Fuji announces its new Medium Format addition!

<p>Perhaps a little early, since no one has actually seen an image from the new GFX, but a have a large sense of confidence that a 30X40 print from the new Medium format GFX on Fuji Crystal Archive paper- Super Gloss, from a light jet printer, will leave an image from a Full Frame DSLR in the dust. Or simply, a great deal of discernibility and since there are many pixel peepers here, and that's OK, the 4:3 aspect ratio makes it so much easier to achieve corner clarity and sharpness. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But sensors have no contrast differences; they measure light linearly, and proper RAW frames preserve that measurement.<br>

Anyone can tweak contrast in post processing - it's not a manufacturer property.<br>

Tonality depends more the on the signal to noise curve than on anything else. That <em>is</em> a function of the sensor.</p>

<blockquote>

<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></blockquote>

<p>You're forgetting this one:<br>

3. Greater MTF at a given pixel count.<br>

That was the one I was alluding to when I talked about 1.7x larger print sizes being better - I didn't mention the pixel density, nor pixel count, because 1. and 3. together mean better image quality regardless.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Curvature, in what sense?<br>

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>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for clarifying that. However, there is nothing in image formation theory which backs up this idea of more "stretched" wide angle images being a property of using smaller formats. I don't know where you're getting that from.<br>

It could be that the cheaper lenses made for smaller format cameras & camera-phones tend to have designs with worse geometrical distortion; but that is not to say that equally distortion-free lenses cannot be made for both small and large formats.<br>

Or it could be that people often shoot their fixed-wideangle-lens small-sensor cameras (especially in phones & tablets) too close to their subjects, in order to get a decent headshot closeup or selfie. But again, that is not a property of the format itself. It's a usage issue.</p>

 

<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>Can someone explain this phrase in bold within a quote from Thom Hogan today regarding some difference between the implementation of a medium format sensor vs. smaller formats?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The low volume of medium format sensor production, coupled with <em><strong>the need to stitch the sensor in place on the fab, coupled with the extra wasted space on the expensive silicon wafer,</strong></em> all means that medium format sensors are just not going to be big sellers in the casual photography world any time that I can imagine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The quote appeared in <a href="http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/its-about-the-sensor-again.html">this blog post</a>. Thank you.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>I would say, that the sensor in the GFX fits just fine!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ray Butler:<br /> ... there is nothing in image formation theory which backs up this idea of more "stretched" wide angle images being a property of using smaller formats. ... It could be that the cheaper lenses made for smaller format cameras & camera-phones tend to have designs with worse geometrical distortion; but that is not to say that equally distortion-free lenses cannot be made for both small and large formats.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Ray for chiming in on this. Intuitively what you say makes sense to me. I don't see why a distortion-free optical design could not be scaled to a small sensor. I think it is simply expensive and therefore less likely the smaller the sensor is. On the other hand, I could imagine that the geometry differences related to the <em>shorter flange distance of a mirrorless camera</em> design might affect the difficulty of optically correcting for distortion...<br /> Dave</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can someone explain this phrase in bold within a quote from Thom Hogan today regarding some difference between the implementation of a medium format sensor vs. smaller formats?<br /> The low volume of medium format sensor production, coupled with <em><strong>the need to stitch the sensor in place on the fab, coupled with the extra wasted space on the expensive silicon wafer,</strong></em> all means that medium format sensors are just not going to be big sellers in the casual photography world any time that I can imagine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, I'll offer an explanation.</p>

<p>CMOS and CCD sensors are constructed from essentially the same silicon semiconductor wafers as computer processors and memory chips. "<strong>The fab</strong>" means the facility where the silicon wafer is being fabricated: specific areas and layers of the wafer are selectively "doped" with charge carriers, or populated with silicon dioxide insulation or metal contacts. This constructs a grid of pixels and their associated input power lines and readout electronics. The process for laying down these structures is called <a href="http://www.lithoguru.com/scientist/lithobasics.html">photolithography</a>. Each photolithography manufacturing unit can only make structures down to a certain minimum width (measured in nanometers) and a certain maximum width (measured in mm).</p>

<p>"<strong>Stitching the sensor in place</strong>" is a reference to the medium format sensors being larger than the maximum width of the largest photolithography units. So the sensor has to be "stitched" by moving the photolithography head at least once, to start a new part of the sensor right beside one that has just been laid down, so that there are no gaps.</p>

<p>"<strong>The extra wasted space on the expensive silicon wafer</strong>" is another reference to the size of the medium format sensor. Wafers are circular disks, so when you cut out a large rectangle from a circle, there is a lot of wastage around the edges. A 645 medium format sensor is about 6 times bigger than an APS-C sensor, but if you wanted to cut out as many APS-C sensors as possible from the same circle, you could arrange the smaller rectangles to make better use of this space - so you might fit in 8 rather than 6. These numbers are just to explain the concept...an actual wafer is much bigger than that and could produce a number of medium format sensors (and a load of APS-C ones).</p>

<p>There is also the concept of "<strong>yield</strong>" - not mentioned in your quote from Thom Hogan, but very relevant to this question. This means the percentage of sensors produced per wafer which pass quality control. Impurities or defects in the wafer can render a sensor junk. Staying with our putative small wafer, a single defect on that wafer might junk the only large medium format sensor it produced; a 100% loss or 0% yield. The same defect might junk just 1 of the 8 APS-C sensors it produced; a 13% loss or 87% yield. Therefore, the lower average yield adds further cost to the production of medium format sensors.</p>

<p>I shall be holding on to a couple of Bronica GS-1 lenses: PG 65mm F/4 and PG 110mm F/4. Maybe there will be an adapter for the Fujifilm GFX 50.</p>