Sator-Photography

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

 
 
SaveSave

Fuji said that the "G" represents a continuation of the traditional nomenclature of Fuji medium format cameras e.g. GX680III, GX645AF.  There was also an "X" in there too. Their medium format rangefinders had a GF nomenclature e.g. GF670. So if you continue that nomenclature and add in the fact that the digital X series has XF lenses, then it seems logical to call the medium format version "GFX". 
 

 
Historically, Fuji use the term "S" inconsistently. Here, it might even mean "Studio", as it does in Canon terminology. 
 
 
SaveSave

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

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

Thank you for your kind words! It's good to have feedback!
 
Unfortunately I don't have 100-400, my longest lens is 50-140. So for longer reach I change to my Canon gear. To be honest, I feel that by not having longer lens on my Fuji, it makes me look for different angles and ways to shoot (which is quite difficult in such strict conditions as we have here in Olympics). That is why I always have both cameras with me - one for unique and more "artsy" shots and other for getting the shots I need to get. Also Fuji is quite an icebreaker, many guys has been asking me, how does it handle fast moving subjects and how good is the low light performance and many has been positively surprised when I show them shots taken with Fuji. So I feel like moving advertisement for Fuji

Women's Marathon did pass my local beach, so didn't have to go too far to shoot it and get a bit different photos.
 
Beata Naigambo @Rio de Janeiro Olympics by Hendrik Osula, on Flickr
 
X-Pro2 + 14/2,8
 
Matea Matosevic @Rio de Janeiro Olympics by Hendrik Osula, on Flickr
 
X-Pro2 + 50-140/2,8
 
"Women's Marathon @Rio de Janeiro Olympics" by Hendrik Osula, on Flickr
 
X-Pro2 + 14/2,8

Estonian fencing team got to the semi-finals.
 
Irina Embrich @Rio de Janeiro Olympics by Hendrik Osula, on Flickr
 
X-Pro2 + 90/2
 
and lost there to China.
 
Erika Kirpu @Rio de Janeiro Olympics by Hendrik Osula, on Flickr
 
X-Pro2 + 56/1,2

Hi! As the games has begun, I thought it would be good idea to start a topic and maybe find other photographers at the Olympics, who use Fujifilm. Also I'll be posting pictures taken with my X-Pro2, so feel free to comment!
 
Opening Ceremony @Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games by Hendrik Osula, on Flickr
 
Opening Ceremony @Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games by Hendrik Osula, on Flickr
 
Irina Embrich and Yiwen Sun @Rio de Janeiro Olympics by Hendrik Osula, on Flickr
 
Julia Beljajeva @Rio de Janeiro Olympics by Hendrik Osula, on Flickr

SilkyPix gets a 'bad rap' amongst a lot of Fuji users,
 
But it's worth (IMHO) remembering they are Fujifilm's software partner....
 
Of course that doesn't mean it HAS to be good, but it should mean that Fuji share demosaicing info with them, and they can implement this into their products
 
FWIW, I'm glad I gave SP7 a try, and I'm please with the results in context of what I like, what I shoot etc
 
Of course YMMV
 
But I think it's worth mentioning that there are other choices out there!!
 

 

 
Oh and in case you're wondering.... NONE of these shots used a Fuji Film Simulation!!
 
Thanks for looking!

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. 

Noise is related to the physical size of the light gathering unit in the sensor, so your statement is only correct for two sensors with the same number of pixels. If the APS-C sensor has half the number of pixels as the full-frame sensor, then the noise is likely to be very similar. In other words, it's the size of the pixel which matters, not the size of the sensor as a whole.
 
Ian.
 
 
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Actually, no it isn't. Exposure is exposure no matter what size format you are using. My Sekonic light meter has no setting on it to adjust based on whether I'm shooting 1/250 f4 @ ISO 400 on APS-C, FF 35, 6x6 MF or 8x10 large format. It takes one exposure which is correct (not including compensation for bellows factor) on any format or film size. Light is light. To make it even simpler we can do this without a light meter and use the Sunny 16 rule. 1/ISO @f16 on a sunny day. Still works on every format size. No compensation required to the laws of physics.

This lens would be a major mistake for many reasons. The X system as a whole is not ready to jump into the ultra limited, super expensive super tele market when the largest prime offered at this point is the 90 f2. As any number of posters have already stated, a lens of this size and speed would retail for $6000-$10,000. That would put it far out of the range or need of 99.9% of the X system market. This lens would be no smaller than the Canon or Nikon offerings of the same FL and speed.
 
The lens that Fuji needs to make as their entry into the prime super tele market (300mm comparable FL) would be a 200 f2.8 WR stabilized lens that is compatible with the 1.4x TC. A 200 f2.8 would be no bigger than the very hand holdable version of this lens that Canon has made for years. If would have the light gathering ability of an f2.8 and DOF of a 300 f4. F4 is more than enough to offer great background separation for the bokeh freaks providing they understand subject to background distance. The lens would probably cost in the $1000 range. When paired with the 1.4x TC you'd have a 280 f4 that would be comparable DOF wise to a 420 f5.6. This combo would once again be very light in comparison to a 200 f2, be much smaller and hand holdable and would be 1/6th - 1/10th the price. Fuji would undoubtedly sell 100's to 1000's of this lens for every one lens they sold of a 200 f2. And while Fuji is world renowned for its high end and very expensive video optics I don't believe that the current X system is the place to introduce that type optic for a still camera at the present moment. Scott

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 agree with gdanmitchell that Fuji likes to zig when the market is zagging. The reason Fuji has been successful at APS-C is that Fuji APS-C ISN'T a crop system - it's a full frame system for a different frame size! The difference is that all the lenses are optimized for the actual frame size. If you look at Nikon DX or Canon EF-S, there are two distinct types of lenses - APS-C lenses (which are generally cheap zooms - there have been a few primes and better zooms, but they aren't the majority) and FF lenses, many of which are either needlessly bulky or odd focal lengths on APS-C sensors (a 24-70mm f2.8 is a classic example of both, not going usefully wide on APS-C as well as being 50% bigger and heavier than it has to be).
 
There are a few focal lengths that serve different roles in the two formats, but happen to work in both (35mm is the best example - it's a useful slight wide on FF, a normal lens on APS-C, and a 35mm FF lens is very compact, so there's no real disadvantage to using it as a normal lens). There are others that work both ways, but the lens designs are different (a 24mm wideangle on FF is similar to a 35mm if used on APS-C, BUT a good FF 24mm is quickly becoming a big, heavy lens; while it's easy to build a very compact one if you only need to cover APS-C). Long telephotos also work both ways - they inherently cover huge formats (most 300mm f2.8s cover 4x5", or would if they didn't have baffles to prevent reflection), and they tend to be "the longer the better", rather than an optimized focal length for a particular effect.
 
By designing an entire lens lineup for APS-C, Fuji has the right focal lengths at reasonable sizes (note that their "50" is actually a 56 - a regular 50 works as a portrait lens on APS-C, but it's always just a bit short -  56 is a better length)... There are some big lenses, but they are unavoidably big lenses, not needlessly bulky ones. A 100-400, especially a scary-sharp 100-400, will never be a small lens!
 
I'd expect (and hope for) them to do the same thing in medium format. If they embrace 33x44mm and design all their lenses for it, they will have significant size and quality advantages over manufacturers trying to repurpose 645 film lenses. On the other hand, I hope they go for a newer sensor, rather than that 3 year old 50MP one. It would be very easy for Sony to make a ~70-75 MP 33x44 mm sensor that uses the same technology generation as the X-Pro 2 sensor, the A7rII sensor and the big 100 MP sensor Phase One has. Fuji and Pentax are the logical customers...

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 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.

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!

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.

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 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.
 

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.
 

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.