theodoros_d

<p>Personally, instead of trying to convince one that insists on "self made" theories, I would rather concentrate to that <em>magnificent </em>product (the Fuji GFX system) which achieves to compete with the best of ultra expensive backs out there, yet offering more features, at an affordable price, that makes it accessible to everyone that needs the extra quality.<br> Lets face it, it is the first time that one can have <em>one series of lenses & perform all tasks that a photographer may need with it....</em><br> - MF photography can now be portable... no need for one to retain a DSLR system next to it.<br> - Mounting distance allows for older MF lenses to be resurrected<br> - The camera can be used for image area on bellows cameras with larger image circle MF lenses and provides a shutter too.<br> - Adapters for leaf shutter lenses are promised.<br> - Interchangeable finders and LV provide great modularity/adaptability to tasks.<br> If I miss something, is the multishot/true color captures. But given that "true color" is expected to become a "standard" feature for offerings from Japan (after Olympus and Ricoh/Pentax made the start), as all new specification does, it shouldn't be long before there would be such a camera in the line with Fuji either...</p> <p>Other than the above, it's a ....Fuji!!! ...the most traditional MF maker out of all in this planet and Fuji means superb lenses, robust design and innovation second to none! </p>

<p>I give up... Do you really think that looking at a screen you see "Raw material"? ...Yes, after 35 year in the profession and having shot thousands of "true color" 16x multishots (which will make an 100mp Cmos back "pale" for any aspect of image quality one may consider) with my two (multishot) backs, I give up in trying to convince you how things work!<br> <br />P.S: You should have wondered... "How did this guy guessed that I don't print but judge things on screens? ...I never said so!" </p>

<p>Alexander, there is noise at base ISO too and it will be significantly less with the larger sensor, as a result, the DR & tonality advantage of the larger sensor will show even at base ISO.<br> I think the mistake you are doing is comparing by viewing on your monitor, where the screen's noise and DR ability "hides" much of the difference (even more so to the contrast extremes). If you try comparing prints of the same size -and then by using the maker's own software for RAW conversion as to extract the best out of the processing- I'm sure, the differences will become more obvious... Lets not forget that a "photo-graph" <em>is what is recorded on the paper sheet and that only... There is no photo-graph </em>(yet) <em>for what one sees on his screen. </em>Screen is only a media as for one to decide what and how to print... One has to develop a "sense" on the differences between what he sees on his monitor and what will be printed.</p>

<p>Resolution is a lens property, not a sensor property.... The GFX will show more detail than a DSLR based on FF sensor if the lens used on both is the same, despite the pixel count of the sensor.<br /> Noise (to which DR & tonality is directly relevant) will be less with a larger sensor providing that the sensors (of different size) compared are of the same technology.<br /> <br />A poor lens used on an MF sensor, may be the reason why many may think that FF sensors resolve similar to MF sensors, if good quality glass is used on the FF sensor in return, but DR and tonality will always be with the larger (same technology) sensor due to less noise.</p>

<p>The advantage with the GFX with respect to hi(gher) End DSLRs, other than it having 1.7x larger pixels than equivalent resolution DSLRs (which means considerably less noise on the sensor and therefore increased DR and tonality), can be with the costs too.... The body maybe more expensive to purchase, but there is a ton of superb MF lenses that can be bought "for peanuts" these days, all compatible with the GFX it being a mirrorless...<br> Other than that, MF users (especially pros) used to have two (or more) systems up to now, with the GFX they now don't need a second... Add to this the compatibility with bellows cameras and the focal plane shutter it adds on them... and you end up with a clear winner... I believe this camera system (reports say that there more GFX cameras to follow) will attract far more many people to the MF market than ever before happened up until now with digital MF cameras.... One should also expect the bellows camera market to also expand significantly as to be used with the GFX.</p>

<p>Here is a video interview, https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/7988407692/interview-fujifilm-explains-the-gfx-50s-medium-format-mirrorless<br /> IMO, Fuji's choice to enter the MF market with a cropped MF sensor is the right one... They can always come up with a larger sensor later on, after they've penetrated the market. Having a mount that <em>can work with sensors up to 54x40mm in size</em> is of major importance, but surely one can't expect the market penetration to be at the same level with a considerably more expensive camera... No other MF maker entered the market with the top offering, it is wrong marketing to do so...</p>

<p>Rico Pfirstinger posted a <em>worth reading</em> detailed analysis on the GFX-50s <a href="https://fuji-x-secrets.net/2016/09/21/inside-the-fujifilm-gfx-50s/" target="_blank">https://fuji-x-secrets.net/2016/09/21/inside-the-fujifilm-gfx-50s/</a> It is a report that has been confirmed after talking with the Fuji people that are directly involved with the project in Photokina.<br> The Key points:<br> 1. The camera will be available in Spring 2017<br> 2. There will be HD video 30fps with the introduction.<br> 3. ISO will be 51200 or higher with the introduction.<br> 4. The camera will be compatible with leaf shutter lenses (particularly with HC/HCD lenses) and with other makers too with longer flange distance via adapters.<br> 5. Price "well bellow" 10K USD....<br> <br />Other than the above and the rest impressive that Rico informs on the report, I can ensure everybody that: <em>the camera's mount size diameter and sensor depth (26.4mm), as well as the sensor's minimum distance of 1.67mm from the rear element, suggest for sure that <strong>the camera will be compatible with a full frame 54x40mm</strong></em><strong> sensor</strong> ! ...and the "special" shape of the micro lenses suggest that it will work well with existing dedicated to view camera lenses...<br> More, the name "50s" next to GFX, suggests that there will be other versions of different sensor size and resolution (confirmed by Kevin Raben of LuLa too & on Rico's report) following the first introduction...<br> All in all, the most promising platform ever for medium format digital photography.... If a "multishot" version will be in the future and given the proven tradition of Fuji for lenses and overall image quality I can't see any other out of the existing proposals being able to compete (at least at their current state/pricing of offerings).</p>

<p>I was thinking.... Mamiya 7 lenses have up to 1/500 shutter speed, while all Seiko 1 lenses have up to 1/400... That should mean that Mamiya 7 lenses use "0" shutter? <br> If that is the case, it may probably be a Seiko-0 shutter in them? <br> But... Seiko 0 shutter IS compatible with Copal 0... no?</p>

<p>It might be the case with the Wide angle lenses only Ellis, although this may not be true either as the RZ lenses are strong retrofocus designs and have helical coil on them... But other than that, I only want to know if they work mechanically, as I 've converted a Sinar P2 monorail to have a Fuji GX-680 mount and bellows, use a Kapture group sliding back for rear frame and the electronics of the Fuji GX-680 lenses for exterior control of the shutter operation with multishot backs on the sliding frame... So I thought of trying some RZ lenses on the system as many of them are superb...<br> <br />By the way, does anybody know if the Mamiya 7 lenses also use Seiko 1 shutter? </p>

<p>I think you refer to the screens originally made for the Harblei & Arax 88CM camera that was a much improved Kiev (all made by Arsenal) 88CM version... The 88cm is using a mirrorbox that is an exact copy of the Hasselblad 1000F (which is the same mirrorbox dimensions as with the 5xx series), I can ensure from personal experience that the screens are accurate (and very bright) when used on an Arax 88cm, therefore I don't find any reason that it would be different on a Hasselblad body... At least (that I've checked) all WL, chimney and prism finder, work very well indeed on a Hasselblad 5xx body... that is a hint that the screens should be compatible too....</p>

<p>I recently re-shuttered a Fuji GX-680 80mm lens that had its shutter damaged, to do that, I used the shutter out of an 150mm Fuji gx-680 lens of which I happened to have two... so I sacrificed one of them as to use its shutter as to replace the one in the 80mm lens. <br> <br />Fairly easy to do... One has only to unscrew the front and rear cell by turning them counter clock wise (don't be afraid to apply force, they are really tightly bolted on the shutter) and he is left with the central box that contains the shutter.... <br> <br />Now, Mamiya RZ lenses also uses Seiko No 1 electronic shutter (just like the GX-680 lenses)... So... I guess that if one has one of each, he can then remove the lens front and rear cells from one and put them on the other and then the Mamiya lens will work on a Fuji GX-680 as a genuine lens and the Fuji GX-680 lens will do the same on Mamiya RZ...<br> Anybody that have tried it? I don't have a Mamiya RZ lens as to try it myself.... </p> <p> </p>

<p>How much does it cost? ...thanks for the answer... I'll insist on using the Apo Symmar on Rollei mount with the control S... If it did great before, it will still do!</p>

<p>I do use digital lenses on my view camera Bob, I can ensure you that "performance" is a personal matter depending on many different aspects. For instance... there are cases where performance is great, but image circle provided is limiting the use of the lens to the extend that it makes it a useless choice... On other cases, mounting distance is so small, that performance with modern backs (with microlenses) is awfull... while at the same time, long mounting distance lenses are far superior to use despite their (supposed) inferior MTF graph...<br> OTOH, there are cases where certain MF lenses beat some directly competitive dedicated lenses for view cameras, but none ever tried to compare... For instance, the Rollei 90mm F4 Apo Symmar of the Rollei 6008 camera, has a 90mm image circle and will beat the (excellent) Rodenstock 90mm HR on all its image circle for all aspects of image quality... (and its not the only example one can give that will prove better than dedicated to view cameras equivalents).<br> Never the less, it's always best to test than "believe blind" as the modern marketing would like us to do... Speaking on the GX-680 lenses though, one can easily check their quality by shooting an MFDB on one and then check the whole image circle performance by shifting completely the lens on all directions... Not bad at all, I can ensure you... </p>

<p>Have you noticed that one can buy a Seiko shutter these days for peanuts Dan? Only thing I'm asking in the O/P is if there is any alternative available (with or without an adapter) and if there is an electronic one too... My 8 lenses for the Fuji GX-680 are a consequence after merging two different systems with much different lines of lenses... Obviously I don't need all 8 of them... I can therefore "split" half of the lenses and use them on my Sinar... </p>

<p>Hi Dan,<br> I really fail to see how buying another lens can be cheaper than reshuttering one you already have... OTOH, some of these lenses are hard to beat, especially if one compares them with similar image circle size alternatives... </p>