensor with BSI. It's interesting that the micro lenses have to a certain extent gone back in technology. Many of us can probably remember when Canon (?) came out with its 1st sensor with full pixel micro lenses. It will be interesting in testing to see whether their claims hold up for this.
p.67 #8 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
The sensor is not back side illuminated, it just has miniaturized the circuits that go out of the sensor and put them on the back so the sensor takes up less size. It won't really affect image quality but it lets the camera be a little smaller. The micro lenses are the only thing that may help here. If they describe it accurately, then the micro lenses should reduce cross talk and perhaps improve colour and sharpness in the corners and edges at the expense of losing a bit of high ISO performance. Not a bad tradeoff with such a large sensor, but don't expect a big impact either way....Show more →
Fuji's use of microlenses is potentially problematic for anyone who will be using the GFX with adapted lenses and/or with rise/fall/shift movements -- i.e., someone like me! -- because they require the light rays striking the sensor to be within a certain range of angularity and effectively vignette heavily whenever they're not.
I learned this lesson the hard way, when I used my Phase One P30+ back on my modified Toyo 23G view camera and/or with a modified Mamiya 50/4 PC lens on my Contax 645 body. I was generally okay using up to 7 mm of movement, either vertically or horizontally, with only very minimal vignetting, but by 10 mm, the vignetting was 100% black, even though there was plenty of image circle still available.
That Fuji is offering a view-camera adapter does suggest they might have successfully addressed this issue with the specific microlens setup used on the GFX's sensor, but we won't know this for certain until the reviews start rolling in...
Feb 15, 2017 at 10:50 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.67 #9 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Matt Grum wrote:
I feel sorry for the people who have to write these marketing articles, they've given a list of things that are different about a specific camera have to make each one sound like it's an important technical accomplishment - take for example point number 1:
The GFX50s sensor has the terminals on the back instead of the sides to make the sensor assembly a bit smaller. This contributes to it being "probably is the smallest medium format camera with the shutter unit inside". Note how they have excluded the much thinner Hasselblad X1D from this comparison, purely because it lacks an FP shutter! This would make sense if the shutter was the only thing responsible for the GFXs increased depth, but that clearly isn't true. So they're making a huge deal about saving a small amount of space on the sensor assembly when clearly there was much more space they could have saved elsewhere.
Point 2 is also economical with the truth. Trading efficiency of microlenses with sharpness is just fine. But they then try and justify the reduced efficiency by stating the pixels are 1.7x larger than on 35mm full frame sensor (with the same resolution). This ignores the fact that (unless they release some groundbreakingly fast lenses) that for every focal/length aperture combo you shoot the GFX at, you could, without compromising DOF, shoot a 35mm camera with a 1.22x shorter focal length and 1.22x faster aperture, and capture exactly the same amount of light per pixel.
So the GFX doesn't have any sensitivity advantage based on the sensor size alone (unless they release some f/1.7 or faster lenses, which seems unlikely).
Well your comments on point 2 are a bit misleading too. They don't take into account aspect ratio. If you want to shoot 4 X 3 or squarer as I often do, the numbers are better than that. Your number assume a crop of 3 X 2 or a skinnier rectangle, which is not what I typically want when shooting at fast apertures. Anyway, if you want an aspect ratio of 4 X 3 or squarer, then you need a 35MM FF lens with 1.37X faster aperture to gather as much light as a mini MF lens. That is almost a full stop (it would be a full stop if it was a ratio of 1.41X, i.e., the square root of 2). So let's say you are shooting a portrait in low light. The Fuji 110 f/2 will be almost identical in DOF and light gathering as an 80 f/1.4, but in much the same way that it is hard for a m4/3rds lens with an aperture of f/.095 to have the same level of quality as a 35mm FF lens at f/1.8, it will require a lot more correction of aberrations for the 80 f/1.4 lens on FF 35mm to have the level of quality of an 110mm f/2 lens on mini MF. As lenses get fast they gain more light, but the aberrations increase at a faster rate. So in practice you may need to get a very highly correct 85 f/1.4 on FF 35mm or stop down a bit to get the performance of a 110mm f/2 on mini MF. To be fair covering a larger image circle is harder for the mini MF lens, but I think it is fair to say that widening the aperture because of the exponential increase is aberrations is a bigger challenge for lens designers than widening the image circle.
p.67 #10 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
Well your comments on point 2 are a bit misleading too. They don't take into account aspect ratio.
My bad, I've been doing so many conversions recently I used the figure for 3:2 as that's what applies to me personally. However even if you use the 4:3 aspect ratio you still wind up with more light per pixel (assuming the same pixel count) with 35mm FF lenses at a lot of focal lengths.
Steve Spencer wrote:
in much the same way that it is hard for a m4/3rds lens with an aperture of f/.095 to have the same level of quality as a 35mm FF lens at f/1.8, it will require a lot more correction of aberrations for the 80 f/1.4 lens on FF 35mm to have the level of quality of an 110mm f/2 lens on mini MF
This is a very interesting point, I was talking about sensitivity alone (to keep things simple) but whilst there might not be an advantage in sensitivity three will be an advantage in sharpness and reduced optical aberrations, especially at longer focal lengths. This is actually where I think the medium format "look" comes from - the ability to switch an f/1.8 lens for f/2.8 and produce a cleaner looking image.
p.67 #11 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Lee Saxon wrote:
According to Amazon one of the built-in aspect ratios you can select is 65:24. Why would that be a thing??
There's a video in which a Fuji rep mentions that is the old Xpan aspect ratio and he basically said "Why not? It's still over 20 megapixels." I like that they're having fun with it.
p.67 #12 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Yes, that's the Xpan ratio. When I went to the GFX demo at my local Samy's yesterday, I mentioned how the graphite XP2 reminded me of the Xpan, and that was the Fuji rep's cue to show me the Xpan crop mode on the GFX. I agree that one can crop in post, but it's useful for visualizing the framing, and if you need SOOC JPEGs to look like that before you can get to a computer.
p.67 #13 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
I wonder if you can assign aspect ratio to one of the dials, to quickly scroll through them when composing? I won't use them for SS, aperture or ISO so.
p.67 #14 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Andre Y wrote:
Yes, that's the Xpan ratio. When I went to the GFX demo at my local Samy's yesterday, I mentioned how the graphite XP2 reminded me of the Xpan, and that was the Fuji rep's cue to show me the Xpan crop mode on the GFX. I agree that one can crop in post, but it's useful for visualizing the framing, and if you need SOOC JPEGs to look like that before you can get to a computer.
Agreed. One of my favourite features of the RX1(R/R2) is to be able to frame for a particular aspect ratio but then to make slight (or major) adjustments in post.
p.67 #15 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Andre Y wrote:
and if you need SOOC JPEGs to look like that before you can get to a computer.
Do you think this camera really have a use case for that? High pressure photojournalism is the only case I can think of and this clearly isn't the camera for that.
p.67 #16 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Lee Saxon wrote:
Do you think this camera really have a use case for that? High pressure photojournalism is the only case I can think of and this clearly isn't the camera for that.
There're also preliminary samples for a client or art director.
That is good news, but by Contax, I wonder what Contax mount. I assume Contax/Yashica, but I would also like to see Contax 645--I have my eye on a Zeiss 120 f/4 Macro APO in Contax 645. Still this is a good start. I hope Leica R comes soon, Lee, but some of the long OM lenses like the 180 f/2, 250 f/2, & 350 f/2.8 ought to be quite compelling on the GFX, and the 24 and 35 shift lenses might interest some people too.
