Sator-Photography

I do wonder if there are other design reasons for the size of the Nikkor 24-70mm VR. The reason is that the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 has image stabilisation and is the same size as the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. If you were a Nikon shooter and size was an issue for you, you could always pick the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 (third from the left in this comparison of 24-70mm f/2.8s) instead:

It all depends on what you mean by large lenses. For me who shoots people in studio or on location, that means something like a 70-200mm f/2.8 or a 135mm f/1.8, in which case the fullness of a DSLR body grip makes the setup more balanced and easier to handle. Once you go to anything larger than this, to the point that you'd prefer to have the lens mounted on a tripod, then a small body becomes advantageous again, especially when you are going to be carrying your kit to a distant location. At that point, you also get more reach out of an APS-C system anyway. That's why I do want to eventually get the Fuji 100-400mm zoom lens because it gives you so much more reach than full frame. That means you have to think through your own shooting style. What holds true for doing street photography with an a7RII and a pancake lens, doesn't hold true in other situations. These a7 series fanboys who use their cameras for casual shooting want to dictate to those who use professional equipment on formal shoots that what holds true for them holds true for everyone. But it just isn't so. That's the reason why editors who know what doing professional photography is like contacted me to republish my long forum post as a proper article. One counter to my critique was that with an a7 series camera, you can get compactness with a pancake lens, but you have the option of shooting with bigger professional lenses when you wanted: "the best of both worlds". That's the thinking of someone whose default mode of shooting is casually with a pancake or semi-pancake type of lens, but occasionally might pull out a larger lens. If, as it is with me, your default mode of shooting is with a full cache of professional equipment including multiple fast lenses this simply makes no sense.

For a long time I assumed, like many others, that Sony would come up with a premium line of a9 mirrorless FF cameras. In fact, I thought the appearance of these big large aperture FE mount lenses like the 35mm f/1.4, and now the 85mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8, and 70-200mm f/2.8 heralded the imminent release of a larger bodied a9. A bigger body, I thought, would have more heat sinking ability for 4/6/8K video, would improve the ergonomics, and lengthen the battery life. Then it suddenly dawned on me: what's point of having a larger bodied mirrorless platform? It seemed a gross oxymoron that defeated the point of mirrorless, so you ended up with all the disadvantages of mirrorless and none of the advantages. Seen from Sony's point of view, you'd be thinking that you're still better off developing DSLT technology for full on professional use. Since the mirror doesn't move, you also eliminate mirror-slap just as well as with mirrorless, and you can theoretically get frame rates much faster than conventional DSLR, let alone with mirrorless. AF with DSLT should be just as fast as a DSLR, and definitely faster than mirrorless. With an equipment bag loaded with several proper professional lenses, there is a size advantage to DSLT/DSLR. DSLT already has an EVF with exposure preview. If Sony upgraded their A line to have 5-axis IBIS (on a wider diameter mount better able to take it), and then added their best sensor, why on earth would I want to ever consider buying one of their FF mirrorless cameras ever again? Well maybe to adapt lenses, but non-native AF lenses perform so inconsistently, and how important was it for me to have a vintage retro lens contraption anyway? Suddenly the magic spell of FF mirrorless was broken (not that I was ever particular spellbound by it in the first place), and I could see through the delusion of it all. But then I thought to myself why it was that (other than Leica) nobody else is building FF mirrorless systems. I started to suspect that most of these companies like Fuji, Canon, Nikon, and Pentax already know perfectly well that the blow out in lens size means that the size advantage of mirrorless doesn't scale up to FF. Mirrorless APS-C and M4/3 make sense, but not mirrorless FF. By going it alone on the mirrorless FF path, Sony look "unique", which is great for the marketing ploy of product differentiation, but are they just selling novelty as an end to itself? It just seems to me that Sony are better off having the mirrorless a7 series as a high-end prosumer line for casual and street photography, while continuing to develop the DSLT A mount line as their full on professional line. I wanted people to look again at the potentials of a new line of A mount DSLTs. I didn't want a fickle marketplace to ignore them again, especially now that people are sold on the virtues of EVF exposure preview and IBIS—the time might be ripe for Sony to attempt a fresh assault on the market with their A mount line. I would be only too happy for them to challenge the Canon-Nikon duopoly. As for Fuji, they are particularly smart because they have probably thought through all of these issues at the design planning stage. They picked a dedicated full time APS-C system, which was not a cropped down entry level carrot to entice people to upgrade to the full frame sibling. Because the lenses are dedicated to the APS-C format, you extract the most out of it. Tony Northrup raises this issue here: https://youtu.be/CavQykgW1oc?t=15m44s That's the reason Fuji are so good. They make lenses for Hasselblad, and don't need to enter into a marketing exercise with Leica or Zeiss. Fuji's dedicated APS-C format lenses are outstanding, and this renders the IQ difference with FF negligible. It also future proofs the system because APS-C sensors will only improve in their performance, and you won't need brute increases in format size to get high resolution images. It won't be long before we have a Sony 36MP APS-C sensor or even an organic sensor, and going down the slippery slope towards a 120+MP larger format sensor is looking like a path of ever diminishing returns. But the a7 line fanboys will "prove" me wrong by repeating over and over how their a7 line cameras are an inherently superior camera design because they said so. Sigh...

I think that rather than comparing the Zeiss FE 35mm f/2.8 against the Fuji XF18mm f/2.0, you should look at the Sony 50mm f/1.8 against the Fuji 35mm f/2.0: The Fuji is the FF equivalent of a 52.5mm lens, while the Sony is 1/3rd stop faster. No need to draw funny lines trying to convince the reader that a lens a stop faster is just as big as its slower full frame rough equivalent by a few millimeters. Now for the acid test, let's compare the Fuji XF 35mm f/1.4 to the Sony 50mm f/1.8. The Fuji has the disadvantage of being 2/3rd stop faster, as well as a slightly longer FF equivalent field of view, but it still beats the Sony hands in the compactness department: In terms of IQ, I can tell you from testing myself that the Fuji 35mm f/1.4 compares extremely well to the Sony-Zeiss 55mm f/1.8, despite the Fuji being half the price. I would also LOVE to be able to compare the Fuji 23mm f/1.4 against the Sony-Zeiss 35mm f/1.4! But sizecomparison.com don't allow you to pick this combination. I've messaged them to ask them to add it, I would encourage you all to the do the same.

Interesting that I've create such a stir. I haven't been following all of the fora I've cross posted to, because before I could cross-post to the Fuji-X Forum, Petapixel contacted me and I spend some hours turning it into a publishable article. In fact a couple of websites contacted me with editors who agreed with what I wrote, but Petapixel got in first. The version on Petapixel is the final version, the stuff previously posted to other fora are draft versions. I see someone is comparing a Zeiss FE 35mm f/2.8 Vs the XF18mm f/2.0. The latter is one stop faster! It is not a counter-argument at all since if you read my article, I make it clear that I fully acknowledge that when shooting with pancake type lenses the size advantage of FF mirrorless can be seen. That's why I keep repeating that it's a critique of professional grade full frame mirrorless—as opposed to just using it for casual walkabout shooting with a pancake or quasi-pancake slow lens. The problem is when you start mounting faster professional grade lenses on the body that this size advantage business falls apart. It's absurd to keep showing pictures of a Sony FF with pancake type lenses and repeating the argument ad nauseam that FF mirrorless is superior because it is inherently more compact. The bottom line is that FF mirrorless is fine as an option for casual walkabout shooting, but you are still better off with a DSLR/DSLT for more serious professional grade work, because these are faster and the lenses are more compact, which is important when carrying multiple lenses on a shoot. This made me cringe: "The lenses are big because it’s high quality glass, for example the new 85mm GM lens is made for ultimate quality" We'll see what the independent reviews say, but irrespective of the quality of the lens, it still doesn't change the fact that it totally undermines any size advantage inherent to mirrorless. Sony could make big and high quality lenses for A mount too. "Mirrorless is better because the lenses are bigger and higher quality" is hardly a credible argument for why mirrorless is an inherently better camera design. Hey my Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 is BIG and HEAVY, built for "ultimate quality", but I'm hardly going to say that this decisively proves that DSLRs are a superior camera design. My lens is bigger than yours, therefore my camera is better too! And more compact! Honestly... As for this: "It’s not the 'mirrorless' aspect that makes Sony FF attractive. But mirrorless is necessary for most of these innovative features to exist." What innovative features? IBIS was first put into A mount DSLRs by Minolta back in 2003. EVF/exposure preview was already in Sony DSLRs/DSLTs long before an a7 ever existed. You can put eye detect AF into an A mount. You can put a Sony BSI sensor into A mount. None of these innovations are unique or inherent technical characteristics specific to mirrorless. I mean, really, "the fact that my a7RII has a 42MP BSI sensor definitively proves that mirrorless is an inherently superior camera design"? It won't be long before Nikon or Pentax will have their hands on the same Sony BSI sensor for their DSLRs. I appreciate that the concern about the theoretical potential for negative impact on IQ that having an APS-C non-IBIS forced to do overtime as a FF IBIS mount is speculative. But why did they do this? How technically difficult is it to overcome this handicap? Yes, this is a grave uncertainty that hangs over the future of the FE mount, and without precise engineering data from the lab we are reduced to speculating about how bad this problem really is. However, the fact that the Sigma CEO expressed concerns about the fact that it is more difficult to design lenses for such a mount is a fact that is out in the public sphere, and hardly a matter of speculation. Even Zeiss admit it is "challenging" to develop ultra wide angle lenses for the FE mount. The increased R&D costs to overcome these difficulties clearly are being passed onto the buyer, because such hurdles retard lens development. The onus of proof firmly reassuring us that having an APS-C non-IBIS dimension mount function as a FF IBIS mount will have absolutely NO negative impact on IQ, or increase the costs of lens R&D/manufacture just to overcome the handicap (that need to be handed on to the consumer), rests squarely on the Sony fanboys. I dare any of these a7 series fanboys to make an official statement on behalf of Sony that turning an APS-C non-IBIS dimension mount into a FF IBIS mount unconditionally stating that this: 1. Cannot possibly increase the difficulties associated with lens development 2. Cannot possibly cause degradation in IQ 3. Cannot possibly increase the cost of R&D and manufacture to bring them on par with competitors 4. Cannot possibly cause FE mount lenses to be more expensive than DSLR FF lenses 4. Cannot possibly stop third parties like Sigma and Tamron from developing cost-alternative FE mount optons Even if one of them was foolish enough to do so, why would we believe even a word of this?

I own a Sony a7II. I have shot on it with a vast variety of lenses both native and adapted. I have had images from this camera published. There is not a single frame from this camera in my Lightroom library where it produced warm skin tones, and I have thousands of images from this camera. I have spent hours working editing zoom in on skin texture on countless frames taken with different models in different lighting conditions both in studio and on location. I am doing a shoot with a model today with it, and I can assure anyone that none of the shots will produce warm skin tone. Prior to the recent firmware upgrade (giving us uncompressed RAW for the a7II), skin tone used to come out with a green tint (tint slider about -4 towards the green), but this has gone away after the upgrade. I have also done some test shots with the a7RII, and it produces extremely similar skin tone to the a7II after the firmware upgrade.

I shoot both Sony and Fuji so I can better comment on this. Sony does tend towards greenishness. Skin tones are particularly a bit green, but it is not warm (yellow-magenta), but rather slate grey-greenish. Fuji skin tones are much warmer, akin to Canon colours. Fuji colours overall are much richer, subtly graduated and nuanced.

I own both the Sony a7II and the X-Pro2. I did a side by side comparison shooting with the Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 on the Sony and with the XF 35mm f/1.4 on the Fuji. The difference between the two are actually negligible, although I suspect that the Zeiss lens has more contrast, as you might expect from a lens that costs twice as much. That means Fuji is getting full frame performance out of a cropped format. I think that is an accomplishment in itself. Focus Numerique came to similar conclusions in their comparison of the X-Pro2 with the a7II. As for the claim that the X-trans configuration of the X-Pro2 sensor can make it match a D810, a 5Ds or an a7RII, that certainly is hype. I can tell you that because I also shoot with a 5DsR. I think the myth that the only reason to have a higher resolution sensor is for printing has been thoroughly debunked: I agree with this view entirely. This confirms my own experience with the Canon 5DsR. That said, I think that 24MP is still plenty of resolution. It also makes postproduction faster and image storage easier. There are fewer buffering issues in camera. Image review on the a7RII is notoriously slow, as the processor is clearly stretched to its limits. There are other reasons why I am particular inclined to recommend the Fuji over rival systems: 1. Colour This is seldom spoken about in camera reviews. The reality is that when the industry largely moved from CCD to Bayer configuration CMOS sensors, a lot of colour richness and depth was lost. If you go to the Pentax forum and look at images from the 645D (CCD) beside those from the 645Z (CMOS) it is striking just how grey the colour output from the Sony 44x33mm sensor is. The only system that gives you colour output from a CMOS sensor that compares well with CCD sensors is the Fuji X-trans RGB filter. I am sorry to say that we live in an age in which there are lots of grey, desaturated and colourless Sony Bayer sensor images. Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, and Sony cameras all have this problem, although if you like B&W or heavily desaturated images this may well suit your shooting style. Photographers who love Sony have portfolios full of B&W or desaturated images. Only Nikon manage to get more colour depth out of a Sony Bayer sensor, but even there, although I do like Nikon colours, I find that there is an inky-shadowy background on top of which float these slightly fluorescent bright colours. On a Fuji the darker colours blend seamlessly into the brighter tones. I also do like Canon colours, which are more subtly graduated than Nikon colours. Also Fuji is even better than Canon when it comes to rendering skin tones, and is probably the industry gold standard in this regard. When you push the colours from an X-trans sensor in post, you get these beautiful, subtle colours. On my Sony all I seem to get is plain red/green/blue plus black/white/grey. From my Fujis I get infinitely subtle shades of turquoise, jade green, burnt orange etc etc. It's so beautiful it makes your eyes water. 2. Film Simulation This partly connects to point 1. The colours you can pull out using the simulations will make your jaw drop. It makes photography a joy. The Acros B&W simulation too is breathtaking. Sometimes I find that the Fuji in camera RAW converter plus the simulation is so good nothing you do with the RAW file ever seems to be able to match it. The joy this adds to your photography is simply incalculable. It can't be expressed in simplistic univariate parameters that gives you some stupid number representing resolution or stops of dynamic range, where fools think that the bigger that number the better a photographer it will make of them. 3. Lenses The most important thing you can learn about photography is to pick your lenses first and then pick the body to go with it. This review of the Fuji 90mm f/2.0 says it all: https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/xf-90mm-f2-r-lm-wr/review/ It is sharper than an Otus, for a fraction of the price. OK...if I shoot with my Otus on my 5DsR the results may be a bit sharper, but there isn't much in it. In terms of cost effectiveness, the Fuji system wins by a mile, especially if you consider the greater compactness and the autofocus. In terms of colour depth, the Fuji beats the 5DsR-Otus combination easily. The Fuji 35mm f/1.4 is at least as good overall (if you consider the greater speed and the smoother bokeh) as the Sony 55mm f/1.8 despite being half the price. You choose a system for the lens habitat it gives you access to, and in this regard Fuji lenses reveals an embarrassment of richer far greater than we ever deserve at this price point. Forget the body and look at your lenses first and foremost. In any case, if you are patient enough Fuji will eventually release a body with a 36MP organic sensor. 4. Ability to Shoot with Multiple Primes The whole beauty of the X-system is that it encourages you to shoot with primes. For the price of an a7RII you could get a couple of X-Pro2s and shoot with two prime lenses. I appreciate that two X-Pro2s are more expensive than one a7RII, but once the lens price is factored in it works out in favour of the Fuji. The Sony encourages you to shoot with zooms because once the lens size is taken into account, it becomes too cumbersome and expensive to shoot with multiple bodies. If you have two bodies with two lenses, the one shoot turns into two shoots. It's like the two bodies/lenses see a totally different world. I do appreciate that Sony FF mirrorless is the talk of the town at the moment. But it is a pure fad. Don't get on that bandwagon. I speak from the perspective of someone who has seen the grass on the other side of the fence. As for the IBIS, that too is a problem. It doesn't stop action when the subject is moving. You are better off with the faster lenses from Fuji if speed is of concern. Sony now make faster E mount lenses but these are elephantine (totally negating any size advantage from a smaller body), expensive, and so far have been rather disappointing in their performance relative to cost. Also the E mount was originally an APS-C mount ("NEX mount"), and has too a narrow diameter to be able to incorporate IBIS in a FF system without causing degradation of corner IQ. This is particularly marked with shorter focal lengths when the light hits the corners at a steeper angle. I think Sony should toss their a7 series in the bin and concentrate on the A mount DSLT bodies (I do go into this on G+ for those interested). As for ergonomics, it is worthwhile paying vast sums of money not to have to suffer Sony ergonomics. I always say this to people who ask me which system I favour most amongst those I use (Fuji, Sony or Canon): I like Fuji the most, very closely followed by Canon, with Sony in last place. Sony remind me of cooks who use the fanciest ingredients (the best truffles, the finest foie gras etc) and the results are good, but there is something missing. With a Fuji you may not think the individual ingredients are that remarkable, but you taste their dish and it is jaw dropping. The whole amounts to vastly more than the sum of the parts. Show me a Sony shooter and I will show you a myopic fool (I am allowed to say this because I am a Sony shooter) too obsessed with individual specs to be able to see the big picture. Show me a Fuji shooter and I will show you someone who loves photography as an art. Fuji people "get it". Try it, and you will see what I mean.

Hahaha...

Just more thoughts about how things might look in around 36 months from now. Canon: are bringing out the 5Ds III with a 120MP sensor, similar in price to the 5Ds Mark I. They are bringing out high resolution glass advertised as 120MP ready. The rumours mills are full of talk of how Canon will keep the resolution at a maximum of 120MP but concentrate on other performance factors such as dynamic range, and a new Canon layered sensor technology similar to the Foveon is also talked about. Pentax: due to a fall in price of MFD sensor manufacture, they have just announced another price drop in their Pentax 645 100MP full frame MFD camera to keep pricing competitive with the Canon 120MP 5Ds III. By now they have released a couple more MFD lenses, and their 645 lens line-up is looking increasingly more mature. The rumours mills are full of talk of a Pentax 645 with the new 120MP Sony full frame BSI and copper wired MFD sensor with remarkable high ISO performance and dynamic range which Phase One has recently started using. Pentax also offer more affordable entry level 80MP cropped sensor MFD bodies alongside their premium full frame flagship, successors to the 645Z that look tempting. Sony: the a9II and/or a99RII are released with a 60MP full frame small format BSI copper wiring sensor plus other much touted new features. It can capture usable images in the near dark, the a99RII especially has an exceptional frame rate, and they can capture +4K video. The dynamic range is cutting edge. The lens lineup for both A mount and E mount are looking increasingly mature, making Sony the new Minolta. Sony displace Nikon from second place in the market, and now set their sights on beating Canon. There is internet discussion about whether Sony will follow Canon in producing a 100-120MP full frame small format sensor. Sigma: have now increasingly started to make genuine inroads in the implementation of the Foveon sensor. A small format Foveon camera now stands better comparison in performance and ergonomics with other industry leaders. Panasonic: release an organic sensor M4/3 camera. The IQ for both still and videos is remarkable for such a small body, and this rejuvenates interest in the M4/3 platform. The rumour mills chatter about the Fuji-Panasonic consortium selling organic sensors to Leica. Fuji: the X-Pro3 is released with a 36MP organic sensor, and astonishingly high signal/noise ratios. It has remarkable high ISO performance, and dynamic range that almost stands comparison with some Sony MFD sensors. Scenario A: Fuji also announce a competitively priced GX-Pro1 along with three lenses for it, with the 44x33 Sony 51MP X-trans sensor, but its performance in other aspects such as dynamic range and ISO speed are eclipsed by the new a9II/a99RII, which also have a nominally higher resolution (Sony fanboys laugh, but diehard Fujsters insist that the X-trans sensor makes it more like a 70-80MP or so sensor with IQ competitive in price/performance to entry level cropped sensor 80MP Pentax 44x33 models). Scenario B: Fuji announce the GX-Pro1 with a Sony 80MP 44x33 X-trans sensor, which is now about 1-2 years old (with claims to the X-trans sensor giving it a resolution comparable to 100-120MP MFD sensors). Scenario C: the Fuji rumour mills are full of credibly sourced leaks stating that they will soon release the GX-Pro1 with an organic 44x33 sensor soon after the X-Pro3, making the body dramatically more compact than Pentax MFD models, but with remarkable sensor performance, and there is discussion about a full frame variant coming later.

Here is something interesting: http://pentaxrumors.com/2016/03/17/the-next-pentax-645-medium-format-camera-will-most-liekly-have-a-100mp-sony-sensor/ Just as I predicated, the Pentax 645 system is full frame ready, which is why the body is quite big. It looks like the next iteration of the Pentax 645 will have the Sony 100MP full frame MFD sensor in it. My own preference is for full frame, but I do see there is an equally cogent argument to be made in favour of a dedicated cropped MFD system, with lenses specifically dedicated to this sensor size just as in the X-system. The pros would include: 1. Smaller body especially if it is mirrorless, and hence more portable. Less of a studio camera and more practical. 2. Smaller lenses (lighter and less expensive), or else faster lenses (e.g. f/1.8) more competitive with full frame small format 3. Smaller sensors are catching up with larger formats in their performance making it increasingly unnecessary to resort to brute increases in sensor size to improve IQ. This will become more marked after the release of the organic sensor, and in years to come. What would be the point of full frame MFD once smaller format sensors all reach the 100-120MP theoretical limit of current lens resolution? 4. A dedicated cropped medium format system is a good complement to the cropped small format X-system 5. May appeal to a wider market due to portability and relative affordability If Fuji go for a cropped MFD system, they should wait until Sony upgrade their 44x33 sensor to around 80MP. Sony sensors will likely fairly soon bump up their sensor resolution across the board so that no sensor format has the same/higher maximum resolution than the sensor size one step above it. So if Sony sensors increases their full frame small format sensor resolution to around 50MP, they would have to also bump up the resolution of the 44x33 sensor to around 80MP. I am sure Sony cameras are itching to bump up the resolution of their full frame small format cameras up to around 50-60MP, but Sony sensors will only release such a sensor after concurrently bumping the resolution of the format just above it (i.e. 44x33) up to around 80MP. If Fuji do release a dedicated cropped medium format system, they should release it straight after Sony upgrades the 44x33 cropped MFD sensor. They should not use the 51MP version currently used in the Pentax 645Z, as this is likely imminently about to be rendered obsolete (in both performance and resolution) by an impending upgrade to the full frame small format sensor for the next generation of Sony full frame small format cameras. Cons of a cropped MFD format system are: 1. Insufficiently differentiated from full frame small format (especially given Sony's trend towards incorporating newer innovations such as BSI and copper wiring sooner into small format sensors than into MFD sensors—clearly Sony invests more R&D into small format sensor development) 2. Might look like the full frame Pentax 645's sad little brother 3. Arguably not really medium format. Once Pentax brings out full frame 645s their advertising department would never stop reminding us of this fact. 4. Neither fish nor fowl. Too small to be genuine MFD, too big to be 135 format. It will fall between the cracks in the marketplace. Is 44x33 a format with a future? The thing that will decide the way Fuji go are probably practical ones: 1. Whether Panasonic are willing to cooperate in manufacturing an organic 44x33 sensor in future (Panasonic have a relationship with Leica whose S System is a 44x33 cropped MFD system so maybe Leica might come aboard as a future sensor buying client; although once again the S System may also be full frame ready like the Pentax 645 system) 2. What market research dictates as to relative demands for a cropped vs full frame mirrorless MFD system (this is probably the most decisive factor of them all) Either way, irrespective of whether Fuji choose to make a cropped or full frame MFD system, we all know that they make extremely thoughtful, measured and insightful choices when determining the critical foundation structural characteristics of a system, characteristics that will define the boundaries of the system for decades to come. Whatever they choose to create, it will likely be something quite remarkable.

The next thing that should be kept in mind about 44 x 33mm sensors is that the claim made by Phase One about the cropped MFD format sensor being over 60% larger than a full frame small format sensor is a highly misleading marketing ploy. Pentax should be commended for not playing this outrageous game, but there sadly remains a difference between meaningful real world sizes and exaggerated marketing sizes. A cropped MFD sensor may be 60% larger by surface area, but resolution is a linear function, which means we must compare format sizes in terms of linear size difference. The true increase in linear size of a cropped MFD sensor over FF small format is more like 20%. In addition to not strictly speaking being medium format at all, cropped MFD sensors represent too small an increase in linear size to be meaningfully differentiated from FF small format sensors. Given that sensor development is driven by smaller formats, the pace of development of small formats tends to additionally outstrip that of MFD, thus further tending to rapidly negate this 20% increase in real world linear size difference, as MFD sensor development lags behind. Another way of putting it is that the improvement in IQ from newer smaller format sensors may be such that there may be ever dwindling yield from increasing sensor size in order to get cost-effective and cost-meaningful improvements in IQ, unless MFD sensors can come down in price while keeping pace in their technological development with smaller format sensors. I am sure Fuji are aware of this and are furiously having board room debates over it, just like we are.

The Phase One IQ250 was the first to use the 44 x 33mm 50MP CMOS sensor. As this article dated January 2014 shows, it was released in January of that year: http://www.pdnonline.com/gear/Phase-One-Unveils-Fi-10189.shtml So even well before Fuji officially announce their medium format camera, this sensor is already over two years old. Not "almost" two years old, but over two years old. By 2017, when it is rumoured the Fuji MFD model might be released, it will be three years old. That one year may not seem to be much, but in terms of the pace of sensor development, it is highly significant. The problem is that six months ago, last August, Sony released a 42.4MP BSI small format sensor. One more iteration of Sony small format sensors, and they will equal or surpass the Sony 50MP cropped MFD sensor in terms of performance and resolution, something that can be expected to happen some time in 2016. Come 2017, small format sensors would have long since matched and surpassed the performance of the by then increasingly aging Sony 50MP cropped MFD sensor. It would be only too easy for Sony to release something like an a9/a9R/a99II/a99RII with +50MP BSI sensors some time between 2016-2017, at which point who on earth would buy a more expensive 50MP MFD Fuji camera? At the same time, Canon will by 2017 have got set to release a camera with a small format sensor with more than 50MP resolution, and have publically stated last year that they plan to push resolutions up to 100MP within the next couple of years. Canon should soon start to catch up with Sony in the dynamic range and ISO performance of their 50+MP sensors. They know they have gotten behind Sony, and have made announcements saying they are going to invest substantially in R&D. They may even leapfrog Sony again, resulting in their small format sensors performing similarly to or better than the cropped MFD sensors from Sony. If Fuji announce a 50MP MFD model only to be overshadowed by Canon announcing a 100MP model not long after it, the Fuji model could end up looking rather silly, and risks turning into a commercial liability for the company. What is "aging" the Sony 50MP cropped MFD sensor is not the mere ticking of the clock, but the rapid pace of small format sensor development, which proceeds faster than the pace of MFD sensor development. While the 50MP MFD sensor may not have been entirely surpassed as yet, come 2017 it will have been, with the situation rapidly deteriorating for this aging sensor in the market moving ahead of 2017, because Sony tends to invest the latest sensor technology more into their small frame sensors. In conclusion: it is difficult to imagine Fuji releasing a premium priced MFD camera in 2017 with a three year old cropped non-BSI MFD sensor with "only" 50MP resolution, with the intention of keeping this model in production for several years ahead, because small format sensor technology is pressing ahead so rapidly.

For the record, Sony make MFD sensors in two sizes, the 44x33mm aging 50MP cropped MFD model and a more recently released "full frame" 100MP 53.7 x 40.4mm model. Many detractors point out that actual size difference between a small format digital sensor (36 x 24mm) and a cropped MFD sensor (44 x 33mm) is actually not all that great. A cropped MFD sized film equivalent would not have been considered medium format in the day: However, if Fuji do make their own 60 x 45mm organic sensor, it means that you would be forced to buy Fuji's own lenses, and be unable to shoot with other maker's lenses with adapters as they would not cover the sensor area. Even vintage lenses would be inadequate as the actual area of usable film on a 645 medium format roll is actually more like 56 x 41.5mm. The amount of actual usable area on 645 film is close to that of a full frame MFD sensor. But it would give Fuji bragging rights to having a true 645 system, whereas the Pentax 645Z really should be called the 4433Z. I think it might be a bit optimistic to expect a true 60 x 60 mm format sensor (or even a 56 x 56 mm sensor) simply because of the cost of manufacture, and the question as to whether such square formats will ever become popular again. It might also make the size of the camera bigger than what Fuji want from a mirrorless MFD series.

+50MP 135 format sensors? How about 250MP? Canon have one in development. I've heard that diffraction will cause a 50MP FF sensor to yield unusable results above f8-11 but I haven't experienced that to be the case at all on the 5Ds. Either the Canon engineers have never heard of diffraction or they think it isn't a major practical limitation. The latest statement by a Fuji manager stating that "we are not really interested in medium format" also suggests that the senior managerial staff aren't all in agreement about when or even if an MFD line should be brought out. I would be happy for them to take their time over it, and try to get it right. They need to seriously rethink whether they really want to rush into using that rapidly aging Sony 50MP cropped MFD sensor as the rumour mills suggest they are doing. This might result in them manufacturing a cropped sensor MFD lens line to go with it, thus excluding the possibility of upgrading the system to a full frame MFD sensor in the future. I suspect that the Pentax 645 digital system is full frame ready (because it can take film era 645 lenses), and they will bring out a full frame 645 series body when sensor manufacturing costs come down enough to permit this. Fuji do not want to be seen lagging behind Pentax when that happens. In the meantime there is plenty of work to do on the APS-C X-system. Perhaps Fuji might want to even wait till they can make an organic 645 sensor, perhaps even in a genuine 6 x 4.5cm format?

I sincerely hope this rumour isn't true...as I am a bit shocked that Fuji would be thinking of implementing the Sony 50MP cropped MFD sensor on a 2017 model. Canon already offer a 50MP FF sensor on the 5Ds, as well as having announced plans to increase this towards 100MP in the next couple of years. Come 2017, Canon will have followed on from the upgrade to 5D X by bringing out the 5Ds Mark II (so that they can use the same magnesium body for both models rather than manufacturing multiple bodies) either with a higher resolution sensor, or a 50MP sensor with better dynamic range and high ISO performance. Sony has already released a 44MP FF small format sensor a7RII model last year, which is barely differentiated in resolution from the cropped MFD 50MP sensor. By 2017, Sony are highly likely to have released a higher resolution FF small format sensor, perhaps in the form of the a9 or a9R. If Sony sensors release a 50+MP FF small format sensor, then they will likely also bump up the resolution of the sensor in the format one size above it (namely on the cropped MFD sensor). Phase One are now using a 100MP full frame MFD sensor from Sony, and it is likely only a matter of time before Sony sensors will release this to other manufacturers e.g. Hasselblad. The Pentax 645Z is already two years old. Pentax will also be wanting to increase the resolution of the sensor for the next iteration of the 645 series within the next year or two, with either a full frame MFD sensor, or a newer and higher resolution version of the Sony cropped MFD sensor. So, if Fuji release a cropped MFD camera in 2017 with only 50MP resolution, they could end up looking awfully silly when FF small format sensors have started to not only match, but surpass the 50MP cropped MFD sensor in both resolution and possibly even in overall performance. The only reason I could imagine Fuji ever wanting to use, what by 2017 would now be an aging 50MP cropped MFD sensor, is to reduce costs and produce a sub-$5000 MFD camera. I fear they are shooting themselves in the foot by forgoing premium specs for such a compromised bargain basement design.

But how would the X-T1 perform with a 50+ MP sensor? With each release, Fuji's mirrorless models get faster. The X-T1 is faster than the X-Pro1, and the X-Pro2 faster than either. The reality is that my X-Pro1 is a lovely camera, but it does slow you down. If it had a 50MP cropped MFD sensor it would be intolerably slow, and I doubt that the X-T1 would have coped that well with a 50MP sensor either. But mirrorless is improving. The problem is that there may be little point in bringing out a MFD mirrorless model with the Sony 50MP cropped sensor, since Sony already offer the a7RII with a FF 42MP sensor and Canon offer the 5Ds with a 50MP FF sensor model. If you scale the Sony 42MP FF sensor up to cropped MFD size, it would make it a 72MP model. How would a mirrorless model cope with that? Or else with the Sony 100MP full frame MFD sensor? There is no doubt that mirrorless is currently significantly slower than SLR designs. Even the Sony a7RII is slow when reviewing shots. The Pentax 645Z may be fast enough for many, especially compared to how slow Hasselblad and Phase One MFD models handle, but the Pentax is an SLR model. If it were a mirrorless, it is simply a fact that it would be much slower to work with. It is just currently impossible to expect that a mirrorless be as fast as a SLR design. However, mirrorless is catching up, and it is only a matter of time before a mirrorless design can handle a 100MP sensor and still perform reasonably well. The question is not if, but when that becomes both practical and cost effective from a sales-marketing point of view.

This is the big sticking point. The advantage of the Pentax 645Z is that you can work quite fast with it considering it is a MFD camera. It still forces you to slow down compared to a DSLR though. The only reason the Pentax 645Z is quite fast for an MFD camera is because it is an SLR design. A mirrorless design is inherently slower than an SLR design, so that if Fuji had made a MFD version of the X-Pro1 with the Sony 50MP cropped MFD sensor, it would have been intolerably slow. The question for Fuji is whether mirrorless technology has advanced enough that a mirrorless MFD camera can be made to shoot fast enough to keep up with the Pentax 645Z. It's all very well if the GX-Pro1 is more compact and portable in the field than the 645Z, but if it is so slow it might as well be a studio camera for shooting with strobes, its inherent slowness would undermine any size advantage. Keep in mind that the 16MP X-Pro1 already forces you to slow down, so imagine how painfully slow a 50MP GX-Pro1 might have been if released 1-2 years ago. The other thing is that the competitive price of the Pentax 645Z is said to be due to the fact that it shares lots of parts with their DSLR bodies. Fuji too need to have a GX-Pro1 share lots of component parts with the X-Pro2/3 body. So in many ways, the development of their MFD system is dependent on that of their X-system. If the X-system was successful then that would fund the R&D costs of their MFD system, just as the Instax system funds the cost of the X-system. Is the mirrorless technology in the X-Pro2 mature enough now that it can be upscaled to MFD proportions? Or should they wait to upscale the X-Pro3 to MFD proportions, and deliberately design the X-Pro3 so it can share manufacturing parts in common with the X-Pro1 to reduce costs?

I have argued for a while that the APS-C X series is a practice run in miniature for a mirrorless MFD series. Now that their mirrorless X-system is more mature, it is getting closer to being feasible to upscale to MFD size without being too slow and cumbersome. The only question is what sensor to put into it. I would expect Fuji to make an MFD sized X-Pro (essentially a GX-Pro1 given their traditional nomenclature for medium format being GX-, and retaining the "X" on an MFD X-trans sensor camera would make more sense than using the GF- nomenclature of their film rangefinders). It is unlikely to be an SLR styled camera like the X-T1. A mirrorless MFD camera would have considerable size advantages over an SLR MFD camera, and would future proof the system. As for pricing, in the film era medium format started around the price of a top tier full frame camera. The lowest conceivable price for a GX-Pro1 would be that similar to a 1DX Mark II or D5. However, until MFD sensor prices start to come down we can only expect MFD to carry a premium price. If there is a delay in Fuji releasing a GX-Pro1, it would be due to their marketing department being concerned about sales, and they might wait for MFD sensor manufacturing costs to drop, just as prices have come down with full frame sensors. Fuji may even consider delaying the release until they can manufacture their own sensors quasi-"in house" i.e. until they have the organic sensor in production in 2-3 years time. However, they are naturally testing and looking at the economic viability of bringing a GX-Pro1 out earlier with a Sony X-trans sensor so they have a model that will give the Pentax 645Z a run for its money.

It is unclear too whether a MFD system will take lenses that are descended from their rangefinder line or from their SLR line...or both. Given that these decades old QC issues have never been reported on current Fuji X-series lenses, making it even less likely that they will emerge as a problem on lenses made for a more high-end MFD system. Fuji already make MFD lenses for other medium format brands, and I am unaware of them currently having this issue. Fuji have even made lenses for Leica before. There are those who say that the IQ on a Fuji X-T1 already matches a D800 (or the a7RII) anyway, so any MFD system that sits above the X-series would likely surpass anything from Nikon in terms of IQ, although not in terms of speed.

Very interesting. I've always argued that Fuji need to follow Pentax in making a competitor to their highly successful 645Z. This is very much a professional segment of the market and for that you need to offer an interchangeable lens system. Pentax has shown that is the best formula for this market segment, and it would be ill advised to waver from that. Pentax would feel incredibly relieved and let off the hook, if after waiting for Fuji to fire back with their answer to the Pentax 645Z, Fuji merely came up with a fixed lens MFD camera. It should also be kept in mind that just because Fuji engineers (may) have an experimental prototype in lab, it doesn't mean that they have committed to putting it into production. There are multiple steps before that, starting with the need to make multiple prototypes until they come up with the optimal formula. Next they need to carefully analyse the economic feasibility of the model for the market eg how much a Sony 44x33 MFD X-trans sensor costs to put into a body, cost of reintroduction into their production line of their medium format lenses with a modified shorter mirrorless flange distance etc etc. One sticking point with respect to relying on Sony sensors as the source of MFD sensors is whether Sony demonstrate a commitment to looking after their MFD sensor buying clients such as Pentax. I am gravely concerned that Sony sensors will soon release a full frame sensor with greater than 51.6MP resolution onto the market before they offer the MFD makers an upgrade on their current 51.6MP MFD sensor found on the 645Z e.g. a 72MP MFD sensor upsized from the 42MP FF sensor on the a7RII. The release of a 50+MP FF BSI sensor would leave Sony's MFD sensor buying clients stuck with a grossly overpriced older generation of non-BSI sensor with lower resolution than what Sony offers on their latest full frame models. It would be like giving the M4/3 makers a 36MP BSI sensor while leaving APS-C sensor buying clients like Fuji still stuck with the 16MP non-BSI sensor. It would be a major stab in the back that would result in a gross loss of confidence in Sony's willingness to cater for all sensor buying clients across the board. Why would you buy a Pentax 645Z with an older 51.6MP non-BSI sensor when you can buy a Sony or Nikon full frame camera model with a newer generation of BSI sensor, with say, 56-72MP resolution? Pentax and other MFD makers would feel hugely betrayed by Sony. That sort of bullying behaviour from Sony would at least give the Fuji-Panasonic consortium a major incentive to start making their own sensors rather than being reliant on Sony to "look after" them. If Sony fails to demonstrate commitment to developing medium format sensors then Fuji would be better off waiting until the Fuji-Panasonic consortium is in a position to manufacture them themselves.

It looks like we are on the brink of a breakthrough on the medium format rumours front. I would say that we are going to find (surprise...surprise...) that the reason Fuji are taking longer than Pentax to re-enter the medium format market is because, whereas Pentax is taking the easier SLR route, Fuji is taking the more difficult mirrorless route. Just imagine if Fuji had upscaled the X-Pro1 to MFD proportions four years ago. The X-Pro1 is slow enough as it is, so any MFD "GX-Pro1" would have been so slow as to be unworkable. It has taken time for mirrorless cameras to become faster, and although they have now advanced to a point where an APS-C system may work fast enough, Fuji might need to further hone their experience with mirrorless systems before they eventually developed sufficient confidence in them to upscale to MFD size. It's about looking at the intellectual property infrastructure capacity of the corporation. Fuji has IP related to their extensive experience in medium format, and with the X-system now has IP related to mirrorless. Put 2 + 2 together and it equates to a mirrorless medium format camera. If Fuji wanted to make a SLR MFD system they could have already had it in production to compete against the runaway success of the Pentax 645Z, which currently has no competition . My guess now is that Fuji may find that even after scaling up the X-Pro2 to MFD proportions, that it could still be a little too slow, in which case Fuji might be best to consider delaying a mirrorless MFD system for another 2-3 of years until the X-Pro3 is ready to go into production. An X-Pro3 scaled up to MFD proportions might represent a far more mature product. By that time the Fuji-Panasonic consortium may be in a position to offer organic MFD sensors (perhaps both full frame and cropped MFD sensors) at a more competitive price than if sourced from a third party such as Sony. Also in a couple of years MFD sensor manufacturing costs would have dropped further, permitting the system to be offered at a price competitive to high-end full frame systems (as was the case in the film era) That said, I am sure that Fuji have the Sony 44x33mm cropped MFD sensor in lab already for testing on a MFD experimental model.

If there are any readers here who think that MFD is too expensive a format for Fuji to ever bother with they should read this article dating from 2004: http://www.shutterbug.com/content/classic-digital-camerasbrkodaks-vintage-dcs-520-digital-slr-now-bargainbrbut-tech-1999-just-#PZeC6Kpmezhs0VBk.97 I quote: Today, any phone camera has a resolution higher than the Canon EOS D6000, which used to cost $30,000 back in 1998. Canon is in a position of market dominance today because it had the foresight and vision to commit early to digital technology. Admittedly, today, Fuji too would be ahead of the curve by committing early to MFD, as Canon once did. Yes, a Fuji mirrorless MFD camera will one day seem preposterously expensive, if not quite as absurd as Canon's 1998 EOS D6000. However, Canon has shown us that there are advantages in being ahead in the technology game. The only thing is that, please Fuji, don't install any video games on any future "GX-Pro1" like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuF84DVO1tQ

I see Patrick has started this discussion about whether Fuji should next develop a full frame vs medium format system: http://www.fujirumors.com/poll-the-fuji-x-future-medium-format-full-frame-or-stick-with-aps-c-vote-now/ There are problems with Fuji going into the full frame market: 1. Full frame offers little or no significant gain in IQ over APS-C, meaning than any full frame Fuji system will be a poorly differentiated product line compared to the X series, one that will merely confuse many prospective buyers. APS-C systems are only going to improve in IQ, and Fuji made an excellent choice in committing to this format with its balance between IQ and compactness. They should continue their commitment to this decision rather than having showing indecisive second thoughts about going back to creating yet another system based on a sensor size that is only trivially larger. 2. Once the lens is factored in, full frame mirrorless cameras offer little size/weight advantage compared to DSLRs unless the camera is deliberately crippled like the Sony a7 system by making the battery too small and the lenses too slow. The Leica SL full frame mirrorless gives up all pretense to being smaller or more compact than a DSLR, and comes with elephantine zoom lenses. 3. Fuji have never traditionally been a major player in the full frame camera industry, and do not have a range of film era full frame lenses ready to be implemented on a full frame system after a digital refresh 4. The full frame market is already an increasingly crowded and competitive place without Fuji entering it too. Along with Sony and Leica, Canon will soon release a mirrorless full frame system and Nikon are rumoured to soon do the same thing. Pentax are about to release a new full frame DSLR. Fuji risk being crowded out of this market before they even begin. The advantages of Fuji going into the medium format market: 1. Fuji have longstanding experience as one of the major players in medium format 2. Fuji already have a full range of medium format lenses from the film era that could be reissued after a digital refresh 2. A high-end professional MFD system that gives the brand prestige (alongside Leica, Phase One, Hasselblad) is a perfect compliment for a compact yet uncompromisingly high-IQ prosumer APS-C X-series. These two ideally complementary product ranges would be nicely differentiated from each other and cause no confusion. 3. Fuji is better off using their medium format expertise to complete against the runaway success of the Pentax 645Z rather than trying to complete in the increasingly overcrowded full frame market place 4. No other firm is better placed than Fuji to unveil a revolutionary "GX-Pro1" mirrorless medium format camera. Many pros would convert from FF DSLR and SLR MFD to such a system, thus enhancing the image of Fuji as the brand of choice for discerning professionals. The major question is that of the sensor. The simple answer is to use the same 44x33mm Sony sensor of the Pentax 645Z, while future proofing the system, ensuring it could in future be used with 53.7 x 40.4mm full frame MFD sensors. However, there is more to it than just plain technical specifications. Some may point out that Canon have plans to bring a 120MP full frame DSLR to market in the next 2-3 years, and that they already offer a 50.4MP full frame 5Ds camera, raising questions as to what the point of Fuji offering a similar resolution 51.4MP MFD sensor might be. The answer is that resolution is not everything. Larger sensors have larger pixels, and reduced signal noise ratios. I do not think there is a danger of the Sony sensor division issuing a +50MP full frame sensor that will make the 51.4MP MFD sensor look redundant until they have first upgraded their MFD sensor to around 72MP resolution (upscaling from the 42MP sensor of the a7RII). If Sony were to issue any sensor size at a resolution that exceeded that of the sensor size above it they would anger their clients. For example, if Sony sensors issued a MFT (micro 4/3) sensor that had a 72MP resolution while they still only offered a maximum of 42MP on their full frame sensors there would be an uproar amongst their full frame sensor buying clients. If Sony came up with a 120MP full frame sensor while still only offer a maximum resolution of 51.4MP on their MFD sensor, Pentax/Phase One/Hasselblad would likewise be understandably outraged. The only reason Canon can press ahead and make a 120MP full frame sensor camera is because they don't have clients who buy sensors in larger formats that they have to keep happy. Unlike Canon, Sony sensors has to upgrade the resolution of all sensor sizes right across the board to keep their clients happy. That means that Canon full frame sensors may end up being the first commercially available camera sensors in any format with 100MP resolution or more. This is clearly the reason why Sony have only put a 42MP sensor in their a7RII. Sony sensors probably could make a 56MP full frame sensor tomorrow to complete against the Canon 5Ds if they wanted to, but then their MFD clients would be angered that they weren't offered a higher resolution 72MP MFD sensor at a price competitive with the current 51.4MP MFD sensor first. Sony will have to make a cost effective 72+MP 44x33mm MFD sensor first before they increase the maximum resolution of their full frame sensors to 50+MPs. By the time Fuji are ready to manufacture a GX-Pro1 mirrorless MFD camera this 72+MP 44x33mm sensor should be available. Kimio Maki of Sony cameras has bragged that if they thought there was market demand they could easily make a 100MP sensor camera tomorrow: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/interview-kimio-maki-of-sony-if-customers-need-more-than-100-million-pixels-we-will-create-such-kind-of-a-product-63138 But as I read this, it means that although they have the technology to do so, the bigger question is of avoiding upsetting their MFD sensor buying clients by coming up with a full frame sensor with a higher resolution than that of their best MFD sensor. Or put another way, Sony has switched places with Canon in preferring lower resolution high performance sensors, leaving Canon in a one man race pressing to break the 100MP milestone, while Kimio Maki is left stammering weak excuses about how there is no customer demand for a 100MP full frame sensor anyway. Unless, of course, Sony can first come up with an affordable 100+MP MFD sensor for Pentax etc to use in their next generation MFD cameras before Canon comes out with a 120MP sensor. Nonetheless, irrespective of whether Sony sensors has a 72MP or 120MP MFD sensor on offer, by the time Fuji are ready to go to market with a mirrorless MFD series, it can be assumed to be of excellent quality. The number of megapixels is far less important than the IQ and signal noise ratios it manages to achieve.

The million dollar question! There are a number of issues I suspect Fuji need to consider: 1. Whether the handling of an experimental MFD version of the X-Pro has sufficient speed e.g. mirrorless EVF has little lag and few blackouts 2. Mirrorless MFD system doesn't drain batteries excessively or run too hot 3. Can they manufacture these units at a price competitive with the Pentax 645 system? 4. Are they sure that MFD sensors have come down sufficiently in price yet?—or should they wait just a little bit longer? 5. Should they buy cropped sensors from Sony or wait until they can manufacture full frame MFD sensors in house? 6. Should they offer a SLR version instead of a mirrorless MFD camera? A digital version of the GX645AF might be easier to develop Then there is the question of what sort of video performance they should strive for. Do they need 4K video in there too? As for the name of this putative MFD series, I would suggest they should probably continue with the "GX" terminology into the digital age, especially if it involves a MFD X-trans sensor. Phase One call theirs the XF series, so Fuji should emphasise their longstanding expertise in the medium format field by continuing the previous terminology. Maybe the first iteration of the mirrorless MFD Fuji camera might be called the GX-Pro1? I hope they don't copy Pentax and misleadingly apply the "645" terminology to cropped 44x33mm sensors. Pentax should call their cameras the 4433 series and not the 645 series. Only full frame MFD should be called "645". Some of you might be asking if this is all just airy fairy speculation. Fair enough. On the other hand, Fuji would be crazy not to be thinking of offering MFD, thereby throwing away decades of medium format expertise without digitising it. The bigger question is why Fuji has not made a move in the digital medium format arena already. I would suggest that they thought of it around 4-5 years ago, decided MFD sensor were still too expensive, and shrewdly elected instead to proceed to hone their experience with mirrorless cameras by developing an APS-C X-series first before upscaling that technology to MFD proportions, by which time MFD sensors might have come down sufficiently in price. I think Fuji have been secretly plotting a mirrorless MFD revolution all along.