Fuji announces its new Medium Format addition!

<p>Fuji upping the ante!<br>

http://fujifilm-x.com/gfx/</p>

<p>It seems nice and all, but I fail to see the point of a crop MF sensor. There's not enough of a difference in geometry, in terms of depth of field to stand head and shoulders above FF cameras. I understand they want to keep the costs down, but if they were to make a true 645 or a 6x6 for around $8k then I would certainly be excited</p>

<p>Maybe, but I'll wait until it comes out, do some test shots before deciding that it isn't for me</p>

<p>I meant it in a more general sense that the cropped MF sensor isn't big enough to do the things that a FF sensor can't.</p>

<p>I agree with Alexander on this one. If you lay the frame lines over full frame 35mm you do not gain much, but the proportions do look more to my liking and closer to the ratio of 8X10. I look at cameras like Sony's A7RII and say to myself, "How much more do we really need"? Plus, those cameras in the Sony A7 class are very small and nice to carry around. Still, this Fuji looks like the wave of the future, but I think I'll stay just a little in the past for now. Besides, I thought my Canon 5D was the wave of the future not that long ago and now I'd almost have to give it away. I swore after that purchase I would never buy another new digital camera again. I'll let somebody else buy it new and then when they think they have to have the next latest and greatest I'll buy their old clunker. Oh, my 5D still makes me smile when it does its job right or I do mine right that is.</p>

<p>Fuji had a blank slate. They weren't married to any mount, to any format, nothing. They could have done whatever they wanted. As it turned out, they went the crop way, which sucks because now they're stuck with it. The lenses are made for the crop sensor, so if they decided to go the full 645 route, they would have to introduce a whole new set of lenses. This means that chances are that Fuji won't introduce a full 645 camera. </p>

<p>Had they designed a 645 body, those lenses could have been used on a crop sensor as well (although I don't get the whole idea of a crop MF sensor other than lowering costs and marketing)<br>

So, I understand that they wanted to come in with a new mirrorless camera for under $10k, but doing so with a 645 system would have been REALLY something.</p>

<p>I think that Fuji made the right call. The sensor has a 4:3 ratio, and the pixel density is low enough to be almost noise free. Anything much bigger means interminable download times and very large files to store. There is a lot of difference between 4.4x3.3cm (effectively) and 3.6x2.4cm (full frame). Slapping 50 megapixels on the latter sensor size (as Canon has done) generates more noise than one really wants.</p>

<p>The new Fuji sensor is approaching twice the surface area of full-frame. That really ought to be big enough to drive noise way down without being too big to want to carry around.</p>

<p>At some point one wants to say "Enough!" Fuji picked their target market quite well. Much bigger cameras and lenses and that market shrinks fast.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Alexander,<br>

Actually we are talking apples and oranges when talking formats or comparing formats in digital and film cameras. Fuji didn't have to go full frame (645, 6x6 or 6x7) for exactly the reason you stated. They weren't married to any lens line and didn't have to match the sensor to a line of lenses in their camera line up. Like I said earlier, just how big do we have to go anyway? Canon went full frame 35mm to make many folks feel better that had a ton of EOS lenses that they had bought for their film EOS bodies. Plus, at the time there were real advantages to a full frame sensor like less noise and just plain cleaner shots. Now, with new technology are old nemesis Mr. Noise isn't the problem it used to be so smaller sensors with matching lenses are the in thing and do a really great job. Still, I'm with you and prefer as big as I can afford as long as I don't have to buy a mule to lug the thing around.</p>

<p>"...prefer as big as I can afford as long as I don't have to buy a mule to lug the thing around." I think is why Fuji went with this size. I wish they didn't call it medium format because that label is causing the controversy. If they called it something like Double FF (stupid name, I know) then people wouldn't be all upset. It isn't much larger than the GA645, similar weight (although the lens does add more weight to the GFX). For long studio sessions and going on long hikes, this combination is ideal. As a landscape only camera, an alternative is the Alpa/Phase One. But, it does have some advantages over the Alpa/Phase One system in that it is more flexible (the Alpa/P1 isn't a studio camera, much more expensive, not easily hand held). I use the Phase One/Mamiya 645 camera and it is very tiring to hold it for a long studio session and carrying it on hikes truly sucks. The Hasselblad is an option that isn't too much more expensive. While a lot of people are making a big deal over the leaf shutter/focal plane shutter differences, I just use ND filters for key shifting. I like the reduced cost and weight of FP lenses</p>

<p>The Fuji sensor is virtually identical in size to that of the Pentax 645D--which was never 6cm x 4.5cm but 44mm x 33mm.</p>

<p>The 39MP Hasselblad H3D-II literally did have two 36x24 sensors on top of each other: 48mm x 36mm. That is barely larger along both dimensions than the Fuj at effectively 44x33.</p>

<p>Again, that was with 39mp for the Hassy. At about 50mp, the Fuji sounds pretty good to me, especially considering how far cameras have come in noise reduction and low-light, high ISO technology over the last few years.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Here is a link to another article:</p>

<p><a href="https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/19/fujifilm-gfx-50s-is-a-mirrorless-camera-with-a-giant-sensor/">[LINK]</a></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>It is also the same size as the Phase One IQ3 50 back and 20mm smaller than the IQ3 100 back. Still, since people are so hung up on the label "medium format" it might have been better to come up with a new name</p>

<p>Phase One seems to be the only company making 645 cameras/backs. This means that the industry is settling on the crop MF. It's not a question of nomenclature as to whether this constitutes med format or not. It's a matter of geometry. A sensor this small, doesn't bring much to the table over FF to justify the extra cost. Granted, prices are beginning to come down, but even so, you're looking at a $7k delta over some of the best FF cameras, yet there's not really an advantage, at least a readily seen and uncontroversial advantage.<br>

A bigger sensor would have a much more pronounced look to it of having a shallower depth of field and less wide angle curvature. </p>

<p>So, whereas the Fuji seems like a really nice camera with some great features, to me, it's just another camera, competing against all other cameras and I don't see it as having an inherent advantage of a truly larger format.</p>

<p>I'll concede every point you make, Alexander, but I do think that this "new" format ("intermediate format"?) is somewhat promising for those of us who feel that we have come up against the limits of resolution where FF is concerned--but who are not interested in (or any longer capable of) carrying around the heavy gear that is required for true medium format.</p>

<p>In any case, I will be interested in seeing if the market settles down to something that more people can afford. At a time when so many cameras are moving toward smaller formats (MFT, 1", camera phones, etc.), I am just glad to see anything pushing back in the opposite direction.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>oh the good old film days ... you bought a roll of film and used it in the size you wanted/needed ... 645, 6x6, 6x7 etc. now you have to buy a whole new camera to change the format with different rendering characteristics and all ...<br>

<br />but generally I like what Fuji is doing ... at least they are widening the choice of camera ...</p>

<p>To me it seems logical for a crop company to offer crop systems; i.e. if Fuji manage to impress or please somebody in APS C with their AF, color rendering high ISO performance, that person would most likely look for a Fuji system that "stands head and shoulders above" APS C. - FF is done by others and does it belong here at all, especially from a Fuji perspective? - I doubt! - That some folks like me are content with FF and shoot Fuji APS on the side is an entirely different issue. </p>

<p>Yes, labeling it medium format was the slight sticking point for some of us old film users. The younger whipper snappers could care less that Fuji labeled it medium format. Also, let's not forget Fuji Optical makes some of the very best "digital" lenses in the world. When sensors were smaller and less packed with pixels you could use your older 35mm film camera lenses on the newer digital cameras via adapters and it worked fine. Now that's just not the case. Lenses designed specifically for digital are the way to go now. Not that you can't use old glass on new digital, you can, but you won't get the most from your equipment that way. In fact the Chinese will probably bring out adapters to use Pentax 645 & 6x7, Hasselblad, and Mamiya lenses on this beast in just a few months.</p>

<p>Maybe Alexander O can expand on whatever led those poor delusional folks at Fuji to even bother with this supposedly so-so model? Just askin'...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>although I don't get the whole idea of a crop MF sensor other than lowering costs and marketing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lowering costs is almost the <em>only</em> reason. The size and weight of the lenses to cover the larger sensor (for a starting-from-scratch system) might also be a factor.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Phase One seems to be the only company making 645 cameras/backs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hasselblad are still doing it too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wish they didn't call it medium format because that label is causing the controversy.</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>

<p> </p>

<p>Anyway, for me, this is excellent news. I got excited about the Hasselblad X1D mirrorless 50MP model a few months ago, before realising that it needed native Hasselblad leaf shutter lenses. So that's useless for someone like me with a lot of nice M645 glass.<br>

This Fuji has a focal plane shutter, so it's open to using any lens one pleases on it.</p>

<p>I agree with Alexander. I just can't get excited about digital medium format. I am not a professional, and this does not offer anything that excites me that I could not get with a Canon 50MP 35mm format. All I would be doing is paying (usually a lot of) extra money for a larger system with slower lenses, more bulk and less lens choice for what seems to me to be purely additional kudos. The Fuji looks very nice, but I cannot imagine me getting any worthwhile benefit from these cameras. It is nicer than the recent 'blad though. Clearly I am just not the right profile for this kind of camera.</p>

<p>I'll be taking a serious look at this camera for the future. To me its a little too early to wrestle with what to call this camera, Medium format or not. I'm content with its Medium Format badge. It's not often I have ever had the chance to see an image in print from one of these large sensors. I had the opportunity at a Art festival to see a print, and I'm sorry to not know what camera or, back this image came out of, so I apologize, but the person manning the booth did say it was from a Medium format D-cam. Anyway the point is and at least take it from one like all of you that sees a lot of imagery, this print of a simple rendition of Central Park bridges was so amazingly stunning! These large sensors deliver a PUNCH when you see it in person. Quite the sight. So features, ergonomics, weight? Style? All kind of take on varied priorities when you consider the result in a print. That print is etched in my mind I'll never forget it, mind blown!</p>

<p>I'm also comfortable calling this "medium format"... this term covers a lot of territory. Is 127 film a "medium format" format? Remember the cute little Rollei and Yashica TLRs in this 4x4 size...<br>

<br />If "full frame" is enough of a benefit over APS-C to bother with the larger bodies and lenses, then consider that 33x44 is a similar jump in size over 24x36. For several years I've been using a dSLR with 30x45mm format sensor, about the same size as this new Fuji and the Pentax 645Z, and I'm impressed anew each time I "process" a batch in Lightroom.<br>

<br />The only disappointing characteristic of this new Fuji is the lack of an optical viewfinder.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For several years I've been using a dSLR with 30x45mm format sensor. . . . <br>

--Doug Miles</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The Leica S2! Doug, I have never even held a Leica in my hands and have in fact been skeptical of claims made about brand superiority. I certainly will never be able to afford any of the Leicas.</p>

<p>I have looked at your portfolio, however, and I have to say that tlose are among the clearest and most contrasty photos I have seen. Why did Leica discontinue such a magnificent instrument?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Thanks, Lannie... My portfolio in Photo.net has not been updated for a while, and represents a wide variety of gear.<br>

<br /> Leica improved the S2 slightly and renamed it S (typ006). Then they replaced it with a new version with CMOS sensor called S (typ007). This is the current main model, not discontinued, and the previous model was reissued with a different finish color, reduced price, and named S-E (typ006). So there's still a new option for those who prefer a CCD sensor.<br /> <br />The new Fuji and Hasselblad digital medium format "mirrorless" cameras look like a attractive options at more modest pricing than has been the case with the larger sensor cameras. Interesting to see how they fare in the market.</p>