Fuji GX50 - real or vapourware?

[rodeo_joe1]

Nothing has apparently been seen or heard of the

GX 50 since September last year. Does anyone

know anything? Or does anyone even care?

 

Since the sensor is only 1.2 to 1.33 times bigger

than a 24mm x 36mm one, and will take lenses of

unknown quality, cost and range; is anyone holding their breath to buy one?

 

I'm actually considering the jump to a "serious"

mirrorless body like the Sony A7R. The GX 50

could also be a contender, apart from its predicted price and so far non-appearance. Any opinions or guesses?

 

I'm thinking that Fuji might be getting cold feet and wondering how many suckers are out there with the best part of 10 thousand bucks to spend.

[dmanthree]

<p>Even if the GX50 is real, how much better will the IQ be than the Sony A7r II? I know there are other differences, like DoF and so forth, but will it really be that much better?</p>

[andylynn]

If the Fuji rumor guy is right (actually he usually is) there's a big announcement coming tomorrow. Fuji has a really good

record with medium format lenses so it should do very well but certainly be more expensive than Sony.

[Robin Smith]

<p>I am not at all convinced that any "quality improvements" from the Fuji will be worth having over a conventional FF 35mm camera: I think the same about the 'blad X1d. Given their price and the slower, bigger, and (in general) more expensive lenses than 35mm, I don't see them as a good proposition for amateurs. I will agree that, from Fuji's point of view, the camera will make some kind of sense as they have clearly decided not to compete with the Nikon/Canon/Sony FF crowd, so the new format offers an alternative: if you must have a Fuji.</p>

[andylynn]

I don't see these as amateur cameras at all. Unless the amateur is rich and wants cool stuff. It's the same as it's always

been with medium format existing on a separate track from 35mm. Some photographers will do amazing things with the

medium format gear and everyone else should buy smaller stuff.

 

I plan on sticking with APSC Fujis. They're more than good enough most of the time and I don't shoot in studios or for

huge prints etc.

[Andy Murphy]

<p>Curious: The GX50 will have a Bayer sensor and not an X-tran sensor, supposedly to keep cost of camera lower. Do you think this decision will have a big or no impact on sales? Personally, I would think the extra expense for the X-Tran sensor might be the better bargain.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>In the old days many amateurs ("advanced" amateurs) used medium format or at least aspired to it. My point is that I don't think this is still the case, and there is little need to aspire to it either. In the old days of film the step up to MF produced clearly superior results.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

I'm slightly surprised by the skeptical responses so far, but I suppose I shouldn't be.

 

I'm struggling to find a raison d'etre for the new Fuji, with most MF digital enthusiasts already wedded to existing systems and their extensive lens base. The similarly designed Leica S2 appears to have sunk without trace, the only major difference being the mirrorless aspect.

 

I'm not doubting that Fuji's lenses will be optically good, just that they'll be another major expense in buying into the system. When there's surely a surplus of excellent glassware on the market already?

 

Plus I still haven't quite forgiven Fuji for lying about the real resolution of the first "6 megapixel" (really 3 Mp upscaled) digital camera that I bought many years ago. The lens fitted to it also had the worst barrel distortion I've ever seen.

[dmanthree]

<p>Rodeo, I'm sort of skeptical, but I guess we'll see when we can compare the new Fuji to either the Canon 50MP offering, or the Sony A7r II. Until then, all speculation.</p>

[Nick D.]

<p>I like Fuji look and colour , and really, you can't say that MF and FF produce the same results .</p>

[donbright]

<p>https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1283336-REG/fujifilm_gfx_50s_medium_format.html<br /> <br /> This sets a new level for Photography in my view. A must have..and then thats it! No more camera's! $6499.00<br>

B&HPhotoVideoProAudio.6dl6162twcl.fwzr@email.bandh.com </p>

 

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Appears to be real: <a href="http://www.fujifilmusa.com/press/news/display_news?newsID=881124">http://www.fujifilmusa.com/press/news/display_news?newsID=881124</a><br /> And "only" $6500!<br /> Plus $2300 for the 32-64/4.</p>

<p>Slightly bigger than a Nikon D810 and a bit lighter!</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

Ok. So we now have some sort of specification,

reading between Fuji's hype. The initial lens range

is a total disappointment, covering a <4:1 focal

range and half of that with a slow zoom. In fact the

limited apertures of the lenses outweigh the touted "shallow depth-of-field" advantage of the minimally larger sensor.

 

I'm not impressed that the camera will use the same processor as the X-pro2 and X-T2. Meaning slower processing than either of those cameras due to the higher pixel count, and only 14 bit A/D capability.

 

Hmmm! Basically all you're getting for your money is a beefed up X-T2. Very disappointing.

 

"...you can't say that MF and FF produce the same results ."

 

Expand please Nick. How exactly does the use of a nowhere near MF sensor improve drastically over a 24x36mm one? Apart from having a 4:3 format ratio that's easier to compose into.

 

And Don, I take it you were being ironic with your "must have" comment?

[dmanthree]

<p>If this camera is shipping next month, we should see some sample images very soon. Comparing this to the A7r II should be interesting.</p>

<p>Then we can start complaining about shutter shock, AF issues, etc.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

Someone has to be persuaded to buy one before

the complaints start rolling in. ;-)

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>How exactly does the use of a nowhere near MF sensor improve drastically over a 24x36mm one? ...the minimally larger sensor...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shouldn't one expect roughly the same improvement as going from DX to FX (APS-C to full frame)? Never heard anyone state that FX is minimally larger than DX (OK, 2.25x the area is a but larger than 1.7x). It is, however, minimally larger than the sensor in the Leica S series.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The initial lens range is a total disappointment, covering a</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Supposedly, there are three more coming this year (23/4, 45/2.8, 110/2). Starting with a "normal", a macro, and a wide-to-normal zoom isn't all that bad.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Shouldn't one expect roughly the same improvement as going from DX to FX (APS-C to full frame)? Never heard anyone state that FX is minimally larger than DX (OK, 2.25x the area is a but larger than 1.7x).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not really. For one thing 2.25x is considerably larger than 1.7x. Additionally, there is the issue with diminishing returns. Fairly large prints made from modern 24x36mm sensors are already very good. In fact, some made from APS-C sensors are also quite good. How much more quality and details do your subjects have and how large prints you really need? And how often? I am sure the market for "medium format" digital is quite narrow.<br>

<br>

Of course, there are people who are willing to pay (a lot) for small gains. Sometimes I fall in that group also. I am glad that there is more competition in the 44x33mm mirrorless camera market. More competition can only be good for the consumers. (Might not be good for investors if some camera company loses a lot of money.)</p>

[donbright]

<p>Yes Joe, ironic indeed, but until we see the images from the GFX, my objectivity meter will keep my skepticism in check. At this stage its just a matter of whether or not one has garnered a measure of confidence in a brand in this case Fuji. My expectations would be that the GFX should be able to punch out large prints that present image fidelity to rival or exceed that of the best digital backs available today making up any differences with Fujinon lens dynamics that they're known for. Got to admit the price point of the GFX is a attention getter. I was expecting the body to be at around $75-$78? The processor issue from the XT-2 slipped by my search. The way I read it was that the processor utilized algorithms <em>similar</em> to the X series to reflect Fuji X tones and tools for in camera image adjustments, but the sensor is not an X sensor this should be very interesting indeed. Skepticism is healthy but from all appearances it seems that Fuji has hit hard with this release. Why lenses are being released piece meal is odd to me though. They should have come out of the gate with fixed lens equal to the 35mm field in 135 Photography, that to me would be a target lens.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

Let's clear up this relative size issue. Sensor area has almost no influence on any measurable image

parameter. We measure resolution and MTF as line

pairs per millimetre, or contrast over image height

for a fixed cycles/mm figure. Both of these are purely linear - single dimensional - measurements.

 

Dynamic range on most sensors has reached the limit where body and lens flare exceed the lower brightness level that's electrically detectable. In other words a camera's mechanical design (Internal flocking or baffling) is more important than noise or bit-depth when it comes to dynamic range.

 

Noise, agreed, is a function of "pixel" area, but unless you push the ISO to ridiculous levels, it's really not an issue with modern sensors. It's visually undetectable at base ISO with any full-frame digital camera made in the last 6 years or so.

 

Lens aberrations also scale linearly with focal length, otherwise it would be almost impossible to get acceptable image quality from a tiny consumer 6mm x 4mm sensor. So making the sensor bigger doesn't relieve any strain on the lens designer.

 

Colour accuracy and saturation are governed by the micro filters incorporated in the sensor array and again are independent of sensor size. However saturation and accuracy are fairly mutually exclusive parameters. Fuji historically appear to have favoured saturation over accuracy.

 

To be short: Sensor area is a nonsensical comparator and all that really matters is how much longer the sides of the sensor are. In this case the Gx50s is between 1.2 and 1.33 times larger than fullframe. Depending which sides are compared.

 

It definitely isn't 1.7 times "better".

[donbright]

<p>My point regarding the heralded Fuji optics. If there is any skepticism on my behalf at all throughout the GFX system its not in the camera, but at the price point of the lenses, they had better be the performers we should expect. So far at, $2699.00 for the 120 Macro, $2299.00 for the 32-64, and $1499.99 for the 63mm, there are characteristics that need to be adhered to.<br /> Image resolution<br /> Chromatic & Spherical Aberration<br /> Distortion<br /> Coma & Astigmatism<br /> Vignetting<br /> Ghosting & Flares<br /> Does this matter to anyone? It should, it does to me and after all the tests will be done and again and at these prices, how would one feel if their lens bombed in a lens test.<br /> My reasoning for making the point is that its lens dynamics that will win the day when scrutinizing images. This should be very interesting! My confidence level of Fuji optics in my experience so far is, High.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>In this case the Gx50s is between 1.2 and 1.33 times larger than fullframe. Depending which sides are compared.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So let's take the square root of 1.7, which is about 1.3. The corresponding factor for DX vs FX is 1.5 (square root of 2.25). So if FX is "about one stop better" than DX, then whatever the GFX format is called is just a little under one stop better than FX; either in both cases, the larger sensor is "just minimally larger" than the smaller one, or different arguments are being made based on rather small differences. If 44x33 or 45x30 is "nowhere near MF" then going to the larger 54x40 (roughly) makes all of a sudden a huge difference? Or is that still not MF? The factor from FX to MF? is just barely larger than going from DX to FX, or a little less than 1.6 to be more precise.</p>

<p>Given what lenses are announced or to be expected, I don't see what the big deal about this MF really is. If anything, I would expect either Tilt/Shift lenses or a tiltable bellows like on the Rollei SL66 cameras to allow better control of DOF.</p>

 

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I haven't used MFD cameras. But I am very surprised that anyone who watches the camera industry would think that the GFX is vapourware. Why would it be? How could it be?</p>

<p>The best argument against the GFX is Fuji's own APS-C sensor, which delivers files on par with high resolution cameras with 135 ('full frame') sensors.</p>

<p>DSLRs made by Canon and Nikon cannot compete with the MFD cameras for outright image quality. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and there are reasons why photographers spend lots of money on MFD - they'll even prefer old CCD backs to newer DSLRs. I don't know if the GFX's sensor is going to be big enough to matter too much.</p>

<p>A final point: one reviewer compared the Nikon D800E to the Leica S2. The S2 was superior, but this was mainly evident in the edges of the frame. Some would say that this doesn't matter, and that's fine. But if it doesn't matter, why would you not shoot with a Micro 4/3 sensor to begin with?</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Fuji announced the camera and 3 lenses. 43.8 x 32.9mm, 51.4MP. Certainly not full MF, but somewhat larger than full frame FX.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

I'll give anecdotal evidence of just how important

sensor size is:

 

Some years ago I shot a scene containing fine detail using a Canon 5D fitted with an L series lens. Seconds later I shot the identical scene with a little Minolta 7i bridge camera mounted on the same tripod. Both cameras used RAW file format at the same ISO, and the same software was used to process the files with an equivalent level of sharpening, white balance, etc.

 

I then made A4 prints and 2x (about equal to 20"x16") crops from the most detailed part of the images.

 

I've since shown those prints to well over 100 people - some experienced photographers. None of them could say with certainty which camera was responsible for which shot, and in fact the majority preference was for the Minolta shot. Based mainly on a more saturated green in the grass.

 

Of course if I'd upped the ISO to 1600 it would be a different story, but that's really not the point.

 

I would bet good money that if my experiment was repeated with current DX, FF and so-called Medium Format digital cameras, then assuming equally good lenses, pixel count, image processing, and the use of a sensible ISO setting, almost no-one would be able to tell 20"x16" prints from them apart. Even 20"x30" prints would be almost impossible to distinguish.

 

Incidentally, I completely agree that a TS lens would be expected if Fuji wanted this camera to be taken seriously by professional food, architectural and product shooters. Where else is their market?

[Robin Smith]

<p>Anecdotally too, many of the professional photographers I know, have in fact "downgraded" to Fuji APS cameras from FF 35mm (although they still keep them) because the difference in IQ between the two types is clearly not that important to them. In the old days they would have been dying to "upgrade" to a Hasselblad, RZ67, or even the Fuji 6 x 8. This is why I think these "MF" cameras are addressing a small market and why I think Fuji will have a steep climb ahead with this one.</p>