Fuji announces its new Medium Format addition!

<p>It gets better! Video from Photokina shows that the new Fuij's prism-shaped EVF viewfinder is articulated - it can be swivelled horizontally and vertically, enabling WLF-type vertical viewing in both landscape and portrait camera orientations. It can also be detached altogether. Kudos to Fuji!</p>

<p>I think another issue is that the difference between APS-C and "full frame" has been going away. Since Fuji is committed to APS-C it seems logical to stake out a position which improves quality but doesn't cost the price of a sports car. This "medium format" will be capable of very good results in a very compact package. On top of that you'll be able to use the high res center of all that vintage Zeiss, Mamiya and Pentax glass if you want to. With a short sensor to flange measurement, there is also the possibility of some real wide angles rather than retro-focus wide angles (if the sensor can handle the oblique light). <br>

I think it's a winner</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There have been several backs and cameras with this 44 x 33 mm size of sensor since 2004. All have been called medium format, and nobody really complained. I don't know what the fuss is now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, some of the Pentax guys weren't too happy, but perhaps they have more of a case, since Pentax were still calling the system '645':<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53637293</p>

 

<p>when i spoke to the CEO of Pentax USA at a show last year, he stated that full frame true 645 digital sensors are at least a few more years away. this is all due to yield. just to costly at this point to make a full frame MF sensor. this was the same thing that happened when digital cameras first came out. we had crop sensors for many years before a full frame 35mm sensor came to market. so maybe 2020 we could see a full 645 sensor. who knows.....</p>

<p> </p>

<p>John,<br>

That's exactly what I would expect a CEO to say. I don't really buy that "far to costly or years away thing" since they have the capability to do it right now. Would it cost more? Yup, but shouldn't cost a lot more. I think these companies regulate their own advancement of products buy how many people will buy it at the highest price they can sell it for. So, instead of just popping out with a big 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 sensor camera they take baby steps and at every step they sell a ton of cameras most, not all, but most of us can afford. That way they have sold a ton of cameras all the way up to the introduction of the Full Frame medium format sensor. Now, if one of the other manufactures decides to "jump the gun" and bring out what we are talking about then the whole story changes. Automobile manufactures operate the same way.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>when i spoke to the CEO of Pentax USA at a show last year, he stated that full frame true 645 digital sensors are at least a few more years away. this is all due to yield. just to costly at this point to make a full frame MF sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>His response was surprising, because full-frame 645 CCD backs have been on the market since 2008 - he must have known this, as it's his business to know -, and CMOS ones have been on the market since January of this year - he must have known this was coming as his two main competitors (PhaseOne/Leaf, and Hasselblad) were developing backs for this "big brother" to the sensor used in his Pentax 645Z.</p>

<p>These are 53.7 x 40.3 [or 40.4] mm sensors; the film gate in the Pentax and Mamiya 645 cameras is 56.0 x 41.5 mm; so pedantically, yes, the digital sensors are very marginally smaller - but remember that a mounted 645 slide or a 645 negative in an enlarger loses about 1mm of real estate around the perimeter in any case, so the usable image area is basically identical between film and digital 645.</p>

<p>I suspect that the Pentax CEO knew all this, but was just tired of people asking why Pentax 645 digital models don't use the larger sensors, so he fobbed you off with the yield excuse.</p>

<p> </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 like the, "Real Estate," Analogy regarding the issue of how much is enough. Are we quibbling over real estate within sensor size? Because we can do that all day until we get to to a sensor size of 8X10. I feel a certain confidence that Fuji has reasons to do what their doing. I'm not as well versed as some here are on all of the technical issues regarding electronic dynamics of digital sensors, but if in the way images are presented from a camera like the XT-1 are any indication and then a Medium format version of that, the resulting images should be beyond, or at a level more than we have known. When a Fuji Rep at Photokina says that, I'm not so quick to doubt the guy. Also at Photokina, when the Fuji presenter was questioned as to the price of his new camera, he didn't commit to a price, but he did suggest it would, or should in that context be around $10,000 Body, Lens and EVF. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It seems nice and all, but I fail to see the point of a crop MF sensor.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From the numbers, the area is about 1.67 times full frame (24x36mm). <br>

<br>

Is there a dividing line between small and medium format? <br>

<br>

I suppose going to a full 2X the area of full-frame might have been a good next step, but 1.67 doesn't seem so bad.</p>

<p>Ask yourself the following question: What does a crop MF bring to the table? How is it any better than FF? At 1.7x of FF, it doesn't look any different than FF. In other words, had this been a true 645 size sensor, the DOF at a given aperture and magnification would be SUBSTANTIALLY smaller, thereby giving you certain creative freedom. Additionally, the bigger the sensor, the less curvature you see within wide angle lenses, so wide angle shots look more natural. The crop MF sensor doesn't really do any of that to a great enough extent to be worth while. The geometry of the crop MF will make your photos look very much like those from a FF camera. </p>

<p>As far as cameras go, Fuji seems to have hit all the right buttons. I think it's designed just right. Had it been a true 645 camera, I would have been giddy beyond words.</p>

<p>Alexander:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How is it any better than FF? At 1.7x of FF</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You've just answered your own question: It is 1.7x better. You can make a print 37 x 27 inch print that looks as good up-close as a 30 x 20 inch print from a 35mm-sized sensor, and has a bigger "wow" factor from a moderate distance. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>it doesn't look any different than FF</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't forget, near-identical 50MP 44x33 mm CMOS sensors are already in use in 5 other cameras or backs from Pentax, Phase One, Leaf, and Hasselblad. Check the images that are out there...in many cases they are obviously different to FF outputs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Additionally, the bigger the sensor, the less curvature you see within wide angle lenses, so wide angle shots look more natural.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't understand what optical principle you're referring to here. Curvature, in what sense? </p>

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>How is it any better than FF? At 1.7x of FF</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You've just answered your own question: It is 1.7x better. You can make a print 37 x 27 inch print that looks as good up-close as a 30 x 20 inch print from a 35mm-sized sensor, and has a bigger "wow" factor from a moderate distance.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>It doesn't work like that. A 50mp print is a 50mp print provided the pixels are big enough that the noise level isn't overwhelming. All of the current modern cameras have low enough noise (at base ISO) that you wouldn't be able to tell one print from another. The ONLY advantage of the bigger sensor is the geometry of the lens to the sensor, meaning shallower dof at a given aperture, a greater angle of view at a given focal length, etc.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Don't forget, near-identical 50MP 44x33 mm CMOS sensors are already in use in 5 other cameras or backs from Pentax, Phase One, Leaf, and Hasselblad. Check the images that are out there...in many cases they are obviously different to FF outputs.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I've gone over a number of RAW files and compared them to one another and they all look pretty much the same. Sometimes, there's better corner sharpness in crop MF, but that's about it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Additionally, the bigger the sensor, the less curvature you see within wide angle lenses, so wide angle shots look more natural.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't understand what optical principle you're referring to here. Curvature, in what sense?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>In a sense that the smaller the sensor, the more "stretched" the wide angle images look, whereas the bigger the sensor (or film format), the less stretched and the more natural wide angle images look.</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>The video interview nice to see as its good to continue to see the camera itself. The use of a bayer sensor the news here for me, I didn't know that and I don't understand why the abandonment of the X-Trans sensor in this case, although there is certain to be a good reason for that. I'm impressed with the size differential compared to the Nikon D-800 or 810 in that shot, the fuji looks a little weightier in size, but Fuji seems dead set to keep portability as a high priority. We're entering a new phase in Photography and it seems Fuji is taking us there.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"A 50mp print is a 50mp print provided the pixels are big enough that the noise level isn't overwhelming."</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

In your experience, do 24 MP APS-C sensors match the image quality of 24 MP full frame? Do 12 MP cell phones compete head to head with the Nikon D3?<br>

<br>

Have you worked with files from the Pentax 645Z or the Phase One and Hasselblad cameras that use 50 MP sensors? Can you confirm first hand that these cameras offer no image quality gain over the Canon 5DS R? Perhaps you can post some 100 percent crops showing your test results.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In your experience, do 24 MP APS-C sensors match the image quality of 24 MP full frame?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>For the most part, yes. You have to stretch them pretty far to start to see the break down. However, the FF 24mp sensors win out in terms of geometry, which I described earlier.<br>

.<br>

.<br>

.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do 12 MP cell phones compete head to head with the Nikon D3?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No. Read the qualifier I wrote. The pixels have to be big enough in order to control the noise level. Secondly, you can't compare the lens quality of a cell phone with the Nikon lens quality. So, the cell phone would not be able to compete even if it had a FF sensor.<br>

.<br>

.<br>

.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Have you worked with files from the Pentax 645Z or the Phase One and Hasselblad cameras that use 50 MP sensors? Can you confirm first hand that these cameras offer no image quality gain over the Canon 5DS R?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes and yes. I've downloaded a number of RAW files from various 50mp cameras and I went over them with a fine tooth comb. I can honestly say that I don't find the Canon 50DSR files to be substantially different from Pentax, or Phase One crop sensor 50mp files.</p>

<p>I think the strength of Alexander's argument is the <em>value proposition</em> when you consider the cost of the new Fuji system will be 2 or 3 times the cost of a similar full frame system. That is an excellent point.</p>

<p>However, setting aside the cost, I have to say that overall I find the new Fuji system beautifully designed and much more appealing to me than any currently available full frame system. For one thing, personally I prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio for most of my photography; with 3:2, I often end up cropping out part of the length anyway. So for me, that increases the resolution gain over full frame from 1.7X to closer to 2X. Secondly, the side-by-side comparison showing that the GFX 50S is very similar to a Nikon D810 is really compelling, especially when you look at the lens mount view showing the sensors: The Fuji just looks obviously so much more efficient (toward the end of <a href="

video</a>). The absence of an optical viewfinder does not bother me; I prefer the advantages of a high quality EVF and the swiveling/tilting design looks great. Finally, for a long time, I have been interested in the best wide angle landscape lenses for full frame or APS-C systems. I want the highest quality possible with low distortion, sharp into the corners, less field curvature, and the ability to use the Lee filter system. Of course we will have to wait to see how the Fuji lenses test out, but I really like the look of the 32-64mm and 23mm lenses, both of which would take filters very nicely (77mm & 82mm respectively). What Alexander says about the larger formats handling wide angle distortion better simply makes me even more attracted to the new Fuji format compared to full frame.<br>

Dave</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>

<blockquote>

<p>In your experience, do 24 MP APS-C sensors match the image quality of 24 MP full frame? --Dan South</p>

<p>For the most part, yes. You have to stretch them pretty far to start to see the break down. --Alexander O</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely not! At anything over ISO 1600 you will see a LOT of difference in noise levels--not that I am recommending shooting at such high ISOs.</p>

<p>The new Fuji will show considerably cleaner files as the ISO increases. Resolution? Well, admittedly the resolution increase will not exactly be overwhelming, but the difference in noise will be very, very noticeable.</p>

<p>On the other hand, consider what David McMullen has just said: "I prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio for most of my photography; with 3:2, I often end up cropping out part of the length anyway. So for me, that increases the resolution gain over full frame from 1.7X to closer to 2X."</p>

<p>I have to agree with that whole-heartedly. We are talking pixel density here where noise is concerned, and that would be based on surface area--virtually a two to one advantage. As for resolution, the increase will not be 2x but closer to 1.414x (square root of 2)--still approximately a 40% increase in resolution, which would be quite noticeable.</p>

<p>Would the improvement be worth the money? No one can answer that for anyone else.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>(I ran out of time while trying to make corrections.)</p>

<p>Correction: I said that I agree whole-heartedly, and I do agree with the spirit of what David said. Technically, though, the resolution gain would not be twice as great. Resolution is a linear function--line pairs per millimeter. As for noise, though, we are talking pixel density where noise is concerned, and that would be based on surface area--virtually a two to one advantage. As for resolution, the increase will not be 2x but closer to 1.414x (based, that is, on the square root of 2)--still approximately a 40% increase in resolution, which would be quite noticeable.</p>

<p>Would the improvement be worth the money? No one can answer that for anyone else. If I had the money, I would get it. Right now, for resolution, my best FF sensor is on my D800E at 36mp. For low noise, my best sensor is on my D3s at 12 mp. The new Fuji would be a substantial improvement over the Nikon D800E where resolution is concerned--and it would also be cleaner, but I am not going to do the math right now to see by how much. I will say that I don't like to shoot the D800E at ISO 3200, but I have done it. It is not terrible except, of course, in the shadows in low light. Surely the new Fuji would be noticeably better where noise is concerned at ISO 3200.</p>

<p>Of course, even in very low light, there is always the tripod with time exposure. So. . . I am not sure that some of the things that we do to make FF hand-holdable would make much sense with medium format. I am not even sure that it makes much sense for FF most of the time. When I want to get in and out fast in low light, I go with the D3s hand-held, even though I take quite a hit in terms of resolution. Horses for courses, etc.</p>

<p>--Lannie<br /> .</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>

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>In your experience, do 24 MP APS-C sensors match the image quality of 24 MP full frame? --Dan South<br>

For the most part, yes. You have to stretch them pretty far to start to see the break down. --Alexander O</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely not! At anything over ISO 1600 you will see a LOT of difference in noise levels--not that I am recommending shooting at such high ISOs.<br>

The new Fuji will show considerably cleaner files as the ISO increases. Resolution? Well, admittedly the resolution increase will not exactly be overwhelming, but the difference in noise will be very, very noticeable.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, sorry. I should have qualified that all of my observations are made at base ISO. </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>I disagree with the notion of judging a sensor by the print. A RAW file is essentially the digital equivalent of a negative. So, if you want to judge the sensor, you have to judge it by the first generation output. A print is at least two generations removed from that. When you're looking at the print, there are too many variables that have gone into making it. You're looking at the paper, you're looking at the post processing, you're looking at the driver, on and on and on.</p>

<p>From what I have seen, the tonality advantage of a larger format is a myth. What is that tonality a function of? If it's a function of pixel size, then my Canon 5d2 should have better tonality than any of the 50mp cropped MF cameras because it's got bigger pixels. You would also see a drop in tonality as the resolution increases. </p>

<p>The tonality difference is the way that the manufacturers choose to render the scenes. The FF manufacturers go for the pop, a higher contrast look to give it a more "wow" effect, while the MF manufacturers go for a lower contrast to give it the sense of greater tonality. You can see that with the introduction of Canon 5D4, where Canon has started moving towards the "greater tonality" rendering, rather than the "pop"</p>

<p>The same goes for noise. It's a choice of rendering. The FF cameras sacrifice some of the base ISO noise in order to boost low light sensitivity. Whereas the MF manufacturers sacrifice low light sensitivity for great S/N ratio at base ISO. Again, that's a choice of rendering, not a function of sensor size.</p>

<p>MF digital allows us two very distinct and uncontroversial advantages that are the function of the sensor size:</p>

<ol>

<li>Greater resolution at a given pixel density</li>

<li>The lens/camera geometry that results in shallower DOF, greater focal length at a given angle of view.</li>

</ol>

<p>That's where the advantages end. Therefore, in order to maximize and readily see the advantages of the MF digital cameras, you have to go to a MINIMUM 645 FF sensor. Otherwise, these advantages become a lot less apparent and you'd be hard pressed to tell an image made with a FF camera from the one made with a crop MF.</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>