super_gnome

I haven't tried a Pro2 or Xt-2 yet, but my guess is that higher resolution would lead to improved subject separation if the lens has smooth bokeh and make matters worse if the lens has nervous bokeh.

When Sony developed the current 50MP 33x44 and 100MP "full 645" sensors, the market opportunity was SLR systems that had used CCD sensors and relied on their own PDAF module for AF. Now that Hasselblad and Fuji have introduced mirrorless systems, it is much more likely that Sony will include PDAF points in the next 33x44 sensor.

Not in the market for either but I would choose the f/2 because it is smaller, lighter and focuses closer. I am very happy Fuji has a two lens strategy for most of their prime lens lineup. It really sets the system apart from anything else that's out there except for Nikon and Canon full frame DSLRs. I am hoping Fuji will eventually introduce a 16mm f/2. If they do it and it turns out to be the about the size and weight of the 14mm f/2.8, it will end up in my bag for sure.

This is a very good point. The 33x44mm sensor in the GFX is much smaller than a 41x56mm 645 format film negative and yet most of the GF lenses have max apertures equal to traditional 645 system lenses. People who already own fast XF lenses and are thinking about "going to medium format" primarily to get more subject isolation should tread carefully because the change in DOF might not meet their expectations. For those that don't love to do math, here are the GF primes and what the equivalent X system lenses would be: 23mm f/4 = 12mm f/2 45mm f/2.8 = 23mm f/1.4 63mm f/2.8 = 33mm f/1.4 110mm f/2 = 57mm f/1.0 120mm f/4 = 62mm f/2 On the other hand, I use an X-E2 and a Mamiya 645 film camera with equivalent short telephotos. The DOF of the Mamiya 150mm f/3.5 and Voigtlander 56mm f/1.4 that use with the Fuji should be virtually identical on paper and yet the overall ability to separate the subject is not the same. The Mamiya lens has softer bokeh and film seems to be more tolerant of very contrasty and busy backgrounds (eg strongly lit vegetation), so I prefer it anytime there is enough light and the size and weight of the Mamiya is not an issue. The GFX lenses and sensor may likewise have many little differences relative to the X system that don't seem like much taken individually but add up to a meaningfully different whole. In any case, I am happy Fuji made this camera. There are photographers who need (or want) higher resolution than APS-C can provide and I think going with 33x44 instead of FF was smart for both marketing and technical reasons.

I don't disagree. I wrote the following: "My guess is that _IF_ Fuji can build such a camera profitably for under $5,000 they will find enough buyers to make it worth their while". I did not express an opinion as to what they WILL charge for it if they build it. That's your area of expertise ;-)

I don't think the XF/XC lenses could be made to work. In theory they're designed to cover an APS-C sensor (29mm diagonal). Some people believe certain XF lenses actually cover full frame (42mm diagonal) but I can't imagine that they cover "crop 645" (55mm diagonal) or 645 (70mm diagonal). 645 has *six* times the surface area of APS-C!

I would be very excited if Fuji followed their own playbook from APS-C and started with a MF fixed lens rangefinder, and then go to a mirrorless MF system from there. I imagine Fuji building a MF X100 by using Sony's popular CMOS 50mp 33x44 sensor and a fast 35mm equivalent lens in front of it (a 45mm f/2.8 would be great). There would be no reason for that camera to be huge: the Sony is a "crop-MF" sensor and is therefore smaller than a 645 negative, there's no film spools and there's no restriction on where to place the viewfinder as a result of the path of the film. Also, a thought for those that have shot MF film: a 645 rangefinder could have a horizontal viewfinder---hurray!! My guess is that if Fuji can build such a camera profitably for under $5,000 they will find enough buyers to make it worth their while.