Re: Fuji Medium Format Digital System is on it's way...
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.
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?
Sep 06, 2016 at 11:12 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #13710979 « Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499) »
