super_gnome

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'm seeing the same thing.
 
Here's a question. Which on has better bokeh, a 16mp aps-c sensor or a 24mp aps-c sensor?

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 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. 

Sounds cool, looking forward to the year 2030 where I can pick one up on eBay for an okay price.

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!

If this is true the best aspect of it from my point of view is that it would seem to rule out 'full frame', which in turn confirms a long term commitment to APS. Having switched from Sony to Fuji precisely because Sony more or less abandoned APS to pursue FF, that's good news.

I don't know how popular this opinion is, but I'd love a rangefinder-style with a fixed 50mm equivalent, say 2.8 with a leaf shutter. This is probably unrealistic, but if they could do that for around the $2000 mark, I'd to everything I could to buy one. I normally prefer 35mm, but 50mm is still good for an every day focal length, and it's tight enough for me that I can do headshots with it, too.
 
A guy can dream. It'll probably be $8k minimum, if the Pentax 645z is anything to go by.

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.