Fujifilm X-PRO2 rumors

[lnlog]

Ditto, waiting to see the sensor specs, if its not top-end dynamic range then I'm waiting for the 120db+ organic, if not then sticking with the x-pro1. Weight increase could point to possible bulk from 1st gen electronics if it is a novel sensor. As ever, wait and see

[Maurice]

Would have preferred it slimmed down just a little, but i like having a good weight to it.

 

45g more of the good stuff !

 

Probably no way to get it smaller anyway since the VF is already at the very outer corner, and bringing it in closer would mean even more lens obstruction.

And with that there is little sense in changing any of the other corners and dimensions so that's that.

[psartman]

Any news on the long-rumored new wireless controlled flash system to go with the X-Pro2? I've read there is a new additional contact on the flash shoe, maybe this is a clue?

[Patrick FR]

Fujifilm X-Pro2 Shipping Embargo is February 4 (FR-source) and XP90 coming too (digicame-info) http://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm-x-pro2-shipping-embargo-is-february-4-fr-source-and-xp90-coming-too-digicame-info/

[danwells]

If Fuji adds a decent flash system (can they get someone to produce some decent flashes), what does the X-mount ecosystem lack to be a full system like Nikon and Canon?

 

 Look at our lens lineup - top quality offerings from 10 t0 140 (out to 400 coming soon),including both primes and zooms, with significant choice at many focal lengths (if anything, we have duplication in a couple of ranges, rather than any lack of selection). Almost every lens is at least good, and many are right up there with the best at their focal lengths. The only missing lenses once the 100-400 gets here and provides significant telephoto reach (and we get a newer macro lens)are exotica like very fast long telephotos, fisheyes and tilt/shift lenses.

 

Unless you shoot sports, wildlife (full-time - general nature photographers who do some wildlife will love the 100-400) or architecture (tilt/shift), you're covered at a professional level by the Fuji lens line - as a matter of fact, you have more and better choices than in any other system except Canon or Nikon FF (I'd choose Fuji's lenses easily over Canon or Nikon's crop lineups, even including using FF lenses on crop bodies). Canon and especially Nikon do have the advantage of "mix and match" bodies - a D810, a D5 and a D500 are a VERY heavy, expensive collection of bodies, but they also combine to offer a ton of versatility.

 

Fuji's basic body style lineup is excellent - EVFs are getting good enough that a modern system should be mirrorless - Canon's and Nikon's SLR design may well be seen as a legacy adding complexity and inhibiting creative lens design before too long. Right now, what's holding them back is a lack of sensor choice confined to an older sensor that doesn't perform quite as well as modern equivalents. That is about to be rectified, at least in one model - the IMX 271 that probably forms the basis of the X-Pro 2 sensor (all those phase detection points suggest that it IS the newer IMX 271) is the best performing APS-C sensor on the market.

 

The only two things missing to make the Fuji system a full-fledged professional system for pretty much any need, apart from a few tiny niches, are a long, fast lens or two and, more importantly, any sort of a decent flash system.  Right now, B&H (whom I use for a reference because they stock nearly everything photographic, even though I generally buy my gear from a great local shop) show 6 Fuji-compatible flashes, which seems OK until you see what they are.

 

Three of them are basically replacements for pop-up flashes - tiny low-power units with nonexistent or limited bounce and modifier capability. Another one is an extremely inexpensive ($70) "cheapo" flash with a little more power, but no bounce or modifiers. The fifth is a Fujifilm-branded version of a simple, inexpensive Sunpak flash (for 1.5x the price of the Sunpak for other cameras), which does bounce, but is not terribly sophisticated. The final flash is a Nissin with decent power and features, but no wireless mode or upper-end features (more or less equivalent to Canon or Nikon's "second tier" flashes, but without the wireless capabilities.

 

Nothing with wireless, and no "flagship" type flash. Why doesn't Fuji get someone to manufacturer a flagship flash with wireless, a good second tier flash (also with wireless), a commander unit, and possibly a ringlight? One simple (and previously discussed) option would be Metz. Other than a commander unit, they have all Fuji needs and more, and they make a wide selection of their flashes for some relatively obscure systems (Pentax, Leica). Fuji could either develop[ a wireless protocol (with Metz?) or just buy/license one from PocketWizard or somebody (many medium format systems and studio flashes now have inherent PocketWizard compatibility).. If they went with a PocketWizard type wireless protocol, they'd open up not only portable flashes, but also studio strobes.

[ShutterNot]

FUJI can't really MAKE anybody develop a flash system. Perhaps part of the problem is that there is a belief among many that the FUJI X system isn't here to stay. That it may get replaced by something else soon. Talk of a FF doesn't help. 

 

Unless a manufacturer feels secure about the FUJI X system, it wouldn't happen. But FUJI is building the X system by developing the lenses, they are rounding out their system lineup, so it looks more like a long term system like Nikon or Canon.

 

Just from my perspective, perhaps that's why it's taking so long for somebody to come along and produce a decent flash system.

 

FUJI is finally making people believe.

[CRAusmus]

Every Fuji Rep I talk to says that Fuji is currently working with a company on a dedicated flash system that will offer what studio photographers want/need.  They also confirmed that they were working with Metz before the financial issues.  They seem to be focused on this issue and know that it is pretty much the only thing from keeping them from the top of the hill, that being a serious flash solution for studio photographers.

 

I have no idea how difficult this is, but it seems like they should have something by now.  It seems like if they were as close as it seems they should be there would be at least some kind of leak about it though.  Many Fuji pros are hoping they are working with Phottix, although I have never gotten any rep to tell me who they are woking with.

[danwells]

On the flash, I was thinking that it could be to both Fuji's and Metz's (or someone else in the flash business') benefit to partner...This could take the form of Fuji-branded flashes made by a flash manufacturer, or of Fuji giving a third-party manufacturer access to their protocols and engineering team and promoting their products as part of the X-system. Leica and Hasselblad have both promoted Metz flashes for years, and don't make their own. I'd hope that talk of full-frame or MF would actually be an inducement to a good flash manufacturer (the flash protocols are unlikely to change with an additional sensor format). Does anyone know if Fuji's flash protocol is relatively capable (would a top-end flash or a wireless system be supported, or could it be with simple firmware additions), or whether there is some gaping hole in flash communication that Fuji would have to fix?

 

Inciderntally, I suspect that Fuji was well aware of the Sony 36 MP APS-C sensor, probably had samples of it running in X-Pro 2 bodies (maybe not an X-Trans version, but they had something to evaluate the overall IQ), and chose the IMX 271 (with the huge number of phase detect points, this is almost certainly the '271, and not an older sensor) as X-Trans III over the 36 MP option. I do NOT have any inside information - for all I know, the 36 MP sensor is spectacular and Sony won't sell it yet, but I have several reasons to suspect that this is likely not to be the case.

 

First, the first Sony 24 MP APS-C sensor was nothing special - most reviews of the NEX-7 were underwhelmed by the image quality, saying "is it really better than 16 MP sensors?". It was the second generation of that sensor (the IMX 271 is the third) that gave us today's APS-C image quality.

 

Second, Nikon (Sony's BIG sensor customer - far outselling Sony's own cameras) would probably have LOVED to release a 36 MP, 4-5 FPS version of the D500 alongside the speed-optimized 21 mp, 10 FPS version.  Especially after splitting their sensor business from the camera business, I can't imagine Sony embargoing Nikon from releasing a professional DSLR to protect an amateur mirrorless body selling for half the price. Nikon HAS to have seen the 36 MP sensor, and they decided not to use it on their most important advanced APS-C release in eight years (I'm thinking ALONGSIDE the existing D500, not instead of). .

 

Third, the repeated delays in the A6100, a camera that was supposed to be out nearly a year ago, are either sensor-related or lens related (they have no great lens for it in their current lineup).. I can't imagine that Sony (and Zeiss) lens designers are so inept that they are a year off on when a new 16-70 will be ready... The logical answer is that the 36 MP sensor doesn't work as well as it should.

 

My suspicion is that the 36 MP sensor exists, is about to be released, but is underwhelming. I'd guess that it might behave a lot like a big Micro 4/3 sensor (it's a similar pixel pitch to a Micro 4/3 sensor in the 16-20 MP range). It probably has ~ 9-11 stops of DR at the limit, with 7-9 really usable due to noise, and noise characteristics between one and three stops worse than a good 24 MP APS-C sensor. I've shot 16 MP Micro 4/3 alongside XTrans I and II, and it isn't especially close. I get 16x24 prints out of X-Trans easily, and will go to 24x36 on many, but not all subjects. With recent Micro 4/3, my standard print size is 12x16, I will go to 16x20 on some subjects, and I have some very foggy atmospheric images (with low dynamic range and limited detail) where I'm comfortable  a little bigger.

 

The huge resolution of a 36 MP sensor will compensate for a lot of the noise of a noisy sensor at a given print size, but it doesn't compensate for low dynamic range. Both a noisy 36 MP sensor and a really good 24 MP sensor should print 24x36 inches at low to moderate ISO with good detail (the noisy 36 MP sensor will have noticeably more resolution at the lowest ISOs, but 24 good MP make a very nice print that big).On the other hand, a 9-11 stop 36 MP sensor will block up shadows and blow highlights a lot sooner than a 13.5 stop (again, at the limits - measured DR is always higher than what you can print) 24 MP sensor, in return for a marginal increase in resolution because some of the extra resolution is eaten by the noise.

 

The IMX 271 is a spectacular sensor, making the most of 24 MP.. It has about the highest dynamic range and lowest noise of any sensor on the market today, other than medium format (it is competitive with the best full-frame sensors per pixel at most ISOs (although it doesn't have the resolution of the 36 and 42 MP sensors, of course) and well ahead of other APS-C sensors). If Fuji had the choice of the '271, which gains about 1.5 stops of dynamic range and ISO/noise performance over the IMX 071 they've been using, in addition to the additional resolution; or a 36 MP sensor which gains more resolution, but actually LOSES a stop or so of dynamic range and/or ISO/noise performance (which is approximately correct if the 36 MP behaves like a big Micro 4/3 sensor) compared to their current sensor, I can see why they chose the '271, and I would have made the same choice.

 

Sony, on the other hand, is stuck. The differences between generations of 24 MP sensors are hard to market (the A6000 is an early second generation 24 MP sensor, while they could upgrade to the third generation for an extra stop of DR and lower noise, or to 36 MP at the cost of DR and noise). 36 MP is an easy, clear number to sell. If they don't have a really  differentiated body from the A6000, they would be trying to get twice as much money (the A6000 has fallen to $500 or so for the body) for a similar looking camera with similar headline specs. How many people would pay $1000 or more for a camera that seems to be a small upgrade to the A6000, even if it has 4K video and IBIS. Give it a 36 MP sensor and it's "the highest resolution APS-C camera in the world", plus the high resolution makes processing 4K video easier (you can simply bin pixels instead of doing tricky subsampling). Awfully tempting, even if image quality is actually lower in most circumstances.

 

The one problem with this route is that we know that Fuji takes a LONG time to switch sensors, possibly because of the complexity of making the X-Trans filter.  The second or third generation of that 36 MP sensor may well BE spectacular, and everything under the sun, including $500 DSLRs, may have it, while we're seeing repeated 24 MP bodies. Maybe X-T1 sales were high enough that Fuji will keep up with sensor improvements better, maybe the IMX271 is good enough to be a "why would you want anything better" sensor, and maybe the 36 MP generation won't offer anything worthwhile. On the other hand, maybe a newer version of the 36 MP sensor will offer meaningfully better image quality than anything that came before, and Fuji will get "stuck".

 

for today, Fuji seems to have picked the best sensor on the market and improved it with X-Trans. Coupled with their always-excellent lenses, the X-Pro 2 will almost certainly offer the best APS-C image quality of early 2016, and it should give all but the few very high resolution full frame bodies (with a great lens) a run for their money.

[Aswald]

I guess a heavier X-Pro2 will give better balance with larger lenses. Bigger? No diff to me as the X-Pro1 is already quite big.......

[Ektachrome]

@danwells - very speculative, although interesting speculation. Do you think though, that Sony's recent 'have your cake and eat it' 42mp BSI sensor in the A7rii might mean that a similar design of 36mp APS-C sensor would in fact have more mp AND more dynamic range, and comparable noise performance to lower MP sensors?

[umad?]

... the IMX 271 (with the huge number of phase detect points, this is almost certainly the '271

 

I don't think the amount of autofocus points tells us anything

1. there is no version of the IMX071 with phase detection other than the X-Trans II (which would suggest with your arguing that it's not a IMX071 )

2. the amount of AF points is software/firmware based. 

 

the rest is some good write up (with a lot of speculation) 

 

Do you think though, that Sony's recent 'have your cake and eat it' 42mp BSI sensor in the A7rii might mean that a similar design of 36mp APS-C sensor would in fact have more mp AND more dynamic range, and comparable noise performance to lower MP sensors?

 

Short answer: I wouldn't expect there to be miracles. The 42MP BSI sensor performs just slightly better then the D810 (which is probably based on some 2010! design). 

 

Most of the "we must have BSI" trend is just marketing. Real world differences are tiny.

 

Even if they managed to keep noise the same (at the same magnification not in 100% crop this is!) - the benefits would probably be not as big as they might seem. While Fuji has some outstanding glas, Sony is lacking behind and diffraction isn't too far out either. 

[milandro]

These days I am really thinking at the title of the immortal work by Shakespeare “ Much ado about nothing” 

[Patrick FR]

So how much bigger is the X-Pro2 compared to the X-PRO1? Here is the detailed data

Fuji X-Pro2: 140.5 (W) x 82.8 (H) x 45.9 (D) mm
Fuji X-Pro1: 139.5 (W) x 81.8 (H) x 42.5 (D) mm

[milandro]

Who is to say how a few mm will feel in the sensitive hands of the Fuji X shooters?

[uckdie]

One of the still missing secrets is the specification of the viewfinder. 

 

-What will be the magnification for the EVF? (Hope it will be close to the x0.77 of the T1)

-Will the OVF cover a wider area (16mm) and offer three steps of automatic magnification, e.g. an extra tele magnification for the 56mm/90mm?

 

It seems strange that so many specs have been leaked, but the viewfinder characteristics remain secret. Is this good or bad news?

[caterham]

so the grip accounts for the additional width and depth with a chassis seal taking up that solitary mm of height. otherwise we're looking at a revision of the castings & housings of XP1. imo, a good thing

[Maurice]

Indeed the body itself looks the same to me.

 

It's difficult to tell what protrusions they did or didn't measure, but i think this is right ..

 

The red guides are the exact dimensions of course.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[ShutterNot]

So how much bigger is the X-Pro2 compared to the X-PRO1? Here is the detailed data

Fuji X-Pro2: 140.5 (W) x 82.8 (H) x 45.9 (D) mm

Fuji X-Pro1: 139.5 (W) x 81.8 (H) x 42.5 (D) mm

 I'm hoping the thickness increase of 3.4 mm is due mostly to a better more substantial grip and the whole body itself hasn't grown that much. The 1 mm increases on height and width seem minor enough..

[ShutterNot]

I just hope they keep the price down to around 1600-1700.

 

Some of the prices mentioned are as high as for the fantastic Nikon D750. If the performance of the PRO 2 doesn't match the D750 in terms of DR, I may have a dilemna.

[jw48335]

I've been looking, but may have missed it.  Is there any info on potential connectivity enhancements in the Pro-2, something comparable to the bluetooth in the D500?  I'd really like to get away from IFTTT & Eyefi.  

[danwells]

Yes, the sensor speculation is very speculative - nobody knows what's going on inside Sony (or Fuji)...

 

What we do know for sure is that the A6100 has been VERY delayed, suggesting some unsatisfactory part (unlike the X-Pro 2, which has been WANTED for a long time, and was RUMORED for this past fall, the A6100 was actually on an internal Sony roadmap OFFICIALLY for release nearly a year ago). That roadmap got released in the huge Sony hack, so it was not meant to be public... Rumors suggest three or four delays since then, but those are not official.

 

The "Micro 4/3" level of performance for the 36 MP sensor is highly speculative, based on two things (and it could well be better than that, while not being up to the standards of the 24 MP sensors). One is that the pixel pitch is substantially smaller than any sensor larger than Micro 4/3 ever released for consumer photographic use  (i have no idea of what sensors exist for industrial or intelligence use that never see the inside of a camera store), while remaining similar to existing 16 and 20 MP Micro 4/3 sensors. The second is that this has been roughly the performance level of a fair number of sensors with big leaps in resolution over the years (losing dynamic range and noise performance has been an Achilles' heel of sensor designs that explore new resolution territory).. The experiences of using Micro 4/3 sensors alongside X-Trans are my own, and based on a substantial number of large prints.

 

The dynamic range differences between existing sensors are based on real data - you get different numbers depending on whether you trust Bill Claff or DxOMark, who use different measurements, but the RELATIVE performances are quite close. DxOMark has some sensors over 13 stops, while Claff tops the best out around 11+, using very different noise floors, but they agree that "this sensor is about a stop better than that one", although DxOMark won't test Fuji (they rely on Bayer patterning for some part of their analysis).

 

According to both DxOMark and Bill Claff's Photographic Dynamic range, the latest Nikon APS-C bodies (presumably using the IMX 271, at least in many cases) are VERY close to the D750 (DxOMark calls it a tenth of a stop, Claff about 1/3 of a stop). That's almost never going to be visible, whether it's a tenth or a third, and the X-Pro 2 could conceivably even have overall IQ BETTER than the D750, due to superior processing (at least at lower ISOs - bigger pixels are going to make a difference as ISO rises). Sensor DR is important, but even raw image quality, let alone JPEGs, depends on other things as well. Fuji's support electronics have always been really excellent, and the sheer cost of the X-Pro 2 suggests something better than you get in a $600 D5500 with a very similar sensor (yes, the hybrid viewfinder and the chassis account for some of that, and low production numbers also play a role, but we're going to get high-end, image quality focused insides as well).

 

There is one VERY interesting case in Claff's data (DxO doesn't have the 645z, so the comparison is impossible there) that shows the effect of support electronics. The Pentax 645Z and the Phase One IQ250 are known to use EXACTLY the same sensor - there are no variants in medium format, production numbers are just too low. Phase One has a reputation for the EXTREME high end in electronics (as well they should - the IQ250 is a $30,000 camera BACK (although you can usually find a deal that at least includes the rest of the camera for that price , and they'll sometimes even throw in a lens)). Pentax has probably recycled a lot of parts from their APS-C DSLRs in order to make a medium format camera with the same sensor that sells for 1/4 of Phase One's price. Some of the recycled parts are easy to see - why else would you have a medium format body with a whole bunch of AF points, all crammed into the very center of the frame (not coincidentally, all the AF points fit in an APS-C frame)?

 

Bill Claff found a full stop difference in dynamic range at most ISOs between the two (in favor of the Phase One), and the little I've read suggests that the difference in image quality is real - the Pentax is superb, the Phase better yet.

 

As for the A7rII, it has almost EXACTLY the same dynamic range as the A7r(within a couple of tenths of a stop, and different measures actually disagree as to which is higher) at low ISOs. The newer sensor holds its DR a little better starting at ISO 400 or 800. The D810 shows a very similar curve to the original A7r, with differences of a couple of tenths at various ISOs, perhaps due to support electronics (or measurement inconsistency)?

 

The pixel pitch of 36 and 42 mp sensors of the same physical size is VERY similar. It could even be the same - if Sony was able to reduce the gaps BETWEEN pixels, which is one of the things BSI does, they might have crammed in more pixels of the same size. This would be a good explanation of why there was a tiny increase in resolution from 36 to 42 MP (if resolution were the design goal, I would have expected at least a 25-33% increase, not 15%). The major generations have jumped from 3 to 6 MP (100%), 6 to 8 (33%), 8 to 12 (50%), 12 to 16 (33%), 16 to 24 (50%) and 24 to 36 (50%). Canon has complicated the picture by using a bunch of "in between" resolutions, especially between 16 and 24 MP (they have also used 10 MP and maybe 14), but if you look at all non-Canon interchangeable lens cameras, VERY few don't fall on one of those resolutions. I was guessing 54 MP for the next generation full-frame sensors, as it is a logical jump from 36, and it shares a pixel size with 24 MP APS-C. 42 was a very surprisingly moderate jump, and one that almost has to be an "accidental feature" coming from something else (like reducing the gaps between pixels).

 

A 24 MP APS-C sensor has a pixel pitch roughly equivalent to a 54 MP full-frame sensor, somewhat denser than current full-frame cameras, and probably not achievable with the same size pixels by narrowing gaps (at least not in the same sensor generation). A 36 MP APS-C sensor is roughly equivalent to an 81 MP full-frame sensor, a completely different beast. Once the 42 MP A7rII sensor came out, I had guessed (and Sony fooled me again) that their next move in APS-C would be a high-performing ~28 MP BSI sensor, using the same technologies as the A7rII sensor  (prior to the A7rII sensor, I had guessed something a lot closer to 36 MP (at least 32), as a more logical generation jump).

[umad?]

According to both DxOMark and Bill Claff's Photographic Dynamic range, the latest Nikon APS-C bodies (presumably using the IMX 271, at least in many cases) are VERY close to the D750 (DxOMark calls it a tenth of a stop, Claff about 1/3 of a stop).

 

No. There is no IMX271 in any Nikon yet. The D7200 sensor you are talking about is a Toshiba design (D7100 sensor with improvements).

 

But that's another point many don't consider: smal changes made a good sensor (with some problems) outstandinig

 

Fuji's support electronics have always been really excellent,

 

It's not only that. On top of the basic sensor, there are many things like black light shielding CFA and many others. Nikon is said to have improved there with the D5 massively. Now guess, who is one of the leaders in this area and where nearly every manufacturer is getting their CFAs (and other stuff from)

 

Then there are the microlenses. The NEX-7 is an perfect example how they can ruin your "whole sensor". 

 

 

As said the electronics are important and so is the processor. The whole image processing pipeline is too complex to say: Camera A has the same basic sensor as Camera B, so their picture quality must be the same. 

Your example of the Pentax and Phase One shows just that (thanks for that, haven't seen that yet) 

As for the A7rII ... The newer sensor holds its DR a little better starting at ISO 400 or 800.

 

That's due to the dual conversion gain

 

The pixel pitch of 36 and 42 mp sensors of the same physical size is VERY similar. It could even be the same - if Sony was able to reduce the gaps BETWEEN pixels, which is one of the things BSI does, they might have crammed in more pixels of the same size.

 

Here I have to disagree. With todays pixel pitch, micro lenses, light pipes etc. the difference in fill factor seems to be really small. Furthermore you would need to move to Exmor RS (stacked BSI) to really get decrease the gaps dramatically.

 

I see two reasons why Sony moved to BSI:

1. marketing. They want to push their sensor customers (this is Sony devices soon to be Sony Semiconductor Solutions customers) to a higher end sensor, which is probably a lot more expansive (actually this is the same, what camera manufactures are doing with us/the customers. Move them to the more expansive high end).

 

2. problems. The A7 mount has a small mount diameter. Together with the short flange distance this leads to some problems.

Modern sensors don't like rays coming in in an angle. Not. One. Bit! (

Image side near telecentric lens design gets really hard so they either have to sacrifice image quality, or build huge, expansive lenses.

The A7r showed problems with reduces sharpness in the corners and color shifts (both probably introduced due to those angled rays). 

The BSI sensor with different micro lenses allows much more angled rays, eliminating most of those problems.

 

So in fact the A7r II sensor is (more or less) a fix, with some tiny improvements. And Sony is selling it not as that, but as huge improvement and increased prices too. And people are going for it (just take a look in the comments on FR and you will see how many want BSI without even knowing what this would mean exactly)

Nice marketing there Sony! 

 

(BSI of course has some advantages a smaller process helps too. With even smaller pixels BSI will get more relevant, but for now I think it's mostly marketing) 

[danwells]

No. There is no IMX271 in any Nikon yet. The D7200 sensor you are talking about is a Toshiba design (D7100 sensor with improvements).

 

 

Really? I had seen the D7200 sensor listed both as a Sony (in at least one source, specifically the IMX 271) and a Toshiba in different sources. On the other hand, I thought the D5500 was certainly a Sony, and probably the IMX 271. Has the IMX 271 appeared in any camera yet? What about the Pentax K3 II?

 

 

I see two reasons why Sony moved to BSI:

1. marketing. They want to push their sensor customers (this is Sony devices soon to be Sony Semiconductor Solutions customers) to a higher end sensor, which is probably a lot more expansive (actually this is the same, what camera manufactures are doing with us/the customers. Move them to the more expansive high end).

Makes perfect sense - I've never heard of a technology company not liking marketing opportunities.

 

 

2. problems. The A7 mount has a small mount diameter. Together with the short flange distance this leads to some problems.

Modern sensors don't like rays coming in in an angle. Not. One. Bit! (

Image side near telecentric lens design gets really hard so they either have to sacrifice image quality, or build huge, expansive lenses.

The A7r showed problems with reduces sharpness in the corners and color shifts (both probably introduced due to those angled rays). 

The BSI sensor with different micro lenses allows much more angled rays, eliminating most of those problems.

 

This explains quite a bit - the A7 mount has been a bear to design lenses for, as shown by almost all of their lenses being big, heavy and expensive, and some of them also having mediocre image quality, although a few are excellent. This also goes a long way towards explaining why the A7rII works better with adapted lenses than other members of the A7 family.

 

 

So in fact the A7r II sensor is (more or less) a fix, with some tiny improvements. And Sony is selling it not as that, but as huge improvement and increased prices too. And people are going for it (just take a look in the comments on FR and you will see how many want BSI without even knowing what this would mean exactly)

Nice marketing there Sony!

Why go for 42 MP in the "fix"? If the extra pixels are not a consequence of increased fill factor, why not fix the sensor keeping it at 36 MP? Surely the difference between 36 and 42 MP won't be noticeable, except, perhaps in pictures of resolution test charts? Are the extra pixels solely for marketing purposes?

[umad?]

I know there were a lot of speculations about the D7200s sensor, but since Chipworks did their magic, it's certain: it's a Toshiba sensor.

 

Don't know what is in the Pentax K3II, but I don't think the IMX271 is being used yet. (With many fps - fast read out, this thing looks perfect for an mirrorless camera!) 

 

 

About the 42MP in the A7R II. That one is pretty easy. It's all about video. In super35 mode they get 5K, which they downsample to 4k. 

And with full sensor readout (video is 16:9 instead of 3:2) they get around 34MP (which is 8K) and with 2x2 pixel binning this comes down to 4k in a nearly perfect way.

 

This would not be possible with 36MP and with 50MP you would end up with 8.5K, which probably would be an Pain in the A** to downsample (or it would introduce some weird crop factor for video)

[danwells]

Do you (or anyone) know about the sensor used in the D5500? If neither the D5500 nor the K3II are using the IMX271 (what else could be? the sensor was released earlier this year) , Fuji may be the first to use a new generation of Sony's excellent 24 MP sensor that is supposed to offer even more dynamic range and lower noise than its predecessors (as well as an extremely fast readout that Fuji may or may not take real advantage of).

 

On the A7rII, I had looked at the specs when it first came out, and concluded that it COULDN'T be binning 4k video - it didn't have quite enough pixels across, and I wondered why Sony had come so close to an 8k sensor that would make 4k simple, then missed. I made a mistake, though... I had assumed that, like most 4k cameras, it offered BOTH UHD (3840 pixels wide) and the slightly higher resolution Cinema 4k (4096 pixels wide). It doesn't - it's UHD only, and it has just enough pixels to get away with simple 2x2 binning in UHD. Since the UHD image JUST fits, there is one advantage - no crop factor in width, although video will always crop the height of an image, due to the aspect ratio. There is also a disadvantage - many cameras use electronic image stabilization in video modes to supplement the optical stabilizer. Sony doesn't have the extra pixels on the left and right edges to use electronic stabilization.