gdanmitchell wrote:
Their focus on the ostensible "experience" of the gear is mixed blessing, isnt' it.
On the plus side, for those of us who like the old-school non-PASM interface (and I know you are on th e other side of that one, Jack) and the little "Fujicron" lenses, the XPro hybrid viewfinder, and similar stuff this has some benefits.
At the same time, it also makes them susceptible to focusing on some stuff that raises a few eyebrows: the downgrading of the XPro3 with that little square screen, the addition of gimmicks like sims dials, and a few other things like missing the mark. with the XH-1 release timing and integration, odd little bits and pieces (like the gigantic metal hood on the old 60mm macro, and the oddball foot on the excellent 50-140mm f/2.8, etc, and — in my view — the strange set of focal lengths on GFX-series zooms.)
Lots of brilliant ideas come out of Fujifilm — the creation of a less-expensive miniMF camera system, the revitalization of the small fixed lens cameras, the XPro hybrid viewfinder, the excellent small primes for the x-trans bodies, etc. But I often feel like there are gaps in their thinking about how it all fits together as a system.
(PS: Photography was already awesome. ;-) )...Show more →
I think the apology was intended to be fun. I got a chuckle out of it. I appreciate people, and companies, that can laugh at themselves. That’s how I took it.
Agree with your view on Fuji’s focus on experience. Frankly, the X-T1 interface is what drew me over from Nikon DSLRs. The interface was fun. As a hobbyist, I appreciated it.
I’m on record here and elsewhere saying the Film Sim dial was a mistake when the X-E5 was announced. Now that I’ve had the body a while, it actually is fun and adds another dimension to MY experience. Fuji pushed me out of my traditional exposure triangle workflow and made me look at things a bit differently. I would probably have never done that if that silly dial wasn’t in front of me.
So yeah, I agree Fuji misses on some things and hits on others. But why is everyone trying to look for hidden meaning in a silly and amusing post?
JadedWriter wrote:
Yes because Fuji's AF is utterly unusable:
At least I never said it is unusable! It is unreliable. But that doesn't exclude sharp images taken with Fuji cameras. Fuji needs to look at the tendency to "jump" between distances when focusing several times in a row or missing the actual focus point with lenses 23mm and wider, in particular when stopped down. And keep AF from focusing beyond infinity.
Jack Flesher wrote:
I think this marketing piece explains a lot of why Fuji releases the incremental updates they do, with less focus on usable assets like eyeball sticky AF...
Pretty funny ad!!! Really underscores the reasons Fuji is so popular these days.
Honestly I doubt I'd have issues iq wise even using 16mp, nice to see them focusing on something besides tech specs. Even older cameras are pretty good anymore in that regard imo
AmbientMike wrote:
Pretty funny ad!!! Really underscores the reasons Fuji is so popular these days.
Honestly I doubt I'd have issues iq wise even using 16mp, nice to see them focusing on something besides tech specs. Even older cameras are pretty good anymore in that regard imo
I thought it was a great ad, I am sure the pixel peepers and measurebators did not like it..
Geoff D F wrote:
Dan, I'm finding your constant reference to digital medium format as "miniMF" rather amusing. Over the weekend I looked through a photography book from the 1980s which constantly referred to 35mm cameras as "mini" film cameras!
In olden times 135 was a "miniature format" compared to 120 and larger at the time. By the 80s we had a bunch of sub-miniature formats already like Minox, 16mm, 110, and even Disc.
Fuji GFX uses a smaller sensor (33x44mm) than traditional 645 (~42x56mm), 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 6x12, 6x17, etc., so calling it "mini medium format" is appropriate.
EB-1 wrote:
In olden times 135 was a "miniature format" compared to 120 and larger at the time. By the 80s we had a bunch of sub-miniature formats already like Minox, 16mm, 110, and even Disc.
Fuji GFX uses a smaller sensor (33x44mm) than traditional 645 (~42x56mm), 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 6x12, 6x17, etc., so calling it "mini medium format" is appropriate.
EBH
disagree, as there is no larger format in digital. In the film days there were a lot of different formats all the way up to 8x10.
There is no mini medium in digital, that has got to be the dumbest name I have heard.
Creative Edge wrote:
disagree, as there is no larger format in digital. In the film days there were a lot of different formats all the way up to 8x10.
There is no mini medium in digital, that has got to be the dumbest name I have heard.
What about the 40x53mm MF Phase One sensors like with Hasselbald? I suppose we need a format name for the 33x44mm frame but it is not the largest.
EB-1 wrote:
What about the 40x53mm MF Phase One sensors like with Hasselbald? I suppose we need a format name for the 33x44mm frame but it is not the largest.
EBH
absolutely right, I forgot about that sensor. That one would be large format digital as it is the largest sensor, then the 33x44 would be medium format..
Forgot to add, back in the film days, where you had 6x9, 6x7, 6x6 and 645, no one called 645 mini medium...
EB-1 wrote:
What about the 40x53mm MF Phase One sensors like with Hasselbald? I suppose we need a format name for the 33x44mm frame but it is not the largest. EBH
That one is pretty easy. It is nominally the same as the 41.5mm x 56mm area of the 645 film MF, which is probably why Phase One chose to make it that size. If a true digital equivalent to film medium format exists, it would be about that size. (Note that its short dimension is close to the long dimension of the 44x44 format.)
(Film medium formats were defined by their use of film with a 6cm width, which allowed an image area of up to about 56mm in the dimension using the width of the film.)
I can't imagine that calling a GFX Medium Format confuses anyone. If they have the knowledge of the old film medium and large formats, they are very likely aware of the current digital format sizing.
IMHO, the term "mini MF" is way more confusing than digital MF. I find it interesting that some people balk at the term Dx for crop sensor simply because it's a "Nikon" term, but Fx is fine. My problem with using APS-c is there's not a standard there either. If I were king, it would be Dx for digital crop, Fx for digital full-frame and Mx for digital MF
Given the world has settled on 36x24mm being full frame, I think anything larger should be called large format digital. In the film days there were several sizes for large format. No one referred to 4x5 as mini large format.
gdanmitchell wrote:
That one is pretty easy. It is nominally the same as the 41.5mm x 56mm area of the 645 film MF, which is probably why Phase One chose to make it that size. If a true digital equivalent to film medium format exists, it would be about that size. (Note that its short dimension is close to the long dimension of the 44x44 format.)
(Film medium formats were defined by their use of film with a 6cm width, which allowed an image area of up to about 56mm in the dimension using the width of the film.)
Exactly. Some gates were 54 or 55 mm and even so they didn't go through all that straight.
The main reason I avoided the "miniMF" was that it is isn't enough more than single frames from 24x36 to replace the panning/stitching.
EB-1 wrote:
Exactly. Some gates were 54 or 55 mm and even so they didn't go through all that straight.
The main reason I avoided the "miniMF" was that it is isn't enough more than single frames from 24x36 to replace the panning/stitching.
EBH
Indeed. MF film areas were not necessarily a riches thing.
I think that the larger miniMF format has some real value and that it can make a difference for certain kinds of photography done in particular ways that will take advantage of the potential it has. (I use photographers who regularly print extremely large and who work carefully from the tripod as one example. At the opposite extreme, its value to people who shoot handheld while, for example, on vacation is pretty limited.)
I also think — in line with your thought, I believe — that it is not as much larger as people feel that it is. There are a couple of ways that I try to create a frame of reference for the scale of the size difference. One is to keep in mind that it lies almost literally midway between between 35mm/full frame and 645, the smallest traditional medium format using 6cm MF film. Another frame of reference is to note that the difference between FF and minMF is about half the size of the difference between APS-C and FF.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Another frame of reference is to note that the difference between FF and minMF is about half the size of the difference between APS-C and FF.
But that's only true if you view it as a percentage increase like you must be in order to make this claim. If you look at sensor area, its not true at all.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Indeed. MF film areas were not necessarily a riches thing.
I think that the larger miniMF format has some real value and that it can make a difference for certain kinds of photography done in particular ways that will take advantage of the potential it has. (I use photographers who regularly print extremely large and who work carefully from the tripod as one example. At the opposite extreme, its value to people who shoot handheld while, for example, on vacation is pretty limited.)
I also think — in line with your thought, I believe — that it is not as much larger as people feel that it is. There are a couple of ways that I try to create a frame of reference for the scale of the size difference. One is to keep in mind that it lies almost literally midway between between 35mm/full frame and 645, the smallest traditional medium format using 6cm MF film. Another frame of reference is to note that the difference between FF and minMF is about half the size of the difference between APS-C and FF. ...Show more →
There are a couple of different topics here.
1. I don't care for the silly advert, mostly because they lump in the APS-C with the mini-MF and there is no substance to it. Not one of those criteria remotely applies to me, but there may be a cultural difference North America compared to India or maybe just appealing to the socialism medias generations.
2. If they had under $10K 100MP bodies with 33x44 some years ago I might have considered that. I learned in the 1Ds era to pan and stitch where possible, as slow as that camera was, and continued through the 1DsIII era. The 5DsR changed things with the highest IQ available at the time and back to single row pans. Now I have a blurrier 45MP, but with focus stacking longer lenses and near gigapixel multi-rows are easy to do with more farmes than ever.
Obviously for water or moving subjects panning not an option, but I mostly did landscapes in the desert southwest, UT/NM/AZ/CO, where there is little movement. I avoid humans in general though I'm sure that some kinds of normal to wide street views could use the extra sensor size and pixels in each shot.
/EBH
Nov 10, 2025 at 08:49 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
SGinNorcal wrote:
But that's only true if you view it as a percentage increase like you must be in order to make this claim. If you look at sensor area, its not true at all.
It isn't even true as a percentage increase, but that doesn't stop Dan from saying it over and over again. Fuji APS-C has an area of 367 square mm. Full frame 35mm has an area of 864 square mm. FF 35mm is 2.35 times larger in area. Half of that would be 1.17 times as large. The 33 X 44 sensor has an area of 1452 square mm, which is 1.68 times as large as FF 35mm, so much larger than 1.17 times half the the size difference between APS-C and FF 35mm.
Really underscores the reasons Fuji is so popular these days. 
