Medium Format Fuji: Tell me the First Question FujiRumors should be able to answer for you!

[darknj]

[...]

 

I didn't knew that Fuji had that many MF film camera, I knew only of the X-Pan.

 

And I do agree with you, APS-C and MF lines make very good sense and I would love to see a good MF camera come out of Fuji's mind.

[danwells]

Fuji has been far miore active in medium format than just the X-Pan - people forget just how much they've done, because the one thing they never did was a classic SLR in the mold of the Hasselblad 500C/M. They have put out at least 5 medium format lines that I can recall.

 

1.) A long series of "Texas Leicas" - medium format rangefinders ranging from 645 up to 6x9 cm, with both fixed and interchangeable lenses.

2.) A series of autofocus, autoexposure, power winding 645 cameras (one even had the smallest and lightest medium format zoom lens I've seen) that were medium format versions of 35mm compacts.

3.)A series of huge panorama cameras in 6x9, 6x12 and 6x17 cm formats, using large-format lenses. Most were scale-focusing, some may have been rangefinders. Some offered switchable formats.

4.) What has to have been the largest and heaviest SLR commercially produced in the last 50 years - the GX680... It had unique features including inherent tilt/shift and switchable formats, later models offered substantial automation.

5.) The Hasselblad H-system! At least the early bodies were Fuji designs, and I believe the lenses still are Fujinons by any other name.

 

They're in an incredible position to offer a "GX-Pro 1", a Texas Leica for the digital era.

[EyesUnclouded]

 

2.) A series of autofocus, autoexposure, power winding 645 cameras (one even had the smallest and lightest medium format zoom lens I've seen) that were medium format versions of 35mm compacts.

 

I continue to believe that this is how they should introduce their MF to the marketplace: through a digital version of the GA-645.

 

I.e. the same road they took with the original X-100. They can even immediately introduce a couple of their (usually excelent) focal length conversion lenses to complete the camera.

 

Such a camera would be unique and not in fact antagonize the MF status quo, but instead being offered as an alternative to the likes of Leica Q and Sony RX-1Rii.

 

Following experience and feedback with such a camera, Fuji could go on and start a new MF system; again, mirroring the X-100/X-Pro1 experience.

[CRAusmus]

I continue to believe that this is how they should introduce their MF to the marketplace: through a digital version of the GA-645.

 

I.e. the same road they took with the original X-100. They can even immediately introduce a couple of their (usually excelent) focal length conversion lenses to complete the camera.

 

Such a camera would be unique and not in fact antagonize the MF status quo, but instead being offered as an alternative to the likes of Leica Q and Sony RX-1Rii.

 

Following experience and feedback with such a camera, Fuji could go on and start a new MF system; again, mirroring the X-100/X-Pro1 experience.

That would be a wonderful idea.

[danwells]

The only problem I have with this idea (it rules the camera out for me, although maybe not for others) is that the sensor is so expensive that we're looking at something like a $5000+ camera with very limited versatility. Of course, I've never seen the point of the RX1 series, either, and I don't own an X100 of any variety, although I at least understand them (I tend to own good zoom lenses, although I also have primes). Obviously, I like experimenting with fields of view, and others like really getting to know a single field of view. Does Fuji really want to restrict their audience in that way? If it were interchangeable, those who wanted a fixed lens could simply leave a lens (of their choice) on the body. Obviously, this is my opinion only - X100 models sell well, and even RxI variants sell surprisingly well for their price.

 

There is a weight and cost penalty for the fixed lens aficionados, but it's not huge. An X-Pro 2 with the 35mm f2 is just under half a pound heavier than an X100t, and it's significantly more camera. Substitute an X-E2, and you can get the weight within about 4 ounces (but lose the OVF). The real penalty is probably somewhere in between - if you designed the sleekest possible OVF interchangeable lens body, it still might be heavier than an X-E2, but the X-Pro series has always been "Leica M sized", and that decision has added a bit of weight as well. Yes, the X100t lens is a 23mm, and the 23 for the interchangeable lens bodies is quite a bit heavier - it's also a full stop faster than the X100 lens, and it has a focusing clutch. I suspect a lightweight 23 f2 would look a lot like the 35 f2?

 

The cost penalty is harder to calculate - use an X-Pro 2 as a comparison, and it's huge ($800). On the other hand, that is a LOT more camera - there is a very substantial generational jump in just about every feature, including a state of the art sensor, and it's a brand-new camera (with a long-awaited upgrade) that may carry a couple of hundred dollars of premium for the first six months. An X-E2s with the 35mm f2 is actually $200 cheaper than an X100t, but lacks the OVF..

[darknj]

[...]

 

A MF camera is certainly not for the mass of shooters. Just like a PhaseOne camera isn't going to sit in everybody's living room. Those size camera are clearly targeted at users that have a need for it.

 

A similar situation would be to compare the XF 23 F1.4 against the X100/S/T camera. Is the lens sharper and optically better ? Certainly so. The X100/S/T is smaller, lighter in every way and also easier to use.

But to the shooter that needs that kind of rendition that only a F1.4 can do, there will be no trade off, he/she will pick up that lens, even if it is bigger, cost more and a bit more clunky to use.

 

If Fuji want to start hitting at the Protogs in studio shoot, a MF camera makes a lot of sense.

[EyesUnclouded]

The only problem I have with this idea (it rules the camera out for me, although maybe not for others) is that the sensor is so expensive that we're looking at something like a $5000+ camera with very limited versatility. Of course, I've never seen the point of the RX1 series, either, and I don't own an X100 of any variety, although I at least understand them (I tend to own good zoom lenses, although I also have primes). Obviously, I like experimenting with fields of view, and others like really getting to know a single field of view. Does Fuji really want to restrict their audience in that way? If it were interchangeable, those who wanted a fixed lens could simply leave a lens (of their choice) on the body. Obviously, this is my opinion only - X100 models sell well, and even RxI variants sell surprisingly well for their price.

 

 

I understand your logic; first of all, let us admit the conversation is, at this point, highly theoretical and speculative at best. I'm sure Fuji are doing their research, and they've shown to take customer feedback quite seriously. Sometimes even resulting in ambiguous decisions, such as the lack of a swivel screen on the X-Pro2 (I'm sure most original X-Pro1 users, being "purists" in some sense, were negative on this).

 

OTOH I believe we should not underestimate the value of a compact MF for more photography genres and photographers that we may initially think of. The X-100, for example, was obviously an ideal street photography (and, secondary, documentary, travel, etc) camera. But a number of portrait and fashion photographers also use the X-100 line a lot: leaf shutter, for one reason, allowing for creative flash use.

 

The compact Fuji MF would probably feature a ~40-42mm "equivalent" lens (which can be very compact), and, ideally, they could offer a ~24-28mm equiv. and a ~70-75mm equiv conversion adapter. I keep repeating myself about conversion lenses, because Fuji already proved they are an economical and technically feasible reality.

 

Well, I can see myself doing about a million editorial shootings with such a combo.   Again, I understand there are people more comfortable with a couple of zooms. I'm just saying that such an arrangement is by no means limiting overall, especially as a first effort into digital MF.

[Larry Bolch]

The compact Fuji MF would probably feature a ~40-42mm "equivalent" lens (which can be very compact), and, ideally, they could offer a ~24-28mm equiv. and a ~70-75mm equiv conversion adapter. I keep repeating myself about conversion lenses, because Fuji already proved they are an economical and technically feasible reality.

 

Well, I can see myself doing about a million editorial shootings with such a combo.   Again, I understand there are people more comfortable with a couple of zooms. I'm just saying that such an arrangement is by no means limiting overall, especially as a first effort into digital MF.

 

Actually, a wider range of three lenses would be more useful. 20-21mm or even wider, classic 50-55mm and 100-105 at the least. Just like with a medium-format film camera, the extra size lets one crop with minimal loss of quality. While this might not be possible with conversion lenses, it certainly would be possible with interchangeable lenses, and Fuji mastered those back in the 1940s. At the present time, Hasselblad shoots with Fujinon glass.

[danwells]

I like those three lenses (Pentax and Phase one already have 28 mm lenses that cover 33x44 and 36x48 sensor formats, so it's possible, and that givers the 21mm equivalent - Pentax's is actually a zoom). I'd encourage them to do a zoom in the 35-105 range as well (something like a 24-70 equivalent).

[Yellerz]

Something along the lines of a Mamiya 6 or 7 would be fantastic.  I would buy one.

[EyesUnclouded]

A great article relevant to our conversation:

 

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/01/will-fujifilm-produce-a-medium-format-camera.html

[danwells]

Yes, that's excellent - I have a great deal of respect for Michael Johnston. Maybe there are more single-lens shooters than I think (I also admit that slight wide to normal is far from my favorite focal length - I'd actually like a single lens more if it were either slightly wider or slightly longer).