Sator-Photography

It is important that Fuji demonstrate that the X system is even capable of supporting a full f/2.8 zoom "trinity". What sort of a mount would it be if it couldn't support the full focal range for every application? The trouble is that it is known that mirrorless ultra wides are difficult to design, and it is terra incognito for optical engineers. SLR ultra wides are derivatives of old designs, but engineers are breaking new ground with mirrorless ultra wides. That means it will take longer, but it is simply logical that Fuji need to fill out its lens range by offering the full fast zoom trinity. In that sense it is hardly mere rumour and speculation that at some point Fuji will manage to come up with a satisfactory optical formula for an ultra wide fast zoom.

Rumour has it that Sony are soon going to release their 16-35mm f/2.8 thus completing their f/2.8 zoom trinity to complement their f/4 zoom trinity. BUT where have Fuji gone? They are nowhere to be seen. It looks like they are going to be caught napping as Sony completes the zoom trinity before they do. Time to wake up and do something about it...quick pronto.

My point is simply that however you define what "ultra wide" vs "super wide" etc etc is, 14mm APS-C format doesn't feel so terribly "ultra" wide that it starts to make composition unusually difficult. That would be the last reason to avoid this focal length. Nor even 12mm—I too love my 12mm Touit and could happily shoot with that lens all day. It's only when it gets to around 8-10mm that you have to be much more careful with composition, and things start to feel ultra wide. I really look forward to Fuji releasing a 8mm prime or the rumoured 8-16mm f/2.8 zoom lens. I must give that a go using the 16mm f/1.4 as a macro. That should be fun.

That Wiki article states: An ultra wide-angle lens is a lens whose focal length is shorter than the short side of film or sensor. To which someone has rightly appended the term: [citation needed]. There is no optical reason to define ultra wide angled lenses on this basis. It is clearly an arbitrary convention that someone has made up. For example, the Leica S system has a 45 x 30mm sensor. So by this definition anything <45mm is an ultra wide. Yet Leica call their 45mm lens a "standard wide angle lens": https://au.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-S/Leica-S-Lenses/Elmarit-S-45mm-f-2.8-ASPH.-CS They call the 35mm lens for this format a "universal wide angle lens": https://au.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-S/Leica-S-Lenses/Summarit-S-35MM-f-2.5-CS And they call a 30mm lens a "super wide angle": https://au.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-S/Leica-S-Lenses/Elmarit-S-30mm-f-2.8-ASPH.-CS They only call their 24mm lens an "ultra wide angle": https://au.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-S/Leica-S-Lenses/Super-Elmar-S-24mm-f-3.5-ASPH

I just tried comparing Iridient vs Silkypix Pro 7. In terms of sharpness I see no difference between Iridient and Silkypix, but Silkypix renders colour much better. Iridient makes the colours much more grey than either the in camera JPEG file or Silkypix. The other problem with LR is that over the last few months the film simulations have become almost unusable due to the unwelcome emergence of strange colour artifacts. As soon as I tried out Silkypix Pro I instantly regained the full use of the Fuji film simulations. The colour rendering is the main reason I am now principally using Silkypix Studio Developer Pro 7.

I wouldn't really call the 14mm f/2.8 an ultra wide angle lens. It is the full frame equivalent of a 21mm lens. That's moderately wide angle, but hardly ultra wide. It shouldn't be too hard to compose your subject well at this focal length.

Although it is rumoured that Fuji might have shelved this project, now that Sony have released the Planar T* FE 50mm F1.4 ZA for E mount with MTF plots that look a hair better than even the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4, I do hope that Fuji can fire back with a 33mm f/1.0 with MTF plots just as good. Sony are only finding their feet when it comes to designing mirrorless lenses. However, there is good reason to think that Fuji are likewise gaining from increased experience designing for the X mount. I would like to see a state of the art 33mm f/1.0 lens from Fuji even if it is a little bit pricier than what we are used to.

Well...well...it is now rumoured that Sony might release a 16-35mm f/2.8 zoom lens for the E mount after all. It will be interesting to see how it performs. Moreover, where is Fuji? What has happened to the 8-16mm f/2.8 zoom? I hope Fuji manage to complete their f/2.8 zoom trilogy soon.

If Fuji debut their medium format camera at a lower price point that the 645Z, Pentax will drop its prices to meet the competition, and those who want a Bayer sensor can go get one from Pentax.

If there is one thing I am certain about and that is if it doesn't have a X-trans sensor, I'm not going to have anything to do with it. Just having another Bayer sensor MFD camera out there is insufficient product differentiation.

BTW the more I think about it, the more I have to conclude that this analysis is probably bang on: I am now voting for a cropped 44 x 33mm MFD system. I think this is more future proof than a full frame MFD system. The problem with full frame MFD is that it is hard to make the lenses large enough to take full advantage of the larger size of the format. This in turn limits the maximum aperture of lenses. For example, comparing macro lenses, the Leica S (cropped MFD) 120mm macro has a maximum aperture of f/2.5, whereas that of the Hasselblad H (full frame) 120mm macro is only f/4. Another advantage of the X-system is that it is possible to make the optics "huge" relative to the sensor size. This is probably one of the reasons that X-system lenses are sharper shooting wide open than full frame lenses. The higher sensor resolution climbs the more it merely accentuates the hopeless softness of larger format lenses shooting wide open, and while you could say "well then just make the optics bigger and better to match", the lenses will be huge and ridiculously expensive. While larger format sensors have an advantage at the moment when it comes to light collecting ability, resulting in better S/N ratio and dynamic range, there will come a point when it will become increasingly less necessary to resort to something as crudely simplistic as a brute increase in sensor size to achieve that. Then increasing format size will result in ever diminishing returns, while only highlighting the disadvantages that come with increased format size. The next advantage of a 44 x 33mm format system is that if will make it easier for Fuji to design the mount to take IBIS. If what they say is true and an IBIS mount results in a larger lenses, then all the more reason to make it a 44 x 33mm sensor system to avoid an excessive blow-out in lens sizes. Once again, I certainly hope that Fuji will not release their system based on the current Sony 51MP 44 x 33mm sensor and that they will wait for the next generation of this sensor format to come out first. At which point, if that sensor has about 75MP resolution, then without IBIS it would start to become a tripod only studio camera, with this only getting worse in future as sensor resolutions increase. It's all very well creating a portable MFD system, but if it becomes almost impossible to shoot with it hand held, then it negates the point of the system. The last advantage of a cropped MFD sensor is that it makes it easier to spread focus points more widely. The last thing you want is to be limited by having too few focus points crowded into the centre of the viewfinder. It is all very well having shallower depth of field, but if you have only one focus point like a Hasselblad...

I just got this email from an Australian seller. I looked at the email carefully and immediately noticed something extremely unusual: a graphite silver X-T2! The seller even offers the option of a graphite or black versions of the X-T2: http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod14094.htm?utm_source=DCWEDM&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=edm8Jul2016 In case they are forced to take it down, here is a screen capture of the website:

It's present on my X-Pro2, so it will almost certainly be on the X-T2. There is no reason for them to remove it.

With the appearance of a new lens roadmap, I thought I would put together my case in favour of an XF 135mm f/1.8 prime lens. I appreciate that Fuji are focussing on smaller, more compact lenses that sell more volume. However, precisely within this philosophy I think there is a place for a 135mm f/1.8 lens. 1. It is Still Portable If you have used the Sony A mount 135mm f/1.8 or either the Canon or Nikon 135mm f/2.0 lenses, then you will know that a fast 135mm prime isn't impossible to carry around. A vastly portable and practical 135m f/1.8 would see a lot of use out in the field. By way of contrast the sometimes rumoured XF 200mm f/2.0 would be very heavy and cumbersome to carry around. 2. It Highlights the Strengths of the X System A 135mm lens gives you the same reach as a 200mm full frame prime lens. While 200mm f/2.0 primes are high-end lenses much coveted by portrait photographers, their size and weight tend to limit them to being studio only beasts for use on a tripod. You will virtually never see a wedding photographer carrying a full frame 200mm f/2.0 lens around with them. Yet a wedding or portrait photography could easily carry a 135mm f/1.8 lens with them to shoot in the field, and in fact it would be smaller than the XF 50-140mm f/2.8 zoom lens. 3. It Would be Affordable Affordable compared to full frame 200mm f/2.0 prime lenses, which not only tend to be extremely expensive, but for all their costliness the size severely limits the usefulness for anything other than studio work, making it even harder to justify the expense. The Canon 200mm f/2.0 costs $5,699.00 at B&H Photo, yet by comparison the Sony-Zeiss A mount 135mm f/1.8 costs $1,698.00—and given the price premium a Sony-Zeiss design commands, a Fuji XF 135mm f/1.8 would probably cost less. Affordable and practical here also means immensely sellable. 4. It Compliments the Current Line Up It seems a much more logical successor to follow on from the 90mm f/2.0 than a 200mm f/2.0 lens, which would be much more of a niche product. 5. The X System is Still Better for Portraiture than Action A 135mm fast prime would be excellent for the sort of thing that the X system excels at most such as portraiture and wedding photography. On the other hand, a 200mm f/2.0 prime would be more for sports and wildlife. While smaller format mirrorless is catching up, when shooting action it is still better at the sort of subject material you would shoot with a 135mm prime. It makes more sense to make a 135mm prime first, then once the X system matures to become even better at shooting sports and wildlife, make a 200mm fast prime to make full use of it. To help give readers an idea of the size of a 135mm f/1.8 vs the XF 50-140mm f/2.8 lens, here is the full frame Sony-Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 for comparison: In summary, a 135mm f/1.8 (or even a f/2.0) prime lens seems to cry out as a logical focal length for Fuji to develop, a lens that would showcase the key strengths of the X system over rival full frame systems in allowing a combination of high-end optics with tremendous portability. I think it would sell reasonably well, and moreover attract more users over to the X system.

As I read Japanese, I've been reading the Egami blog a lot of late. One of the things that might have been overlook on his blog is this entry: http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2016-06-13 フジノンの画質評価が高い理由の一つは、相対的に巨大な光学系をAPS-Cに与えているからですね。 35mmフルサイズでそれをやると1.5倍の大きさになります。 フォーマットサイズが変わっても使う人間が変わらないので、小さなフォーマットは相対的に大きな光学系を採用し易いのです。 What he writes is that APS-C format lenses are "enormous" relative to the sensor size. Egami says that this is one of the reasons that Fuji X system optics have a reputation for having such image quality. If you tried to do that with a full frame lens it wouldn't work out as it would end up 1.5 times larger. The reason he gives is that even if you make the sensor format bigger the user doesn't change, meaning that smaller format lenses are easier to design optics for because of their size relative to the sensor. I guess what he means is that small format lenses have better light gathering ability relative to the sensor. So while it is true that larger format sensors have better light gathering ability, the downside is that it is harder to make the lens larger relative to the sensor to take full advantage of it. By comparison, smaller sensor formats permit the engineer to make the lenses larger to compensate for the loss of light gathering ability from a smaller sensor. What that means is that if you were to make full frame or medium format lenses of comparative size relative to the sensor like Fuji XF lenses, they would end up unacceptably large, unwieldy, and expensive. Of course, that's the reason why you will never have a medium format f/1.4 Otus lens. Even if it is perfectly technically feasible to scale up the Otus 85mm f/1.4 to medium format proportions, it would just be so elephantine that it would just be impractical to make or sell, let alone to use. This probably partly explains a problem with larger formats where the MTF plots at maximum apertures like f/1.2 or f/1.4 generally look rather bad. It's almost like you are shooting with a soft focus lens, and the aperture needs to be stopped down as much as one stop (or even more) to make the sharpness more acceptable. Not so with the best APS-C lenses which give you sharp images shooting wide open. In fact that is the reason Fuji give for choosing the APS-C format for their X series. That's why if you shoot with a Canon 5DsR, then you can forget about spending thousands on a second hand copy of the film era 50mm f/1.0 lens. The 50MP sensor will just show up the softness of the lens, and the f/1.0 aperture would be unusable. It's bad enough shooting wide open with the Canon 50mm and 85mm f/1.2 lenses...unless you want a soft focus look. In my own experience, I have found the Fuji XF 56mm f/1.2 APD sharper shooting wide open than even my Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4. At the moment people may point out that smaller format sensors have limitations in terms of light gathering ability resulting in a worse signal/noise ratio, high ISO performance, as well as lower maximum resolution. However, that is rapidly improving. In a few generations, APS-C sensors will achieve 36-50MP resolutions. Then to justify their existence, larger format sensors will have to be around 80-120MP, which in addition to the problem of brutally exposing lens softness when shooting wide open, the high resolutions will make for an unforgiving shooting experience. I suppose larger format lenses could be made bigger and better to compensate for this, but then they will be expensive and unwieldy. In fact, that is likely what is going to have to happen once full frame sensor reach 80-120MP, because it will brutally expose softness shooting wide open. In future, full frame lenses might end up being medium format sized. It leaves me a little worried about the future of larger formats especially medium format. However, the future of smaller formats like the Fuji X system looks rather bright.

I guess what you are saying is that if you increase the distance of the point of convergence from the sensor that you can reduce the angle of corner incidence on the sensor corners. It may mean that the flange distance is increased inside of the lens by placing the optic forward within the lens itself. There is no official word as to what the X1D flange distance is. There are some who claim there are "easy fixes" to the problem of corner angle of incidence from a short flange distance. While there are likely simple ways to partially offset the problem, I am exceedingly sceptical of these quick fixes being total solutions that renders this a non-issue. Manufacturers show every evidence of continuing to regard this a very serious problem indeed. Sony, Canon, Toshiba, and Konica-Minolta have all gone as far as to have patented curved sensor designs to reduce the corner angle of incidence. If they all thought the problem could be so readily solved with a minor tweak like increasing the point of convergence, why go to all of the trouble of funding such R&D? Fuji too have continued to state in interviews that they view degradation of image quality from a steep angle of corner light incidence to be a significant ongoing technical challenge. There is also evidence that Leica take the problem so seriously that they have foregone Sony to instead source sensors from their Belgium sensor maker CMOSIS. CMOSIS makes sensors designed to reduce the degradation of IQ from a steep angle of light incidence. Why is that relevant to Leica? Simple: because rangefinders are "mirrorless" cameras. The Leica M mount has a 27.8mm flange distance, much shorter than a DSLR. Reference source: http://www.the.me/the-leica-m-max-sensor-explained/?PageSpeed=noscript It may have also given Leica the confidence to make a full frame mirrorless SL mount with a 19mm flange distance (some have suggested that telecentric lens designs help too). In short, it is hardly looking like the issue of steep corner angle of light incidence is going away that easily as is occasionally claimed by Sony fanboys religiously defending the APS-C flange distance of the full frame FE mount. They then bury their heads in the sand after triumphantly proclaiming that the problem no longer exists. While Sony have started a fashion towards reducing the flange distance on mirrorless mounts to the point that we are seeing full frame and cropped medium format mounts being introduced with flange distances as short as the micro 4/3 mount, I suspect that no consensus amongst optical engineer exists as to whether this is optimal practice. While there are pros to a short flange distance too, I suspect that when Fuji introduces their cropped medium format mirrorless mount, and Olympus introduces their full frame mirrorless mount, that they may well buck this trend and proportionately increase the flange distance. In short, unlike DSLR mounts, which have been around since the 1930s, new mirrorless mounts are all still unproven experimental mounts in a field for which the optimal optical formulas remain uncertain. When we buy into a new mirrorless mount we are all crowdfunding research without guarantee of a favourable outcome. Some of these experiments are probably going to end in various degrees of failure, and we cannot assume that every new mirrorless mount is going to survive. It is particularly concerning when things look rushed e.g. turning an APS-C into a FF mount, or rushing headlong into the full frame/medium format mirrorless market without first cutting one's mustard gaining experience in M4/3 and APS-C mirrorless. That's why I cringed when I read one exuberant comment about how since the Hasselblad X1D costs sub-10K you should "just buy it" because "it's only money". The flipside of that is, of course, that a fool and his money are soon parted.

Second Thoughts on the Hasselblad X1D I am beginning to think that this new system with a flange distance more like an micro 4/3 mount is deliberately built so that it compromises on acutance in exchange for portability. The design team might well have decided to prioritise compactness and decided to accept the limitations it would impose on image quality. It means that they are probably going to only issue slowish primes. The reason is that the steep angle of light incidence compromises corner IQ. This may only be of the order of some percentage, but this becomes proportionately more marked as the maximum aperture is increased. This is probably the primary reason why Sony FE mount lenses seem to mostly be limited to f/1.8, where high-end primes would normally have a maximum aperture of f/1.4. Examples: Sony-Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 Batis 85mm f/1.8 The moment the maximum aperture is increased to f/1.4, the lens size suddenly increases disproportionately e.g. the Sony-Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 and the Sony GM 85mm f/1.4. The reason is that the f/1.4 aperture exposes the corner acutance issues from the excessively short flange distance, and to overcome this they have to increase the lens size. However, despite being so huge and expensive, the MTF plots only just manage to equal the average performance of an equivalent DSLR f/1.4 lens. The same thing is clearly happening with the Hasselblad X1D system. You can see it when you compare the aperture speeds with lenses from the Leica S system (also with a cropped sensor). Hasselblad 45mm f/3.5 Leica 45mm f/2.8 Hasselblad 90mm f/3.2 Leica 100mm f/2.0 Hasselblad 30mm f/3.5 Leica 30mm f/2.0 The Hasselblad lenses are significantly slower. If challenged as to why their lenses are so slow, Hasselblad would reply that it is to improve the portability of the system. And that would be a correct and honest answer in some respects. However, the more in-depth answer is that they have traded acutance for compactness, and that if they did increase the maximum aperture it would expose the corner problems. That means if you shoot medium format for ultimate image quality with shallow depth of field then this system isn't for you. If optimal IQ is what you want, you still need to choose their more high-end H system. That is probably exactly Hasselblad's intention: product differentiation. I think that is a fair enough a strategy, but you need to take this into account before buying into their system. Fuji, on the other hand, needn't worry about differentiating their medium format system from a pre-existing system since they have ceased production of medium format film cameras. Fuji need not make these compromises that Hasselblad have made, and should be able to focus on producing a system focused on optimal image quality and balanced overall performance.

I am hoping that Fuji will release three primes with their system, and that one of these primes will be a 24mm f/2.8 or f/3.2 wide angle lens. The reason is that it will throw down the gauntlet to Hasselblad to come up with a similar wide angle lens for the X1D. The problem is that Hasselblad will probably be unable to do so, just as Sony will be unable to come up with an answer to the rumoured Fuji 8-16mm f/2.8 zoom lens. It will highlight the inadequacies of the Hasselblad system right from launch. Everyone is all gushing over how thin and small the Hasselblad X1D body is. I have seen pictures showing how their medium format body is comparable in size to a Fuji X-Pro or a micro 4/3 body. Rather than celebrate, there is good reason to be horrified that they have likely severely crippled their system from birth. It is thought that the Hasselblad X1D has a flange distance of around 20mm (or possibly even less). Compare this with other systems: Sony FE (full frame): 18mm Canon EF-M (APS-C): 18mm Fuji X (APS-C): 17.7mm Micro 4/3 (MFT): 19.25mm The Hasselblad has a flange distance more like a micro 4/3 mount or APS-C mount. Yet it has to cover a sensor that is dramatically larger: This means that the angle of light incidence at the corners of the sensor will become too steep, resulting in degradation of image quality. Once again, I will point out this diagram: A full frame DSLR has a flange distance around 44mm (top). An APS-C mirrorless mount (bottom) should have a flange distance of around 18mm, which results in an angle of light incidence similar to the full frame DSLR. The middle diagram shows what happens when you maintain an APS-C flange distance of 18mm, but increase the sensor size from ASP-C to full frame, as Sony have done: the angle of incidence of light at the sensor corners becomes excessively steep. The Hasselblad X1D with a flange distance more like a micro 4/3 mount will have this same problem of an excessively steep angle of light incidence at the corners. This degradation of image quality from this steep angle of incidence in the corners becomes more marked with ultra wide angle lenses. It is questionable whether the Hasselblad X1D is even capable of supporting the development of a 24mm f/2.8 or f/3.2 wide angle lens, as the drop in corner IQ starts to become unacceptable. It is a silly move because having a shorter flange distance does little to nothing to help reduce the size of medium format lenses. In fact, on fast lenses, it may cause the lens size to increase to overcome the drop in corner acutance. Also comparing a SLR lens vs a mirrorless lens, if the lens design is similar, the length from the front of the lens to the sensor has to be the same—if you shorten the flange distance, this makes the lens longer. You also end up with a ridiculously oversized medium format lens imbalanced against a puny body. What Hasselblad have done is similar to Sony, and this likely reflects the fact that Hasselblad have prioritised compactness over image quality. Fuji have repeatedly raised the issue of angle of light incidence degrading image quality, as well as repeatedly stating that they prefer to prioritise image quality rather than make makeshift compromises. I hope Fuji do not go down the same track as Hasselblad and instead come out with a 24mm f/2.8 prime lens to showcase the ability of their system to support lens development across all focal lengths. That would mean a proportional increase in the flange distance appropriate to a medium format mount, but it would emphatically highlight the fact that the mount is intended for long term development rather than the short lived advertising value of having an emaciated smaller body. After all, the smallness of the Hasseblad X1D will not last long. Virtually all mirrorless bodies have sequentially grown in size since their initial appearance. Hasselblad is merely a couple of generations behind in the game. The X1D only shoots at 2.3 fps and has one focus point! If you add dual processors to overcome that issue, the body has to be bigger to accommodate that and to allow for better heat sinking as well as to accommodate for a larger battery to power it. Next add a tilt screen, an optical viewfinder, or IBIS and you can resoundingly kiss goodbye to its current diminutive stature. On the subject of IBIS, Fuji have said that they did not design the X mount to accommodate for IBIS, and thus refuse to add it retrospectively as it would degrade image quality. They also say that if you want uncompromised IQ with an IBIS mount system it necessitates an increase in the mount and lens size to allow room for the sensor to move. I hope that Fuji do make the proportions of their mirrorless medium format mount larger to accommodate IBIS in future (even if it isn't present at launch). The reason is that in future both full frame and medium format sensors are going to see a rapid increase in resolution up to 120MP. It's all very well a medium format mirrorless camera being more compact to carry around with you, but without IBIS it will be so sensitive to minute handshake that it would end up a tripod only studio model. It might not be a big problem yet with a 51MP sensor but it isn't going to be long before it becomes a major headache. Again, I would prefer a future proof system designed for the long-term over gross compromises of flashy short-term advertising value only. As for any Hasselblad fanboys who are going to get themselves all upset and insist that the X1D can support a full range of focal lengths without problems to them I say this: good! Let Hasselblad prove me wrong by producing a 24mm f/2.8 lens immediately. I am only too happy to have my grave concerns about their system decisively put to rest.

I think that this lens is an extremely important proof of concept design. An 8-16mm Fuji XF lens would help demonstrate that the Fuji X mount is a highly capable mount that can convincingly support a f/2.8 zoom trinity going from 8-16mm, 16-55mm up to 50-140mm. This Fuji wide angle zoom lens will be the full frame equivalent of a 12-24mm full frame lens, which would compete against the likes of the Canon 11-24mm f/4.0 lens and the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. If it performs well, the Fuji wide-angle f/2.8 zoom would constitute a resounding assertion of the ability of the X mount to cater to a full range of focal lengths required for full professional usage. Most importantly, Fuji would be throwing down the gauntlet to Sony, challenging them to come up with a comparable f/2.8 wide angle zoom for their full frame mirrorless FE mount. The trouble is that Sony would likely be unable to fire back with a full frame mirrorless wide angle fast zoom. The reason can be found in this diagram: Fuji themselves have stated that: https://fujifilm-blog.com/2015/06/30/interview-with-mr-takashi-ueno-from-fujifilm-tokyo-why-dont-fujifilm-make-full-frame-dslr/ The problem with the Sony E mount is that it was originally intended to be an APS-C mount, and it has an 18mm flange distance largely identical to that of the Fuji X mount (17.8mm), and Canon EF-M mount (18mm). What Sony did was to take an APS-C mount and use it as the basis of a full frame mount. That is the reason why the angle of incidence of light in the corners become unusually steep, as shown in the above diagram. This will likely limit the ability of engineers to develop quality lenses wider than about 18mm especially since the angle of incidence increases with ultra wide angle lenses. Here is how the mathematics of it work out: Where X2 = Rear element distance from sensor. Y2 = 1/2 distance of diagonal measure of sensor. We then derive the Tangent of A°2: Tan A°2 = Y2 / X2 Tan A°2 = ~21.63mm / 18mm flange distance = ~1.202 = ~50.2° Therefore maximum FOV @ 18mm flange optic distance = 2 x 50.2° or ~100.4°, or, roughly, the FOV of an 18mm lens. The reason why maximum apertures for the E mount primes are commonly limited to around f/1.8 may also be to avoid exposing acutance problems in the corners. When the maximum aperture is increased to f/1.4, the engineers need to make the lens larger to overcome the corner problems. This causes a blowout in the lens size on ultra wide aperture models without necessarily resulting in better performance compared to their DSLR peers (the 85mm f/1.4 GM lens has MTF plots similar to the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 lens, and thus by extrapolation a performance similar to the now discontinued Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM lens despite its greater size). As it stands already, the Sony Vario-Tessar T＊ FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS has severe corner problems at the 16mm end. To achieve the 16mm focal length on the FE 16-35mm f/4, Zeiss were forced to deploy a double concave lens element on the sensor-side to adequately project the image so as to cover the full surface of the sensor. If the maximum aperture were increased to f/2.8, the corner problems would become even worse. That means we may never see a decently performing 16-35mm f/2.8 E mount zoom lens, and a 12-24mm f/2.8 zoom is even less likely. Even an acceptably high performance full frame 14-24mm f/2.8 lens like the Nikon version is probably impossible to execute acceptably on the E mount. Sony fanboys will gurgle and froth at the mouth on reading this, but these are mathematical limits dictated entirely by the physics of the mount. It is a functional limit everyone has to accept when you have a full frame mirrorless system based on an APS-C dimension mount. It matters little how upset Sony fanboys get with me for pointing these inconvenient facts out. They can say what they please, but the only way these theoretical limits can be decisively disproven is by Sony producing a high-performance full frame 12-24mm f/2.8 zoom, a 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom, or at the very least, a 16-35mm f/2.8 GM zoom. Sony are welcome to go ahead and prove me wrong. I will be only to pleased if they could overcome this critical hurdle, and since I also shoot on the Sony E mount I will consider buying such a lens. But as you can see I have very good cause to be immensely sceptical. So the Fuji 8-16mm f/2.8 will be an extremely important lens that will showcase what the X-mount is capable of. It will put immense pressure on Sony to show that their rival full frame E mount is a similarly professional grade lens mount. After all what kind of a lens mount would it be if it cannot support the full f/2.8 zoom trinity? It matters not in the slightest if some do not shoot at ultra wide angles. The more critical factor is the proof of concept that a mount is capable of supporting a full range of focal lens for a wide variety of applications. Although the proof is in the eating, the physics of it predicts that it is a challenge the X mount will probably pass, just as the E mount will equally likely fail—and fail dismally.

Funny enough I was thinking just that myself the other day. I think it might be either a 135mm f/2.0 OIS, or f/1.8 non-OIS to avoid blowouts in size. My preference is for the f/1.8. The reason this would be a great lens is that it is like the Canon or Nikon 200mm f/2.0, but a portrait or wedding photographer would be able to actually carry it around on location without an assistant. These fast 200mm f/2.0 full frame primes are wonderful, but they are way too heavy to get much practical use out of other than for studio based work on a tripod. An XF 135mm f/1.8 wouldn't really be the first choice as a sports photography lens, but given that this is a classic focal length for portraiture, it fits in more with the sort of photography that works well with the X-series in general. As such a 135mm f/1.8 would probably have more general appeal to X photographers than a 200mm f/2.0 prime lens, at least until X series cameras become better at shooting action.

The reason why I upgraded to the X-Pro2 from the X-Pro1 was because of greater speed. The X-Pro1 is kinda slow and clunky by comparison. I don't shoot video so I didn't need a 4K model. That said, if the X-T2 is faster in ways that cannot be matched by the X-Pro2 with upgrades to the firmware, then I will definitely take a look at it. I certainly hope that it can match the 11fps of the Leica SL model, thus bringing it closer to becoming a DSLR replacement. As highlighted by this review on Lens Rental, mirrorless still lags behind DSLRs in autofocus speed and accuracy. I hope that the X-T2 further closes that gap. I also wonder if Fuji can improve on the implementation of the sensor performance. DPR seem to think (for all that is worth) that the sensor performance of the a6300 is better than the X-Pro2. Not that this makes any difference to me, but it makes a difference to perceptions for some.

I think I might own that lens too. It's a lovely one as well. Once again, I really wish they would reissue it with a refresh. I hope the Minolta legacy gets a fresh lease of life—if Sony are successful in relaunching their A mount DSLT line. To be honest, I want them to succeed, hence the motivation for trying to prick the FF mirrorless bubble, built as that is on irrational "hula hoop" type market mania. Some may say "The Market" hath Spoken: Full Frame Mirrorless is a Raging Success. Unfortunately, "The Market" is hardly a Divine Oracle, and runs in cycles and waves. I fear the FF mirrorless craze is more like a dot.com bubble. Historically bubbles, including the dot.com bubble, have always been driven by novel technology. There was also a 19th century railway stock bubble driven by train technology. In our case, the technological novelty of FF mirrorless is driving an irrational tech bubble that is unsustainable, because it isn't based on any fundamentals that make much sense. The more mature A line Minolta legacy represents a more secure base for stable technological development of a kind that is far more sustainable in the long-term, and there is plenty that is innovative in DSLT.

I hope he doesn't and that Sony doesn't suddenly just dump their A mount clients like this. It would be a PR disaster for them to do so. There are actually gems in the so much more mature Sony A mount lens lineup. I also don't know what happened to the old Minolta 200mm f/2.8, which is a lovely portrait lens. The Minolta/Sony 135mm f/2.8/T4.5 STF lens with the apodization filter is one of the most amazing portrait lenses I know. Astonishing actually. But it's very hard to work with it when you lose a half stop of light with the A to E mount adapter making it more like a T5.6 lens. It's just so simple really: native lenses are best. It's an irony that I am probably the Sony FF mirrorless fetishist's public enemy number one, when I probably own much more expensive Sony/Minolta glass than most of them ever will.

I probably have a legion of Sony fanboys after my scalp, but I will say this: if you really do your homework there could still be a place for an a7 series camera for you. If: 1. You love legacy glass. It's best to shoot with full frame lenses on a FF sensor, not adapt it to APS-C. You don't care that adapters are bulky because vintage MF lenses are often quite compact anyway 2. You want a FF ILC as your compact system for street and casual walkabout photography. You don't shoot with anything faster and longer than a 55mm f/1.8 3. You are a videographer. You have the Sony cine lens for the FE mount and you want to shoot 4K with it on the a7SII. But only a minority think it through as carefully. I realised too late that none of the above really applies sufficiently to me to have made it worthwhile buying a ticket into the system.

Rumours has it that they lost money on the a99 and couldn't recoup their investment. Sony DSLTs like the a99 have EVF/exposure preview, and IBIS (called SteadyShot since their Minolta days). After their DSLT line flopped, despite the considerable R&D investment and hopes they justly had for it, they put their EVF plus IBIS into a mirrorless. Suddenly, everyone is raving that mirrorless is inherently superior because exposure preview means "WYSIWYG" (what you see is what you get), and how totally revolutionary IBIS is—even though A mount digital cameras have had IBIS since Minolta added it to the Dimage A1 DSLR way back in 2003: The Minolta Dimage A1 from 2003: notice it has a badge saying AS Anti-Shake, later renamed Super SteadyShot by Minolta before Sony dropped the "super" bit. That's IBIS! Or to quote from Sony's website for the specs of the a99: SteadyShot INSIDE SYSTEM: SENSOR-SHIFT MECHANISM YES STEADYSHOT INSIDE SCALE (IN VIEWFINDER) NO CAMERA-SHAKE WARNING (IN VIEWFINDER) NO STEADYSHOT INSIDE CAPABILITY Approx. 2.5 EV - 4.5 EV decrease in shutter speed (varies according to shooting conditions and lens used) STEADYSHOT INSIDE COMPATIBILITY All Sony DSLR lenses and A-Mount bayonet lenses from Minolta and Konica Minolta Despite none of this being novel, buyers raved how revolutionary IBIS made mirrorless cameras and how "mirrorless is so much more compact. Wow...DSLRs like the A mount DSLTs are a thing of the past, especially since Sony sensors are so much better than anyone else's!" Ummmm....aren't the sensors in DSLTs also made by Sony? The response was a kind of mania like the craze for hula hoops long ago: Financially, the mania saved Sony, but this isn't really based on technological fundamentals. The mania for FF mirrorless is as irrational as the cold shoulder the market gave to Sony's considerable innovations in DSLT. At some point, sober economic rationalism will creep back in, meaning that it is questionable how economically sustainable for Sony this FF mirrorless hoopla is. At that point, a relaunch of DSLT line cameras might give Sony a more resilient future. They can sell it as having the key advantages of mirrorless, only it's much faster...possibly even faster than a conventional DSLR. And more compact as an overall system used with professional grade fast lenses.