p.75 #1 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Makten wrote:
Why would they be more expensive if the volume is the same? I don't think the demand would be lower. The only reasons for 3:2 are historical, because of the width of 135 film.
Just look at MFT. With your argument the demand for such cameras would be very low. And if photographers demanded 3:2, why do almost all MF cameras use 4:3?
Hi Martin,
The 4:3 Ratio is the same as 4" X 5" or 8" X 10" which were basically the same proportions as the "Ideal Format" 6 X 7 cm MF film cameras like the Pentax 6 X 7, Mamiya 6 X 7 RB, RZ, and 7/7II cameras. These were often prefered for portraiture, studio, architecture and even for landscape by many Pro and amateur photograpers for the formats larger than the Leica 35mm 24mm X 36mm format. This was also in many cased the preferred propotion for publication in magazines, etc.
p.75 #2 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Makten wrote:
Why would they be more expensive if the volume is the same? I don't think the demand would be lower. The only reasons for 3:2 are historical, because of the width of 135 film.
Just look at MFT. With your argument the demand for such cameras would be very low.
Sony mirrorless cameras benefit from the same sensors being sold to manufacturers of DSLRs. Make them 4:3 and those sensors stop being sold to DSLRs, the volume goes down and the price goes up.
The case of M43rds is different as they were starting from scratch with a completely new format (with more than one manufacturer involved) and sensors which are intrinsically much cheaper. If a manufacturer wanted to offer a 4:3 version of an existing system then they would be starting with a small volume and therefore higher cost. They would also have to change the firmware to support the different aspect ratio, use a different screen for the EVF which would push the cost up further.
I'm also pretty sure demand would be lower even if the cost was the same. People on FM are fairly atypical - most people don't print their images, and screens have become progressively wider over time. At one point 5:4 monitors were the norm. Now it is pretty much impossible to even buy a 4:3 or even 3:2 LCD screen. The default ratio for most camera phones is 16:9 even though their sensors are generally 4:3, why? Because it fits better on the screen.
Makten wrote:
And if photographers demanded 3:2, why do almost all MF cameras use 4:3?
Mass market prefers 3:2. Full frame 35mm cameras are mass market. MF is a niche market where people are much more likely to print (or have their work appear in print), and it's considerably less price sensitive than the full frame market.
p.75 #4 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Matt Grum wrote:
4:3 is not the same as either 4" X 5" or 8" X 10" formats, both of which are 5:4 ratio.
4:3 is a lot less square than 7:6
Hi Matt,
The 4:3 ratio is not exactly a 5:4 ratio, but it is close as is the ideal format MF film cameras. That is the 4:3 ratio is a 1.333 ratio while the 5:4 ratio is a 1.25 ratio.
p.75 #5 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
naturephoto1 wrote:
The 4:3 Ratio is the same as 4" X 5" or 8" X 10" which were basically the same proportions as the "Ideal Format" 6 X 7 cm MF film cameras like the Pentax 6 X 7, Mamiya 6 X 7 RB, RZ, and 7/7II cameras. These were often prefered for portraiture, studio, architecture and even for landscape by many Pro and amateur photograpers for the formats larger than the Leica 35mm 24mm X 36mm format. This was also in many cased the preferred propotion for publication in magazines, etc.
Hi Rich!
As others have pointed out, it's not exactly the same. But yeah, the thought is sort of the same, namely getting as much area as possible from a certain image circle, while still not quite make it square.
I've used a few 6x7 cameras and I think that aspect ratio is just a tad "too square". But still much nicer than 3:2.
4:3 would be a happy medium that would let me compose most of my images without cropping at all.
I actually think I started to dislike 3:2 when I bought my first MF camera, a Fujica GM670, which is a 6x7 rangefinder. Suddenly I felt "at home", but I didn't realize why until later, when I got back to smaller formats.
Matt Grum wrote:
Sony mirrorless cameras benefit from the same sensors being sold to manufacturers of DSLRs. Make them 4:3 and those sensors stop being sold to DSLRs, the volume goes down and the price goes up.
The case of M43rds is different as they were starting from scratch with a completely new format (with more than one manufacturer involved) and sensors which are intrinsically much cheaper. If a manufacturer wanted to offer a 4:3 version of an existing system then they would be starting with a small volume and therefore higher cost. They would also have to change the firmware to support the different aspect ratio, use a different screen for the EVF which would push the cost up further.
I'm also pretty sure demand would be lower even if the cost was the same. People on FM are fairly atypical - most people don't print their images, and screens have become progressively wider over time. At one point 5:4 monitors were the norm. Now it is pretty much impossible to even buy a 4:3 or even 3:2 LCD screen. The default ratio for most camera phones is 16:9 even though their sensors are generally 4:3, why? Because it fits better on the screen.
Mass market prefers 3:2. Full frame 35mm cameras are mass market. MF is a niche market where people are much more likely to print (or have their work appear in print), and it's considerably less price sensitive than the full frame market....Show more →
While you have some good points, I don't buy the argument of same sensors in DSLR:s, since there are several camera manufacturers that use different sensors depending on what camera they are put in. I think it's mostly about "old habits". On the other hand, that should also go for MFT, which obviously sells well.
24x36 is by no means "mass market". Most people will never be even close to buying such expensive cameras. Also most professionals use FF, not MF since MF is too expensive even for them. So why would professionals only want 4:3 for MF but not smaller sensors? Makes no sense at all.
Oh, and I also hate the stupid 16:9 screen ratio. That comes from video, which I'm completely uninterested in. I'd love a modern 5:4 screen.
Mar 08, 2017 at 12:42 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.75 #6 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
naturephoto1 wrote:
Hi Steve,
I would definitely consider the Leica R 100mm f2.8 Apo-Macro-Elmarit if you wished to only have one Macro lens for both mounting a lens on the camera as well as for mounting on the Cambo Actus. That or the SK or the Rodenstock 120mm f5.6 LF macro lenses for useage on the Cambo Actus. My testing indicates that the Leica Apo-Macro-Elmarit has a huge image circle and should easily cover the 33mm X 44mm camera sensor. Even with only 20mm of working distance, when used with the Cambo Actus and the Leica R lens adapter (even though Cambo does not list it for usage with the GFX camera) it should provide sufficient rise, fall, and shift using the camera standard. The big question would be how much tilt and swing on the lens standard would the bellows allow when using this lens combination. This will require some testing. By the way for focusing the lens, you would adjust focus with the lens at infinity and would/could use the lens helicoid for the actual focusing. We just need to wait for someone to make the dumb Leica R to GFX adapter.
I do think the Leica R 100 AME will be a nice potential lens on the GFX, but as a macro for me it is a wider focal length than I would like. The 120 macros are already wider than I would like as I would really prefer a 135 or 150 for this format, but the ubiquity, excellence, and value of the 120s has really sucked me in. I may well go for the Schneider or Rodenstock large format ones as they are excellent, small, and have truly huge 120-150mm image circles depending one focal distance and aperture. They don't do very well by most accounts at infinity, however. What is attractive about the Mamiya 120 f/4 APO macro is that it is supposed to be both excellent (Jim Colwell here at FM has raved about his for years with excellent shots to back up his raves) and dirt cheap--you can get one for about $200. So from a value perspective it is very hard to beat. It would also be a very nice complement to the Schneider or Rodenstock as you could use it with a simple adapter (instead of the Cambo Actus) when you don't need shift or tilt. I am still interested in the Leica R 100 AME, though too, and I will probably get one at some point. I think for me it would be great to have as a portrait lens. It will have the FF 35mm equivalent of about a 75 f/2. It is very well corrected for color, and it would be sharp for sure even wide open everywhere except the corners and maybe even there. I like the bokeh of the lens too. It ought to be the MF equivalent of the Leica M 75 cron AA, and share a lot of rendering characteristics with that lens without essentially any field curvature. It should be fantastic for that purpose on the GFX in addition to being a macro lens.
Mar 08, 2017 at 02:04 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.75 #7 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Makten wrote:
This is interesting, because the only reason for me to get a larger sensor camera is that they are the only ones that have a native 4:3 aspect ratio (MFT is a bit too small). And since I crop almost every image from my a7 to 4:3 (24x32) or even squarer, the difference between FF and 33x44 isn't so small anymore.
Every single time I use a 50 mm lens, I wish for a tad more vertical angle of view and lesser horisontal AOV. I find normal lenses awful for that reason, while a ~55-60 mm lens on 33x44 would be fine.
But, it would be really silly to buy such an expensive camera just because of that. It's really too bad that all the "FF" cameras stick to 3:2. Don't understand why. If "professionals" like 4:3 on medium format, why the heck wouldn't they want it with smaller sensors? ...Show more →
I totally agree here and aspect ratio is a big reason I am getting the GFX, but I totally get that many people won't feel it is worth the investment. It is very expensive. One other advantage of 4 X 3 is that whether you go 4 X 5, which is what I use most or 3 X 2 you have essentially the same small penalty for cropping. It really is in between. With 3 X 2, if you want to go to 4 X 5 you end up with a pretty big crop and since I do that quite a bit I find 3 X 2 much less than optimal. I will still shoot some with that aspect ratio, but I know I prefer 4 X 3.
Mar 08, 2017 at 02:09 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.75 #8 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Random question here guys...anyone know if the CY 35 1.4 will work on the GFX? I see the Nikon 58G shot Charles posted...a slightly wider CY 35 1.4 with that rendering. Oh man.
I expect that it won't work well, but I don't know for sure. Here are the bad signs:
First it is pretty wide angle and wider angle lenses are less likely to have a wider image circle as wider image circles are tougher with these lenses. Even look at large format lenses, the wider lenses all have smaller image circles.
Second, both experience the the Zeiss MTFs suggest the image starts to deteriorate in the corners on FF 35mm. I really looks like the image circle barely makes it to the 43mm needed for FF 35mm. I don't think there is much chance it will make it to the 55mm needed to cover the mini MF sensor, and in any event a 26mm f/1.0 lens is probably way overkill for pretty much any application I can think of.
Mar 08, 2017 at 02:17 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.75 #9 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
adamdewilde wrote:
Awesome... I hope you get it sooner than you think!!
I look forward to your findings. And I'd be curious to know how lenses are sneakily larger than full frame.
Well I got the extra battery and the tilt/swivel adapter for the EVF today. Now if I can just get the camera I will be able to test some things out. I don't have a lot of hope for using FF 35mm lenses, but I will at least check out the lenses that I have. You need about a 9 or 10mm bigger image circle to fully cover the sensor, but if you crop to 4 X 5 the edge is actually just a bit closer that the FF 35mm corner, so any lens the covers the corners well in FF 35mm will at least get you to the long edge with good performance. Of course a lot of lenses don't cover the corners in FF 35mm very well (especially at wider apertures), so we can pretty much know they will not work well on the GFX. One's like the 50 cron AA that do cover the corners well on 35mm FF, the question will be how bad are they in the corners. Many lenses and the 50 cron AA may well be one of them will probably suck so bad in the corners with very bad vignetting that they won't be useable, but some will work as we have seen already. Based on what Rich has told us about the Leica R 100 AME, it seems very likely it will work well. In fact, it should be a lot like the 75 cron AA on a Leica M and may be even a bit better. It does have a long focus throw being a macro, so how that works will matter but the images will be excellent. If by some chance the 50 cron AA works for a 35 f/1.4 equivalent that together with the R 100 AME could make an excellent portrait combo on the GFX.
p.75 #10 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
I expect that it won't work well, but I don't know for sure. Here are the bad signs:
First it is pretty wide angle and wider angle lenses are less likely to have a wider image circle as wider image circles are tougher with these lenses. Even look at large format lenses, the wider lenses all have smaller image circles.
Second, both experience the the Zeiss MTFs suggest the image starts to deteriorate in the corners on FF 35mm. I really looks like the image circle barely makes it to the 43mm needed for FF 35mm. I don't think there is much chance it will make it to the 55mm needed to cover the mini MF sensor, and in any event a 26mm f/1.0 lens is probably way overkill for pretty much any application I can think of....Show more →
The first point is what I was thinking, but I didn't realize the second point. Thanks for the answer Steve. And yes, I would probably shoot it one stop down from WO. While there are lots of nice 35s, I really prefer 28 to 35, and the lens has such nice rendering. The way I am thinking about adapting, is corner performance on FF, but not really sure how solid for guide that is.
p.75 #11 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
Hi Rich,
I do think the Leica R 100 AME will be a nice potential lens on the GFX, but as a macro for me it is a wider focal length than I would like. The 120 macros are already wider than I would like as I would really prefer a 135 or 150 for this format, but the ubiquity, excellence, and value of the 120s has really sucked me in. I may well go for the Schneider or Rodenstock large format ones as they are excellent, small, and have truly huge 120-150mm image circles depending one focal distance and aperture. They don't do very well by most accounts at infinity, however. What is attractive about the Mamiya 120 f/4 APO macro is that it is supposed to be both excellent (Jim Colwell here at FM has raved about his for years with excellent shots to back up his raves) and dirt cheap--you can get one for about $200. So from a value perspective it is very hard to beat. It would also be a very nice complement to the Schneider or Rodenstock as you could use it with a simple adapter (instead of the Cambo Actus) when you don't need shift or tilt. I am still interested in the Leica R 100 AME, though too, and I will probably get one at some point. I think for me it would be great to have as a portrait lens. It will have the FF 35mm equivalent of about a 75 f/2. It is very well corrected for color, and it would be sharp for sure even wide open everywhere except the corners and maybe even there. I like the bokeh of the lens too. It ought to be the MF equivalent of the Leica M 75 cron AA, and share a lot of rendering characteristics with that lens without essentially any field curvature. It should be fantastic for that purpose on the GFX in addition to being a macro lens....Show more →
Hi Steve,
From my findings with my SK 120mm f5.6 Makro Symmar HM lens it appears to perform well at or near infinity. I have taken some images with the lens on my Leica R Bellows and my A7r as well as with my Actus with the lens and my A7r but I am having trouble recognizing the images since no lens information was recorded with the images. I will try to take some images shortly out my rear door again with the lens and my Cambo Actus with my A7r. Be aware, I have and would intend to use the lens at f11 since it would normally be at its best performance on a 4" X 5" lens shot at about f22 at near infinity (recommended f16 at 1:4 and f8 at 1:1 for 4" X 5" according to SK). But, at f11 it should be near the sweet spot for the digital sensor before getting into much diffraction. By the way the lens should have image circle of about 125mm at infinity.
p.75 #12 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Matt Grum wrote:
however which manufacturer would announce a camera body which was compatible with "most" of their lenses, with no simple way of determining which lenses would not work.
That's the situation with current Canon lenses and bodies and AF point functionality, especially with teleconverters. There are lists of lenses that are compatible with what bodies for this and that point / f-stop.
Or the situation with the mix of FE and E-mount lenses that can be mounted FE cameras. Certain lenses only cover crop mode but all lenses "work" with the body.
I do agree however that the cost of a 36x33mm sensor would basically make it a MF camera cost wise, and then why not go MF anyway.
p.75 #13 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
Well I got the extra battery and the tilt/swivel adapter for the EVF today. Now if I can just get the camera I will be able to test some things out. I don't have a lot of hope for using FF 35mm lenses, but I will at least check out the lenses that I have. You need about a 9 or 10mm bigger image circle to fully cover the sensor, but if you crop to 4 X 5 the edge is actually just a bit closer that the FF 35mm corner, so any lens the covers the corners well in FF 35mm will at least get you to the long edge with good performance. Of course a lot of lenses don't cover the corners in FF 35mm very well (especially at wider apertures), so we can pretty much know they will not work well on the GFX. One's like the 50 cron AA that do cover the corners well on 35mm FF, the question will be how bad are they in the corners. Many lenses and the 50 cron AA may well be one of them will probably suck so bad in the corners with very bad vignetting that they won't be useable, but some will work as we have seen already. Based on what Rich has told us about the Leica R 100 AME, it seems very likely it will work well. In fact, it should be a lot like the 75 cron AA on a Leica M and may be even a bit better. It does have a long focus throw being a macro, so how that works will matter but the images will be excellent. If by some chance the 50 cron AA works for a 35 f/1.4 equivalent that together with the R 100 AME could make an excellent portrait combo on the GFX....Show more →
The 90/2 Summicron-R from what I heard will cover mini medium format.
Mar 08, 2017 at 03:27 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.75 #14 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
nehemiahphoto wrote:
The first point is what I was thinking, but I didn't realize the second point. Thanks for the answer Steve. And yes, I would probably shoot it one stop down from WO. While there are lots of nice 35s, I really prefer 28 to 35, and the lens has such nice rendering. The way I am thinking about adapting, is corner performance on FF, but not really sure how solid for guide that is.
One lens you should really consider is the Zeiss C/Y 35 f/2.8 PC lens. This is Zeiss' shift lens and it does have a big enough image circle for sure--it is 62mm. If you look at the MTF, however, the performance starts to degrade at the edge of the image circle, but it should be quite nice on the GFX if you don't use any tilt or shift. Other strong options would be the Pentax 645 35 f/3.5 A (the manual focus one). The Pentax is pretty reasonably priced too at about $600 to $700. You might consider the Mamiya 645 35 f/3.5 as well. I have seen mixed things about it, but it is dirt cheap so even if you just got it as a stop gap until Fuji makes something that wouldn't be the worst idea. You might also consider the Olympus OM 35 f/2.8 PC as it has always been a nice performer on FF 35mm and it is fairly small and fairly inexpensive.
If you are willing to spend quite a bit the Hassy 40 f/4 CFE IF is really top notch, but you will pay a lot for it. I went for the Hassy but mainly because I wanted a tilt/shift option at this focal length and there aren't many lenses that will provide that, so I was willing to fork over the dough. Based on calculations and info sent to me by Cambo, I don't think any of the large format 35 or 40mm view camera lenses will work with the Cambo Actus, so if you want tilt/shift you will probably have to go with 6 X 6 lenses (like the Hassy) or 6 X 7 lenses. I may be the only one who cares about that, however.
p.75 #15 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
One's like the 50 cron AA that do cover the corners well on 35mm FF, the question will be how bad are they in the corners. Many lenses and the 50 cron AA may well be one of them will probably suck so bad in the corners with very bad vignetting that they won't be useable, but some will work as we have seen already.
There's a bigger potential problem I see with the cron AA and other M mount lenses and that's the flange distance is only 1.1mm longer than the G mount, meaning the adapter is going to have to be very thin. The G mount is a bit wider than the M mount so it may be possible. For lenses without an FLE a there is the option of a thicker adapter and loss of infinity focus...
p.75 #16 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
sorry if this is off topic but does anyone think there will be an adapter for the mamiya rz- or rb lens. would love to put these to use on the gfx?
Mar 08, 2017 at 04:57 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.75 #17 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
adamdewilde wrote:
The 90/2 Summicron-R from what I heard will cover mini medium format.
That will be an interesting option and I had that lens for a long time and liked it very much. Still I like my M 90 cron AA quite a bit better. I will have to see if the cron AA covers the image circle as well. The R 100 AME still might be the one I go for as I have always liked the rendering of the lens and the lack of aberrations. Thanks for the information about the 90 R cron Pre-AA that is very interesting.
Mar 08, 2017 at 05:45 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.75 #18 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Matt Grum wrote:
There's a bigger potential problem I see with the cron AA and other M mount lenses and that's the flange distance is only 1.1mm longer than the G mount, meaning the adapter is going to have to be very thin. The G mount is a bit wider than the M mount so it may be possible. For lenses without an FLE a there is the option of a thicker adapter and loss of infinity focus...
Well Fotodiox is supposedly making the adapter. I don't think it will be a big problem as the diameter of even the biggest M mount lenses I believe is smaller than the throat of the GFX so they could inset the mount just a bit. Even 1mm of inset would be enough as the 1.1mm is not that different from the 1.46mm between EF and M42 and those adapters work well. We'll see, but I don't think it will be a problem.
p.75 #19 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
naturephoto1 wrote:
Hi Martin,
The 4:3 Ratio is the same as 4" X 5" or 8" X 10" which were basically the same proportions as the "Ideal Format" 6 X 7 cm MF film cameras like the Pentax 6 X 7, Mamiya 6 X 7 RB, RZ, and 7/7II cameras. These were often prefered for portraiture, studio, architecture and even for landscape by many Pro and amateur photograpers for the formats larger than the Leica 35mm 24mm X 36mm format. This was also in many cased the preferred propotion for publication in magazines, etc.
Rich
All the square format photographers are rolling in their graves right now.
p.75 #20 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Matt Grum wrote:
There's a bigger potential problem I see with the cron AA and other M mount lenses and that's the flange distance is only 1.1mm longer than the G mount, meaning the adapter is going to have to be very thin. The G mount is a bit wider than the M mount so it may be possible. For lenses without an FLE a there is the option of a thicker adapter and loss of infinity focus...
If "professionals" like 4:3 on medium format, why the heck wouldn't they want it with smaller sensors?