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).

The reasons for the performance of the X series lenses vs Canon include: 1. You can overbuilt the specs of smaller format lenses e.g. additional ultra low dispersion elements and aspherical elements without causing too much of a price blowout 2. Some of the Canon L lenses are getting old. Many are over 10 years old and some are up to 20 years old. The Fuji lenses are more recent designs benefiting from the dramatic improvements in computer assisted optical engineering during this time. 3. Short flange distance/back focus distance, and elimination of the space needed for the mirror box Canon will need to make their L lenses seriously 250MP ready, given they are showing off a prototype 250MP sensor, and already have announced plans to manufacture a 120MP sensor (probably stacked). It will also mean that Canon FF small format lenses will end up becoming rather large (like Zeiss Otus lenses), but if you look at 135 format lenses since the 1960s they have been growing larger as time goes by anyway. If Fuji really wanted to they could overbuild the specs of XF lenses so that they perform as well as XG lenses. They just have to make sure that XF lenses perform as well at 20 & 60 lp/mm on MTF plots as the equivalent XG lenses do at 10 & 30 lp/mm, which isn't an unreasonable ask. However, the chance that will happen now is probably zero.

Despite initial scepticism, I think the fact that the development of GF medium format lenses is adversely affecting XF lens development is beginning to dawn on a larger number of people. It is clearly doing so at two levels: 1. Diverting human resources away from XF lens development 2. Causing the XF mount to be treated as a second rate consumer product for those unable to afford medium format There will also be fear of creating anything too good for the X series in case it upstaged the GFX series. This is actually a real and meaningful threat, not a hypothetical one. The reasons: 1. It is easier to overbuild the specs of smaller format lenses An APS-C lens with a 62mm filter diameter is like a full frame lens with a 94mm filter diameter (x 1.52), or a FX lens with a 120mm filter diameter (x1.27). X series lenses perform well because they have exceptional light gathering ability RELATIVE to the sensor size. You can do this with smaller format lenses and overbuilt them. Try to do that with larger formats and the lenses end up blowing out to elephantine proportions. Many smaller format lenses even have more elements to their design, whereas doing this on larger format lenses causes them to blow out unreasonably in price and weight. A good example is the Zeiss Touit 50mm f/2.8 macro with its 14 elements in 11 groups (52mm filter), which is a remarkable number of elements for a prime lens of this focal length. It would have been even better with a 62mm filter size and additional low dispersion elements, which would have made it pricier, but not so much that it would make it unrealistic. The chances of anyone commercially making a 4433 format 100mm f/2.8 prime lens with 14 elements and a 120mm filter size is zero. 2. It is easier to overbuild the specs of smaller format sensors The X-series has a more sophisticated sensor in that it has an X-trans RGB configuration. This is lacking in the GFX 50S probably because it is too expensive to add the X-trans array to it. Smaller sensors are often more sophisticated than larger ones having for e.g. BSI, stacked sensor designs, X-trans RGB. Larger sensors tend to be unsophisticated brutes by comparison. In 3-4 years time, Fuji might find that they are able to make APS-C size organic X-trans sensors, but that it is uneconomical to produce 4433 size organic sensors. This could result in an organic APS-C sensor outperforming a 4433 medium format Bayer sensor. The fear is that Fuji may cripple the X series to prevent this from happening. It would be a great tragedy to see the X series being downgraded from overachieving small format dynamo to just a second class consumer product fit only for those who cannot afford medium format. The purpose of this thread is to keep the dream alive...although that isn't going to stop people posting in this thread asking for an upgrade to their kit lens. Sigh....

It sends the control to the command dial. That means if you turn the aperture dial to "C", then you can control your aperture setting via your command dial.

GF 110mm f/2.0...that is perfect! Just what I was looking for, something to rival the Leica S 100mm f/2.0 lens. Once this lens comes out I might consider taking the plunge!

All mirrorless lenses have a reduced back focus distance. That is integral to mirrorless lens design. That particular part of lens design is to optimise the acutance of the lens rather than to reduce incidence of light angle at the corners primarily. Yes, the concern about angle of light incidence reducing corner acutance is a basic principle of modern digital optical design. Yes, a shorter flange distance is part of the equation in mirrorless design that needs to be overcome and accounted for. This is the reason why most companies now have patents for curved sensors as this reduces the angle of corner incidence even when flange distance is much reduced. Sony also said that the corner vignetting resulting from a shorter flange distance in a mirrorless mount was the reason for them adding BSI to their sensor for the a7RII. Sony engineers explained that the reason for this is that sensors have a three dimensional architecture. If the light hits the architecture at an angle, it casts a shadow, just like the sun rays at sunset causes buildings in a city to cast a shadow. BSI is intended to partially counteract this. Also the diagram I quoted does not show the effect of the addition of telecentric design as this has the effect of effectively increasing the point of convergence from the sensor thus reducing the angle of corner induce. The diagram as shown clearly shows that the angle of light incidence on the sensor corners is increased by shortening the flange distance. It is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE to do otherwise.

BTW this is a thread for those who shoot professionally. If all you do is take casual snapshots, this thread isn't really meant for you. The trouble is that even if I did buy into the medium format line, I would still need to keep the APS-C X-series line for many on location shoots outside the studio. Photographers who shoot medium format often (but not always) leave their medium format camera behind in the studio when flying and travelling longer distances for on location work. I often have a HUGE amount of lighting equipment etc that I need to carry. So that means that there is still place for Fuji to aim at the professional market with the X-series. But Fuji are instead focussing on casual photography orientated products exactly at the same time as they release the medium format system. That is of grave concern. I think it is important to push for there being room to "aim high" with the X series rather than demoting it to a Instax like commercial product. You cannot do sports and wildlife with medium format. You cannot do low light photography opening up aperture speeds to f/1.0-1.4 on a medium format system. Nor is it reasonable for Fuji to ask we buy slow and ginormous medium format long telephoto lenses for stratospheric prices. It seems perfectly reasonable to have something like a L lens vs non-L lens differentiation in the X-series lenses. While I appreciate that the compact, slow, and cheaper lenses sell well...and Fuji being a business they should expand offerings in the street and casual shooting department. BUT...there is room for system building with showcase lens models that turn heads and win publicity for the system as a whole, even if most casual shooters end up buying the cheap stuff in the end. The high-end stuff helps sell the commercial grade stuff. Fuji still needs to demand that the X-system be taken very seriously indeed rather than as a low end system. Fuji cameras also need to seen in the hands of more professional photographers for the sake of publicity. That means that once Fuji finish making these street and casual photography lenses, they need to return to system building with serious high-end offerings. As for filter sizes, keeping that constant for commercial grade lenses is fine, but for anything high-end, the dictates of the optics should dictate the filter size. Doing whatever it takes to ensure optical optical performance is what is important. If anything I think Fuji have been too conservative in their filter and overall lens sizes. By all means keep these down to a minimum for street and casual photography purposes, but there should be also be a L lens type of more high-end optics line in which lens optical performance takes precedence. The early lenses tend to neither fish nor fowl in this regard, but product differentiation between ultra compact and discreet street photography models, and larger high-end optics show-case models would probably be helpful.

Just another little word about the design of the upcoming Fuji medium format camera. I see we have a mock up suggesting that the Fuji is going to resemble the Hasselblad X1d. The problem is that Fuji have said this: https://fujifilm-blog.com/2015/06/30/interview-with-mr-takashi-ueno-from-fujifilm-tokyo-why-dont-fujifilm-make-full-frame-dslr/ In other words, when light hits the corners of the sensor at too steep an angle there is degradation of image quality and vignetting. The shorter the flange distance, the steeper the angle of light incidence at the sensor corners: However, there are also advantages to having a short flange distance. On of these is improved acutance. Being able to eliminate the space taken up by the mirror box is also an advantage in lens design. However, make the flange distance too short and you run into the problem with degradation of corner performance. One way to have a short flange distance and then reduce the angle of light incidence in the corner is to introduce telecentric design principles into your lens. You can see this on Sony FE mount lenses, which are often remarkably long. The way this lens elongation works is by creating extra distance between the sensor and the lens exit pupil position, which is moved further away from the sensor using an additional rear element. The disadvantage of this is that it makes the lenses really big, and the shorter you make the flange distance the more the lens size blows out. Because aperture size also affects the angle of light incidence in the corners, the wider the maximum aperture the more you need this telecentric lens extension i.e. when you increase the maximum aperture a lot it causes a disproportionate blow out in the lens size. So if you put these two elements together—short flange distance plus ultra wide maximum aperture—you end up with a massive lens. With this you can understand the way lens designs work on mirrorless systems with extremely short flange distances. The best example of this is the Sony FE mount, a full frame mount with APS-C dimension. The reason why the full frame FE mount has an 18mm flange distance is because it was originally an APS-C mount ("NEX mount"). Compare that to the Fuji XF mount, which has a flange distance of 17.7mm, or the APS-C Canon EOS-M mount at 18mm. Now you should be able to understand why Sony FE mount lenses tend to avoid ultra wide maximum apertures, and when you do get these, the lens size blows out to become disproportionately large. On the other hand, while increasing the flange distance reduces the size of the lens, you don't want to make it too long either, because that would negate the advantages of having a short flange distance. You can see the advantages of a longish flange distance in the M4/3 system, which has a 19.25mm flange distance, which is slightly longer than APS-C mounts despite being a smaller format. However, the lenses become really compact, even when they have fast apertures, and are much more affordable. It's all matter of give and take. Either you have a slightly bigger body with lots of compact lenses, or you can have a smaller body and lots of really big (i.e. expensive) lenses. Now we have another example of a mirrorless mount that has followed the Sony example of setting an ultra short flange distance and that is the Hasselblad X mount, which has a flange distance of about 20mm. That is only a millimetre or so more than the M4/3 mount flange distance of 19.25mm. So we have a medium format mount with dimensions more like an APS-C or M4/3 mount. If you look at the Hasselblad X mount lenses, you will notice that they have quite slow maximum apertures. In Hasselblad's case the decision may be deliberate. They want a small, portable system. It is an enthusiast's entry level system designed for slow lenses with modestly short focal lengths, rather than a studio photographer's system. Short focal lengths permit the omission of a retrofocal element and this helps the compactness of the lens further. On the other hand, by having such an ultra short flange distance, they are giving up on being able to readily make fast lenses (at least not without a huge blow out in fast lens size to brick like proportions), as well in the performance of ultra wide focal lengths where the corner angle of incidence becomes particularly steep. Hasselblad have deliberately introduced certain strengths and limitations into their X system so that it doesn't complete with their H system. As for Fuji, they don't have multiple competing medium format systems. There is probably only going to be one system. And Fuji have expressed concern with excessively steep angle of light incidence in the corners. That can only mean that Fuji are going to take the flange distance of their XF system and increase it proportionately up to medium format dimensions. That will make the body larger, but it will keep the size, weight, and price of their lenses down. My prediction is that they will take the XF system flange distance and increase by the crop factor from the 4433 size sensor. This ought to give you an approximately 34mm flange distance, which is still a lot less than the 53mm of the Leica S medium format DSLR mount. That means the new Fuji will likely be nowhere near as slim as the Hasselblad X1d, but that is a good thing in many ways. We should welcome it, because it will control the blow out in lens size, especially when designing ultra wide aperture lenses.

I have grave fears that Fuji are going to downgrade the entire X-system to become more of a lower end consumer product in order to draw more attention to their medium format system. I hope that Fuji do not give up their aspirations of the X-system being something that can rival or surpass the best high-end full frame models. It does concern me that we are getting news of Fuji cancelling the 120mm f/2.8 macro, the 33mm f/1.0 prime, and the 200mm f/2.0 has likewise vanished off the lens road map. I can only hope that Fuji keep aspiring to much greater things for the X-system, and do not cripple it to make their medium format system look better. With that thought in mind I compiled a list of ambitious dream lenses. Keep in mind that the X-system is turning into a more capable sports and wildlife system, something that a medium format system could never really manage because the lenses are too big and slow. Even if Fuji now refuse to make high-end X-system lenses that would conflict through rivalry with their medium format siblings, at least they can make fast telephoto lenses of a sort impractical for medium format. First: Fuji XF 135mm f/1.8 prime (no OIS to reduce size and maximise sharpness). A dream portrait lens for portrait and wedding photographers, who would actually be able to carry it around on location to shoot hand-held without a tripod, unlike a full frame 200mm f/2.0 IS prime or a a 250mm f/4.0 medium format prime. Second: Fuji XF 33mm f/1.0 prime This was reputedly planned but cancelled to focus on cheaper consumer orientated models that sell well. But Fuji need to build the system with showcase lenses too. It must have MTF plots that match the Sony-Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* in the centre but surpasses it at the edges. Let it be as large and expensive as it has to be to achieve this end e.g. 86mm filter size to get that perfect corner sharpness without vignetting at f/1.0. You just can't make medium format lenses this fast so there is no conflict of interest here. Third: Fuji XF 200mm f/1.8 OIS prime lens Canon used to make a 200mm f/1.8 prime lens, so it is perfectly feasible. A f/1.8 maximum aperture would make it compete more directly with full frame 300mm f/2.8 lenses (as at f/1.8 the Fuji would have the same depth of field as a 300mm FF lens at f/2.8). Fourth: Fuji 70-200mm f/2.8 OIS zoom lens This will make a 105-300mm full frame equivalent zoom like the Sigma Sport lens 120-300mm f/2.8 zoom. Sixth: XF 50-100mm f/1.8 zoom (no OIS to reduce size and maximise sharpness) Like the Sigma zoom lens. For a 75-150mm full frame equivalent perspective. An ideal fast portraiture lens really only practical in APS-C format. Seventh: XF 120-300mm f/2.8 Extender 1.4x It would have a built in 1.4x extender like the Canon. This will allow it to reach from 182-638mm FF equivalent. The main body would be proportioned more like the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 full frame zoom. Unlike the Canon 200-400mm f/4 Extender 1.4x, it might actually be affordable. Nothing like this is possible without it becoming absurdly expensive on a FF system, let alone a medium format system.

I just brought a Sigma 180mm f/2.8 macro for my Canon since Fuji aren't going to come out with their 120mm macro. I shot some flowers with it 1:1 on a monopod and I certainly did appreciate the image stabilisation doing that especially since you tend to shoot at slower apertures to get more depth of field. Shorter focal length macros force you to get closer to the subject and this causes you to lose even more light. As for the suggestion that there is no 1:1 macro for the X-system, that simply isn't true at all since the Zeiss Touit 50mm f/2.8 is a 1:1 macro. Nor is it that exorbitantly priced consider its badge.

The decision to omit the X-trans configuration is almost certainly driven by cost. They want it to be cost competitive with the Pentax 645Z. Perhaps once the cost of manufacture of 4433 sensors comes down, Fuji might consider adding it to a future release. The original X100 had a Bayer sensor, and only later did the X100 acquire the X trans sensor. The days of Bayer sensors are numbered. They will be gradually replaced by non-Bayer sensors of all different varieties e.g. stacked sensors and organic X-trans sensors. A Japanese magazine did a comparison between the Sigma 40MP Foveon sensor vs 16MP X-trans vs Canon/Nikon Bayer sensors. It suggested that the X-trans sensor does have the ability to resolve detail to a degree that outstripped its 16MP limitations: https://plus.google.com/116458677975033889029/posts/Z39J4VuvYwA