Sator-Photography

Anything up to 35mm is traditionally considered "small format". Next step up, medium format then large format. Simple: small - medium - large. In the 1990s, a 35mm format digital sensor seemed HUGE, even "full frame". But sensors are shrinking...at least in price. In 2019, small format has once more become small again. Medium format is back! 35mm is now just another format. As for pet names for formats, there have been plenty of those and there will be plenty more. Advertisers once managed to get the moniker "Ideal Format" to stick with 6x7/670 format back in the 1960-70s. From Popular Photography Jan-Nov 1991:

To put things simply, it is time to charge CanSoNikon with grossly misleading advertising in calling 35mm format, "full frame". If they use this terminology, they must clarify that it means "full frame SMALL FORMAT" but they are never going to admit the truth of the fact that 35mm is just "small format". They prefer instead to make sly insinuations that their camera sensors are as a large as Phase One and Hasselblad "full frame" and thus by underhanded implication, larger (more "full") than the 4433 crop medium format sensor used by Fuji and Pentax. This simply reflects the influence on the industry of CaNikon in brainwashing the masses into a distorted and blatantly false 35mm-centred view of the world, one that fetishizes 35mm small format as some sort of arrivist "full frame" nonsense. It's time for consumers to refuse to swallow the CaNikon advertising propaganda by taking these falsehoods apart.

The return of medium format to the mainstream of photography seems to have created a huge problem with nomenclature related to the advertising term "full frame". In the film era, 35mm format was called "small format" to distinguish it from "medium format" and "large format". The digital revolution changed all of that, largely wiping out medium format, and rendering large format extinct. At first, even small format digital sensors were expensive, so much so that 35mm format sensor cameras like the original Canon 1Ds (with its 11MP sensor) cost around $8000. Most mere mortals could only afford an APS-C or APS-H format sensor camera. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1ds/22 Price - body kit (no lens) USA $ 7,999 UK £ 6,999 (including VAT) Europe € 8,000 Because medium format largely disappeared from the consciousness of most photographers, the idea that a 35mm format digital camera was something amazingly aspirational came about. No longer was 35mm format, “small format”, a “miniature format” considered suitable for amateurs or for reportage, instead it became fetishised as an extraordinary large format called “full frame”. Forgotten were the days when photo editors would reject 35mm format submissions in many genres unless it was in medium format or larger. Only serious pros could afford to buy “full frame” digital cameras. The average amateur could only afford to buy a “subframe” format camera. I can still remember looking at the Canon website 10-15 years ago and looking with awe at their “full frame” cameras outside of my budget. The trouble is that medium format never really disappeared. It was just priced way out of the majority of people’s budgets. While many iconic medium format firms like Rollei went bust, victims of the digital revolution that ran them over, a couple of companies did survive. Now as fabrication costs of medium format sensors start to gradually come down, medium format is slowly coming back to life and returning to the mainstream. However, it is still not in the consciousness of most photographers for whom various forms of “small format” sensor sizes are all they have ever known. This comes from the Phase One website: Note this passage in particular: You can see that there is a nomenclature issue going on here. In the language of digital medium format, the term “full frame” means a sensor size (53.7 x 40.2mm) similar to the 56 x 42mm film frame size of 645 film medium format. Medium format film sizes included 6 x 4.5cm (645 format), 6 x 6 (square format), 6 x 7cm (670), 6 x 8cm (680) and 6 x 9cm format. There were also panoramic films even wider than that. 6x4.5 56mm x 42mm 2352 sq.mm eg Pentax 45, Mamiya 45, Hasselblad H1, etc. 6x6 56mm x 56mm 3136 sq.mm eg Hasselblad 200/500, Rollei TLR, Yashicamat TLR, etc. 6x7 56mm x 67mm 3752 sq.mm eg Pentax 67, Mamiya RB67/RZ67, etc. 6x8 56mm x 75mm 4200 sq.mm Table taken from: http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/filmformats.html Fuji only fairly recently ended production of film medium format cameras like this one: You can see that it looks like a GFX50R, only the GFX series has a much smaller “crop sensor”. What Phase One calls “crop sensor mirrorless medium format” refers to a 44 x 33mm size format that did not exist in the film era. Calling it “mirrorless medium format” is also going to be a problem because it’s only a matter of time before we see mirrorless 645 format digital cameras. However, for most digital natives, “medium format” is so off their radar and out-of-sight-out-of-mind that they still think in the 1990’s advertising nomenclature which fetishizes 35mm format as that awe-inspiringly aspirational thing in the sky called “full frame”. I also suspect that calling 645 format digital medium format “full frame” is probably going to be a problem in the future when fabrication costs come down enough to allow the rebirth of 670 format in the digital age. But that is still a long way off (5-12 years perhaps). To be honest, I had originally hoped that the Fuji GFX cameras would be what Phase One calls “full frame” i.e. 645 format rather than the 4433 (44 x 33mm) crop format. Calling the crop sensor format “4433” makes the most sense because it follows the conventions of the medium format nomenclature of the film era (645, 6x6, 670 etc). It’s also descriptive of the sensor size and avoids the use of cute “pet names” for formats coined by advertising firms. Other nicknames for the format like “mini medium format”, “super full frame format” also cause headaches. What are the midi and maxi medium formats? And what is 645 full frame medium format called if 4433 is “super full frame”—“super duper full frame” perhaps? In which case, if someone releases a 670 format digital sensor, what then—“super duper whoopee full frame” perhaps? Life is just much easier when you dump this dated and entirely historical 1990s advertising term, “full frame” altogether. It is simply too confusing to call 35mm small format “full frame” while calling 4433 medium format a “crop sensor”. With it we should also dump the “crop sensor” terminology, except perhaps when you can mount a lens format larger than the sensor format (e.g. Canon 35mm format EF lens on an EF mount APS-C body) where you are using only a “crop” of the full image circle of the lens. That would mean that the Fuji X system is a full frame system because unlike CaNikon DSLR systems, it is designed to be used exclusively with APS-C format lenses. This would mean that the Pentax 645 digital system is not full frame because it uses a 645 format mount from the film era but with a 4433 crop sensor that is a format smaller than the full frame lens image circle of a Pentax 645 mount. Life is also much easier when you dump the historical advertising hype to just call 35mm format what it is: “35mm format”. Many of us do just that. For example: https://www.thephoblographer.com/2019/03/04/review-the-fujifilm-gf-100-200mm-f5-6-r-lm-ois-wr/ The trouble is that CaNikon (CanSoNikon?) advertising still pushes the 1990s idea that 35mm is somehow this awesome, mindbogglingly oversized format called “full frame”. People are too brainwashed by CaNikon. In their CaNikon addled wet dreams, people probably fantasise that it's the same size as a Phase One “full frame” sensor and hence bigger than the sensor on a Fuji GFX all because CaNikon touts it as “full frame”. Some medium format people look down upon the 4433 “crop sensor mirrorless medium format”. However, to be honest, I am not sure I would have been able to afford the GFX50s if it were “full frame” (645 format). Even if I could afford it, I would not have taken it on my travels as far and wide around the world as I have my GFX50s: both the camera and the lenses would have been much bigger if they were “full frame”. I am very happy with my GFX50s, easily the best camera I have ever owned.

To be honest, I really feel there is a place for an X-system equivalent to a Canon 1DX II, Nikon D5, and Sony a9. It may not be the camera that you, as the reader, might personally want to own, because you are perfectly content with your X100F, X-T2 etc. While that is fine, it isn't what the question is all about either. The question is whether Fuji should try to create a high-end professional sport and wildlife system to rival similar 135 format systems. I think the answer to this is a resounding "yes". There are a number of ways this might become technologically feasible. The first is that Fuji could purchase Sony sensors with the on-sensor memory and fast read-out of the Sony a9 so that it allows you to shoot at 20fps using the electronic shutter. That costs money. Yes, eventually the price of such units will come down, but by that time Fuji would have missed the boat. I think that being able to shoot at +11fps with a mechanical shutter and 20fps with an electronic shutter is a worthwhile goal. Yes, an APS-C system gains you a stop of depth of field, but for reportage, sports, and wildlife, I don't see this as being a problem. With environmental photography, you often want to show the habitat of the subject. That means you can choose a faster aperture to stop action without losing excessive amounts of depth of field. If you want ultra shallow depth of field and dramatic subject isolation, that is probably something you would prefer to do with a 4433 medium format system: the GFX system. There are things that Fuji could plausibly do better than Sony too. First a start, Fuji could offer better value for money telephoto primes. Next, Fuji could offer professional support packages that rival that of Canon or Nikon. The body should be made more rugged than current X-system bodies so you can literally take it into a war zone for reportage usage or into a sports match in the pouring rain. If that isn't what you need, fine, buy the X-T2S instead, which will probably be more than most of us need anyway. There is also potential for the future as well. This includes options such as the organic sensor and a global shutter system. These are simply not going to be cheap when they are novel technologies. It you have to build a premium model to match the premium electronic innovations, then so be it. Once again, I remind readers that this doesn't mean you have to buy into this system yourself. Not every Canon users owns a 1DX II either and many find the 6DII or 5DIV to be plenty. The same will hold true for Fuji X system users. It's more a question about whether it is in Fuji's overall best interest to prove it is able to offer a serious rival fast shooting X system with different options for different levels of user. But as an X-T2 user, I can tangibly imagine a model that sits above it that is designed for professional ultra fast sports, wildlife, and reportage photography. Even the X-T2 is almost there for such usage now. It just seems to me that all that Fuji has to do is go ahead and realise what seems so readily palpable.

It's fairly common for the Japanese government to be highly proactive in intervening in industry. The suggestion that this is totally unheard of simply isn't true at all. In this case, they want to ensure that Japanese patents and expertise remain in Japanese hands. As the photography industry becomes more specialised and high-end/enthusiast orientated due to the slow decline of the point and shoot camera, mergers and acquisitions in this industry become highly plausible.

As promised I have gotten my hands on the original Japanese article. The most fascinating aspect of the original Japanese article is that it presents Fuji CEO Komori's words as a verbatim quote stating that they are going to take diabolical delight in propping up Canon's chief rival, Nikon, as vengeance for Canon's underhand dealings in snatching Toshiba Medical from them. To avoid breaching copyright and to save myself time writing out the whole article word for word in another language I am going to present salient points (apologies if I've mistranslated marketing jargon as this isn't my forte...in any language):

While I have similar fears about the X series being downgraded to a cheaper consumer line, I also tend to feel that there is often too much speculation about photography firms having "Grand Master-Plans" that they intend to stick to come hell or high water even to their own detriment. There is only one Master-Plan for any corporation, and that is to turn a profit. If it is profitable, then Fujifilm will make high-end X system bodies and lenses. It also means however that product differentiation between the APS-C and 4433 format systems will now become an increasing priority in their future roadmap. Fortunately, an APS-C system and 4433 system are inherently well differentiated from one another. From a pragmatic point of view, you can't make f/1.0, f/1.2, or even f/1.4 lenses for a medium format system. Technically it is feasible but they would be so comically large that nobody would buy them. Nor can you really make long telephoto 4433 format lenses, expect to actually sell them (when they are sized and priced like the Hubble telescope), and have them focus at ultra fast frame rates to capture sports and wildlife. In the end one always ends up a field system and the other a studio system, with only a modest grey zone in between.

BTW that's Sony that's calling them CDAF "points" in that quoted diagram. Whether they are software based, based on the main sensor, or on a dedicated autofocus sensor, they are still commonly called "points". Hasselblad too are talking about increasing the number of CDAF "points" on their X1d from having just one point smack bang in the middle! If you want to insist that they be called something else that's fine by me. I promise not to be upset The thing is that because of limitations in processing, as formats get larger, the CDAF coverage over the viewfinder often becomes proportionately less and less with every increase in sensor size. That's why the question this post started with is still a perfectly reasonable one. But I've already answered my own question: CDAF coverage is widely distributed across the viewfinder as on X series models and not just restricted to a single point in the centre as it is currently on the X1d.

BTW I already know the answer to this question. There is fairly extensive AF point coverage on the GFX 50S, and it is similar to that found on the X series. Yes, I know it is CDAF, not PDAF. Yes, I know there are no PDAF points on the Sony 4433 sensor. No I never said there were any PDAF points on there. Yes, I do know that the GFX 50S is a mirrorless and doesn't have a dedicated off-sensor PDAF autofocus sensor like the 645Z (and which is limited in size thus restricting the PDAF points to the centre of the viewfinder). Yes, there still is a point to the question of CDAF autofocus point coverage because the Hasselblad X1d has only ONE (yes, one!) AF point, though there are apparently plans to improve this in an upcoming firmware upgrade. CDAF points do not necessarily always cover the entire viewfinder. Here for example the Sony a7, which has CDAF autofocus points that covers much but not all of the viewfinder: These CDAF autofocus points are not small, well defined points or crosses, but they are usually called points nonetheless. If others want to come up with their own preferred terminology, that is 100% fine by me

That said, my trouble is that I have been shooting with the 50MP Canon 5DsR for over a year now. It's the new normal, and my iMac is a few years old now. All I could think of when the GFX 50S was rumoured was "51MP?....is that ALL???" Gimme more! Like 75MP, plus X-trans. LOL!

There you go...taken on a 3.3MP sensor camera: SaveSave

Fuji said that the "G" represents a continuation of the traditional nomenclature of Fuji medium format cameras e.g. GX680III, GX645AF. There was also an "X" in there too. Their medium format rangefinders had a GF nomenclature e.g. GF670. So if you continue that nomenclature and add in the fact that the digital X series has XF lenses, then it seems logical to call the medium format version "GFX". Historically, Fuji use the term "S" inconsistently. Here, it might even mean "Studio", as it does in Canon terminology. SaveSave

One thing I haven't seen anywhere is what the distribution of AF points across the viewfinder the GFX 50S has. Is it better than the Pentax 645Z: I appreciate there are no PDAF points, and it is all CDAF, but I am curious to know if it has more than the one AF point of the Hasselblad X1d.

I've got great pictures I've got great shots from my first digital camera with a 3MP sensor. Who needs more?

Here are the DXO Mark scores for the Pentax 645Z that transiently appeared on the site before being deleted: This gives us a rough idea of the sort of dynamic range the Sony 51MP 4433 sensor is capable of delivering. According to DXO Mark the Sony a6300 has 13.7 stops of dynamic range: Sony A6300 : Tests and Reviews | DxOMark That means that compared to an X-Pro2/X-T2, the GFX 50S will at best only have about one stop of extra dynamic range. You pay a lot just to get minor incremental improvements. Incidentally, Phase One claim 15 stops of dynamic range for their 100MP Sony 645 format sensor: XF 100MP Camera System Image quality from the GFX 50S will nonetheless be better than the 645Z because of the short flange distance, elimination of any need to design optics accounting for the mirror box, shortened back focus, and the fact that a lot of Pentax's medium format lenses are dated designs from the analogue era. The other big problem with the Sony 51MP sensor is that it is in competition with the 50MP Canon 5DsR. Canon also have a clear roadmap for sensor designs. They have publicly announced plans to manufacture a 120MP sensor: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/120_megapixel_apsh_format_cmos_sensor.do They also have showed off a prototype 250MP sensor. If the GFX 50S is on a four year product development cycle, by the end of it Canon may have a 120MP stacked sensor in a 5Ds. It could leave the Fuji looking ridiculous. Fuji need a sensor roadmap e.g. plans to manufacture an organic 4433 sensor, upgrades to the Sony 4433 sensor (e.g. addition of X-trans or a higher resolution sensor that doesn't cost an arm and a leg).