Sator-Photography

BTW I think we might be getting just oh-so-slightly slightly ahead of ourselves going into raptures imaging the sort of lenses a hypothetical Fuji MFD system might have. LOL! We don't even know if Fuji really are going to commit to the digitisation of their medium format expertise in the imminent future. The only thing I can say is that there is no other company in better position to present us with some solid competition to the highly successful Pentax 645 system than Fuji. None of their immediate competitors has amassed even a fraction of the amount of medium format expertise over the years as Fuji has—certainly not Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung...nor even Leica. Minolta ("Sony") haven't made a medium format camera within living corporate memory, and last offered one way back in the 1950-60s. So, that means that all eyes are now on Fuji. Fuji seems to have recently rolled back on their manufacture of medium format film cameras, and have stopped making the GF670, for example. While that could mean they have sadly started to close the door on this chapter of their corporate history, I would rather prefer to hope that it is a prelude to their opening a new chapter in the story of digital medium format. We live in hope!

Pentax is the odd man out in going virtually exclusively with focal plane shutters. Other than Pentax, central shutters are standard issue for medium format systems. As previously mentioned, some of the Leica S MFD lenses only lack a central shutter because of technical difficulties in implementing this on faster lenses. Other than that, central shutters are a standard feature of Leica S system lenses too. As for digital cameras with central shutters, Fuji actually already offer one—and I own it. I am, of course, referring to the Fuji X100T. This reflects the fact that Fuji has longstanding experience with implementing central shutters, so it would be most disappointing, and frankly rather surprising, if they were to leave this standard feature out of any new MFD system they were to develop. It would be one of their major selling point over the rival Pentax 645 system at the approximately $8-10K price point. In a sense, in their rangefinder styling and use of central shutters, you can perhaps glimpse features of the Fuji X-series that suggest that this may have always been conceived in the Fuji secret Master Plan as a practice run in miniature for their future medium format digital system.

My understanding is that there are difficulties in putting central shutters into fast lenses. For this reason, the Leica S 100mm Summicron f/2.0 has no central shutter. http://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-S/Leica-S-Lenses/Summicron-S-100-mm-f-2-ASPH Also I don't think anyone has ever offered a f/1.6 medium format lens, and if Fuji did make one, it would be the fastest commercial MF lens ever made, and akin to them offering an X series f/0.7 lens. As for a f/1.6 MF lens with central shutter, that is rather improbable, and if they ever succeeded in making one, it would cost a truly astronomical sum of money, one that it would make the Leica Noctilux seem priced like a nifty fifty. It would also be huge and weigh about 4 kg, or possibly more if it is a solid metal construction. Fuji rangefinders can accept different film formats, so hopefully they will future proof their system so that their lenses can one day also be used on a full frame MFD system as well as with a cropped MFD sensor. Even if full frame MFD sensors may be out of the question for the moment, eventually Fuji may end up in a position where they could manufacture them themselves in house to minimise costs, once they have their organic sensor fabrication in full operation, and the cost of larger format sensor manufacture comes down. Eventually, Sony may well also start to offer full frame MFD sensors themselves. That will not happen for many years, of course, but the importance is to be prepared for such a future. It was not too long ago that even a full frame sensor camera would set you back $20K, which gradually came down to $10K etc. It is only a matter of time before this happens with MFD sensors, both cropped and full frame.

Of course Fuji do already have medium format lenses from the film era, however a mirrorless MFD camera would have a different flange distance, and quite possibly differing requirements with respect to autofocus. I also don't know exactly how old some of those film era medium format lenses are, but I suspect that a lot of them could do with an update, in addition to having a new mount. In any case, even if they don't exactly have to start completely from scratch, it is not going to be as simple as just reissuing the same old medium format lenses from the film days.

Well you might be OK then. I chose Mitakon over other cheaper makers because even amongst Chinese makers there's the good, the bad, and the ugly. Mitakon's adapters often cost a little bit more and their premium grade lenses are not too bad. You get what you pay for even here. I suspect that their NEX adapter design represents a bit of engineering overkill in firmly securing the adapter. At least it goes to show that they are aware that even a minutely loose adapter will significantly reduce lens acutance, and E mounts connections are amongst the least solid of them all. Clearly, they didn't feel that such engineering overkill was necessary to achieve stability on a Fuji X mount.

If that's the case it might be OK, though I would still check reviews to make sure the fixing aren't too absurdly tight. Keep in mind that even before locking the adapter I had to twist it into place with brute force—next the lock made it even tighter! So when you mentioned shaving metal in the opening post, it gave me the shudders... If Metabones offered a M42 adapter I would have brought that one instead of the Mitakon.

Please keep in mind that no photography is truly "polyvalent". Everyone has a preferred style and genre. For example, you mentioned nothing about macro or architectural, but then you did mention things about shooting family, landscape, and street photography. Ask yourself what it is that is really important to you. Everything you buy is a compromise, the question is where you want to compromise. Zooms compromise on compactness and portability, which are disadvantages for street photography. Keep in mind that your enthusiasm for Fuji may have been fostered by the compactness of the amazing X100T, and its versatile discreteness, making it a great camera to take with you when you travel with your family. Will you feel the same way about your kit when you have cumbersome zoom lenses on them? You may end up killing your dream by imaging that if you spent big money on elephantine and expensive zooms that it will increase the amount of joy you get from your system. Or else you might find yourself tending to still just grab your trusted X100T, and you increasingly find that you leave your heavy zooms sitting at home after the honeymoon period is over because they are too much of a pain to carry with you. Will people (especially your family) run away when you point some fat paparazzi zoom lens in their faces? If that is the case, then discreet primes with their superior IQ and speed may be far preferable. Keep in mind that it is easy to carry a X100T for a 35mm FF view inside a modest camera bag alongside a X-T1 with a 35mm XF f1.4 lens, or even a 56mm XF f1.2 on it, switching between the two to get different views (plus it gives you two batteries and memory cards).

Here is a photo of my M42 to NEX adapter showing how you have this secondary twist to close design: It's not going to matter what the mount is, I suspect it's this common closure design that tends to make things awfully tight.

Yes, Mitakon lens mounts are fine, it's just the M42 to NEX adapter I tried that was frightfully tight, which I suspect has much to do with their "twist closed to tighten" design. It doesn't mount straight on like a lens does, as there is a second component that you have to twist closed to tighten it fully. This design is likely to be common to their adapters irrespective of mount. The Metabones adapters all work well. The Mitakon is a Lens Turbo II model. I do like the Metabones focal length reducers, which effectively double the number of lenses for that mount combination. It does seem to push up the MTF plots a little, but if you study what Metabones has published (eg on the Otus) you can see that it also introduces a touch of astigmatism. Still, they are handy to have when you want a wider field of view and more speed, although microscopic misalignments between lens-adapter-mount probably also reduce IQ.

I have one Mitakon Lens Turbo adapter (but not for the Fuji X-mount). The fit is excessively tight and I had to use brute force to get it on, and then again to remove it. I was twisting with all my strength on both counts. I'm not sure if I dare to mount the thing ever again. This sort of thing cannot possibly be good for the mount. If it shaves metal, then there is the danger of ending up with a permanently loose mount with all lenses. Even small tolerances measurable only in microns have been shown to be detrimental to image quality, especially on wide angle lenses. There is the theoretical risk of this permanently reducing the IQ of your entire camera with all lenses. I also have used Metabones adapters. These do not have this same problem. This alone, in my opinion, makes it preferable to spend the extra money on the Metabones version. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

Agreed, it would have to be mirrorless (not a rangefinder design) to future proof it. Yes, getting a workable live view remains a challenge, but this is one area of mirrorless technology that is rapidly maturing, and it is only a matter of time before it is ripe to be upscaled into MFD proportions. If there is one company that could do this and do it well it would be Fuji.

Fuji have vast experience in the professional medium format film market. I think the time might be ripe for them to start to digitise this expertise. Fuji are better off trying to compete against FF rivals from Sony, Canon and Nikon by digitising their medium format expertise rather than introducing yet another FF camera onto an increasingly crowded market. If you brought a full frame Canon EOS camera about 10-12 years ago it would have cost you as much as a Pentax 645Z does today. It's only a matter of time before MFD sensors come down in price while going up in quality. Pentax has lead the way in making MFD more of a mainstream professional product again, just as in the film era. Their success with the 645Z shows that the market is showing polarisation: either you shoot with a phone camera or a high-end professional beast. And the more MFD sensor units the Sony sensor division sells, the more the price will come down, producing a snowball effect. People say that the digital camera technology of today is mature, but I think that if we looked back in 15 years we'll all be laughing at that view. The digital revolution has reached a provisional maturity for small formats only (35mm and less). It has only begun in the medium format sector and it hasn't even touched large format. If Fuji hit the market with a mirrorless MFD X trans version of the X-Pro at a price competitive with the Pentax 645Z, a lot of professional photographers who have drooled over the $30-40K MFD offerings from Phase One etc but couldn't justify the cost will eagerly buy into this system. Pentax has shown that the market is there. A revolutionary mirrorless MFD X-Pro would add immense prestige to the entire Fuji camera range right across the board. It would also nicely complement the APS-C X series. One would offer professional grade images in a compact body perfect for pros who travel with lots of heavy equipment, while the MFD cameras would offer uncompromised IQ for studio usage while still being small enough to carry outside the studio in place of a FF DSLR. Many pros who shoot FF will seriously be tempted to dump full frame systems to buy into such a high end system. I know I would. As to lenses, I should add that, in addition to having a central shutter, they should be made compatible with "full frame" MFD sensors as well as cropped 44x33 MFD sensors, even if Fuji only release a cropped sensor body to test the market to start with.

I know this thread is a bit old, but I have been thinking about medium format more lately. I do think that there could be a place in Fuji's lineup for a medium format version of the X-Pro. That is, it would be a rangefinder styled modern "mirrorless" type of camera (although confusingly rangefinders don't have mirrors either), with interchangeable lenses, and X-trans sensor. As for sensor size, it should be mentioned that the 53.7 x 40.4mm MFD sensor is closely equivalent to a 6 x 4.5 once you take into account the actual area occupied by the image in the film frame. That's why this is often referred to as "full frame" medium format sensor, whereas the 44 x 33mm size is often called a "cropped sensor". It is true that no medium format image ever occupied so small an area of a film frame. The more practical choice of sensor would nonetheless be the same cropped sensor size as that of the Pentax 645Z, with which the Fuji would go up against as its major competitor. I have heard that the Pentax 645Z has been a success for them, as it is a bargain compared with all of the alternatives, which cost more like $30-40000. Given the fact that Fuji has longstanding experience with medium format it makes sense for them to produce a rival to the Pentax 645 series. As for the idea that Fuji would produce a medium format equivalent of an X100 with a fixed lens for consumers who might travel with it, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It would be like making an Instax camera the size and weight of a Fuji GX680. The only reasonable target audience for MFD would be professional photographers, who would need a choice of focal lengths—preferably with central shutters—depending on what their requirements are. Consumers (and even pros) wanting to travel with their cameras are already well served with the lighter and more compact APS-C X series. It would be perfectly reasonable for Fuji to skip full frame and go straight to medium format. The reason is that if you want a balance between compactness and image quality, APS-C is arguably the far preferable option. A Sony full frame mirrorless is virtually the same size and weight as a full frame DSLR, especially once you put something like a fixed aperture zoom lens on it. The Leica SL full frame mirrorless is even bigger, and the zoom lens they released with it, elephantine. So if you are going to have a larger, professional, high resolution camera, it might as well be a mirrorless medium format camera. At least a MFD version of the X-Pro would be dramatically smaller than their brick-sized MFD rivals with a mirror. The major problem with a mirrorless MFD series is that Fuji would need to develop a whole new line of lenses to go with it. Cost would also be an issue, which must be kept down if it is to compete with the Pentax 645Z. You can automatically assume Fuji's rival MFD body would cost at a minimum around $10000 USD. Given the choice between a Pentax 645 series camera and a medium format version of the X-Pro, I would probably choose the Fuji, assuming the price is competitive with the Pentax rather than with the MFD offerings from Phase One, Hasselblad or Leica.

I fear this is even more true of many Leica users, is it not? In which case photographing trophy wives also becomes a high priority. I would hope that Fuji users have at least a touch more intelligence and creativity. I for one can at least say I feel I am often pushing my X-Pro1 to its limits. I have had reasonable sized prints made to exhibit at an art gallery, and just wish it had a few more MP of resolution to optimise things here. I often overload the data flow bottle neck and find myself waiting for it to finish writing before I can review shots. I often need to work just a tiny bit faster in studio than it will allow (and I don't think I shoot that fast compared to many spray-and-pray types these days who take thousands of shots). I do occasionally miss shots because of the shutter lag. Getting fully functional focus peaking would also be nice. Yet for all that, I hold my X-Pro1 in great regard. I like to shoot with primes and having two bodies with different primes on them will be good.

My favourite focal length is 85mm FF. I have several lenses in this focal length including the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 APD and the Zeiss Otus 85mm. The Fuji is amazing. One thing I would say is that I get all sort of framing out of an 85mm focal length when I do model shoots. I can get close up head shots by stepping in close, but I find it easy to take a few step backs to get excellent full length shots. Outdoors you can get environmental perspectives out of the 85mm FF focal length. That said, for full length and slightly more environmental perspectives, I tend to pull out the XF 35mm f/1.4. If portraits with bokeh is what you are after then you should go straight for the 56mm f/1.2. The biggest question you need to ask yourself is what sort of portraiture you want to do. You've indicated you're not trying to do headshot portraiture, which for me is a 135mm FF focal length task. The question is how environmental you want your shots. If you also want a couple of subjects in frame, then you should choose a 40-50mm FF view. As for the 35mm FF view, this isn't classically regarded as a mainstream portraiture length, but it is sometimes good for environmental portraiture. The shorter the focal length the less flattering it tends to be on facial features, with the nose being made to look bigger. As for the XF 27mm f/2.8, I think you've got yourself a great portraiture lens right there. The 40mm FF focal length is just that tad bit more flattering on facial features than the 35mm FF, and yet a touch more environmental than the 50mm FF focal length. I hear that the XF 27mm is a shockingly sharp lens with beautiful rendering, and if I didn't already own the XF 35mm f/1.4, I might be tempted to try it. Try mastering the XF 27mm for portraiture to see if you enjoy this focal length. You may already own your dream lens, though if there were one focal length to add to it, it would still be the XF 56mm. But don't waste time looking at MTF plots and ask yourself what sort of portraiture you are planning to do, and choose the right lens for the job.

I would welcome a fast rectilinear ultra wide angle prime from Fuji. I hope it is a 8mm f/2.0-2.8. I do also shoot with full frame systems, but I would prefer to have an APS-C wide angle for a number of reasons. The first of these is that when you go landscaping you need to carry equipment in a backpack. APS-C systems have an automatic weight advantage. Secondly, Fuji APS-C wide angles lenses seem to enjoy a one stop reduction in vignetting at the corners compared to their full frame rivals. This is even true when you compare the Fuji XF 16mm F/1.4 with the Zeiss Otus 28mm f/1.4 when shooting at maximum aperture (judging by the published performances). I had been thinking that I wish Fuji (or Zeiss) would release a fast high-end rectilinear ultra wide angle prime lens that would give the full frame Zeiss options a run for their money. Then presto this rumour comes along. I think it is a good move, one that might attract more landscape photographers tired of lugging heavy full frame equipment up the mountains to the Fuji X system.

Not an owner, so I can't share experience. However, I have this on my to-buy-next list, and I've been doing a fair bit of research about it. The reason I am interested is to do environmental portraiture type of work. I have come to really love the 24mm and 28mm FF equivalent field of view for this purpose after spending time studying the work of William Klein and Jeanloup Sieff. I shoot multiple systems including a Sony a7 systems and Canon FF. So I sat down and looked at all of the options for the 24mm and 28mm focal lengths. In particular what caught my attention was the recently released Zeiss Otus 28mm f/1.4. I could justify saving up to get the Otus, but to be honest, I am more interested in the Fuji 16mm f/1.4 (24mm FF equivalent focal length). Let me explain. I think that at short focal lengths, APS-C systems have a strong advantage over FF and medium format. You see this when you look at the amount of vignetting you get on the Fuji 16mm vs the Otus 28mm. This source has the amount of vignetting in the corners of the Fuji 16mm at a maximum of -0.5 EV at f/1.4: http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1790 That is NOTHING for a lens of such a short focal length. However, other sources say other things, but they are still all encouraging. For example this source measures the falloff at f/1.4 at -1 EV: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/lenses/fujifilm-xf-16mm-f-1-4-r-wr-review/4 Another source allows you to visualise the vignetting without measuring it: http://www.fujivsfuji.com/wide-angle-primes-14mm-f2pt8-vs-16mm-f1pt4-vs-18mm-f2/ This source does the same thing (don't go all hysterical about the source, it's just another data point at the end of the day): http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/x-mount-lenses/16mm-f14.htm It is hard not to conclude that the amount of vignetting on the 16mm f/1.4 is extremely modest for a lens with such a short focal length. Now, let's compare that with the Zeiss Otus: http://diglloyd.com/prem/s/ZF/publish/28Otus-vignetting.html It reaches to over -2 EV at f/1.4! And the Fuji has a shorter FF equivalent focal length than the Otus...but rather than having more vignetting than the Otus, it has less! Much less. Next, if you compare the MTF plots published by Fuji and Zeiss, while the way the data is presented makes direct comparison problematic, it strongly suggests that their acutance is comparable. However, where the Fuji really falls down compared to the Zeiss is in astigmatism (there is a lot of divergence between the sagittal and tangential plots on the Fuji). The end result of this is the harsh bokeh from the Fuji that has been remarked about by some reviewers: https://fstoppers.com/originals/fujifilm-xf-16mm-f14-r-wr-review-76661 The MTF plots confirm that this observation has a quantifiable basis in the optical performance of the lens. The Zeiss Otus does much better in this regard, having much less astigmatism. That said, the inclusion of aspherical elements on the both the Otus and the Fuji XF 16mm does also contribute to strongly drawn and harsh lines on BOTH some of the Otus lenses as well as the Fuji 16mm. The Zeiss Milvus lenses have fewer aspherical elements and have smoother bokeh as a result. The harsh bokeh on the Otus 85mm is related to the deployment of multiple aspherical elements in the Otus, a fact that is rarely discussed, especially as watery eyed reviewers take one look at the price of the Otus, and assume that it is such as paragon of perfection that it exists on a plane beyond all possibility of criticism. That, however, is simply an impossibility. All lenses have their strengths and weakness irrespective of price. All of this is truly well and good, but I am comparing a $4500 USD Zeiss lens to a $1000 USD Fuji lens. The fact that the Fuji can actually keep up with the Otus, and in some ways greatly surpass it, is a testament to the extraordinary excellence of Fuji lenses. At the end of the day, MTF plots and the like are artificial measurements strictly speaking only applicable to the laboratory conditions in which measurements are taken (the scientific methodological term for this problem is called "extrinsic validity"). From a more practical perspective, unlike the Otus, the Fuji has autofocus, and a perfect MTF plot means nothing if shots are out of focus. More important is whether the overall "drawing" of the Fuji 16mm has a global aesthetic appeal that is greater than the sum of its optical parts. I have looked at a lot of sample images, and time and time again, I am impressed by the Fuji 16mm f/1.4, and the visual "pop" that it manages to achieve. The biggest weakness is certainly the busy and somewhat harsh bokeh, but then again creamy bokeh is not something you commonly strive for a lot at this focal length. Certainly, it means that busy backgrounds (eg branches) need to be avoided, but all lenses have their strengths and weaknesses. More importantly, an APS-C lens gives us more depth of field, thus allowing the environment of a portrait to be better in focus, even at wider apertures. As for the "too digital" criticism, I am most puzzled and would like to learn more about what this means...perhaps it means it is just too ridiculously clean and sharp, which could well be true. In balance, I've concluded after a lot of thought that the Fuji 16mm lens is a must have for me, and next payday I am going to put in my order. While I have no problems with saving up for the Otus 28mm to be released next year, I suspect that even if I did buy it, I might well get more practical use out of the Fuji 16mm, which in some ways performs better at f/1.4 than the Otus. I suspect that if Fuji charged $4500 for the XF 16mm f/1.4 you'd get more watery eyed reviewers proclaiming it as the supreme paragon of uncriticizable perfection, but unfortunately we are just so spoilt by Fuji that we feel much more free to complain.

As discussed in another thread, a 35mm (or thereabouts) lens at f/1.0, f/1.4 and f/2 are quite different beasts. Just take a look at the Leica 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux, f/1.4 Summilux, and f/2.0 Summicron and their published MTF plots. The f/2 is always going to be lighter, inexpensive and sharper than a f/1.0 lens, a bit like Canon 50mm f/1.8 "nifty fifty". Any Noctilux type of f/1.0 lens will be a specialty lens that is heavier, much more expensive, and yet it will compromise on acutance to gain its light gathering performance. Making lenses faster and faster does not necessarily mean that their entire performance gets better and better across the board for all measured parameters. The f/1.4 will have a combination of a reasonable price plus excellent light gathering ability.

I thought Canon was publically showing off a 120MP sensor it has in development? http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-120mp-dslr-information/ If they have now publically announced a 200MP sensor this would be truly astonishing news indeed. The 120MP figure represents the limits of the resolving ability of current lenses. It would make little sense to make a +120MP sensor as that would exceed the resolution of the lens.

Canon produced the 50mm f/1.0L mostly as a show pony lens to prove they could do it. It was mostly a stunt to get attention, but the lens didn't sell well and they soon pulled it from production. Likewise, the Leica Noctilux is there just to prove that they can. People buy them just to prove that they can. If Fuji produce a relatively affordable 33mm f/1.0 people may well complain about how soft it is, how much heavier it is, and how their f/2.0 version is/was much sharper despite being cheaper. Then they might wish they got the f/1.4 version instead, because it is still pretty fast, yet still sharp.

Yes, only kidding, of course. We are definitely ahead of you temporally...though that too is only relative to Greenwich mean time!

Actually, other way around. Ours is the correct perspective on the universe: http://www.odt.org/Pictures/sideb.jpg BTW they have a digital exhibition on in Melbourne at the moment...but alas I am in Sydney.

Both Canon, Nikon, and Leica offer multiple versions at this focal length. Leica has the Noctilux, Summilux and Summicron f/0.95, f/1.4, and f/2.0 respectively. Canon used to have an f/1.0 but now only offers a f/1.2, f/1.4 and f/1.8. These are all quite different lenses despite having the common 50mm or so FF equivalent focal length. I do hope that Fuji offer a high-end f/1.0 lens rather than another Mitakon type of one-trick pony with a wide maximum aperture but few other virtues. However, that could make it one very expensive lens. The Canon 50mm f/1.0L used to cost $4000 and the Noctilux costs close to $10K.

I welcome the prospect of a Fuji Noctilux. However, I hope people realise that f/1.0 lenses compromise on acutance in exchange for low light performance, with this compromise in acutance persisting even when stopped down. This is certainly true of the Leica Noctilux vs the Summilux 50mm lenses, as this study shows: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/comparing-rangefinder-and-slr-50mm-lenses-version-0-7 Likewise, the old Canon 50mm f/1.0L lens exchanged acutance for light gathering ability, with the softness persisting even when stopped down. Even the Canon 50mm f/1.2 compromises on acutance a little to achieve its light gathering ability. The Canon 50mm f/1.4 has slightly better acutance, especially in the corners. The Leica 50mm lens with the best acutance is the f/2.0 Summicron.

I suspect that the real problem is that Sigma realised that Fuji makes such good lenses that even Zeiss struggled to make autofocus lenses that competed with it. Sigma is probably wise in not even trying.