Jump to content

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


Patrick FR

Regarding Medium Format, the first question I'd have answered is:  

174 members have voted

  1. 1. Regarding Medium Format, the first question I'd have answered is:

    • Is it Mirrorless or not?
      19
    • Is it with Interchangable lenses or fixed lens?
      38
    • How much will it cost?
      48
    • Design: Rangefinder style or DSLR-shape?
      15
    • When will it be announced?
      22
    • What size will the MF sensor have?
      23
    • Other sensor specs like Megapixel, X-Trans or Bayer etc...
      9


Recommended Posts

I see Patrick has started this discussion about whether Fuji should next develop a full frame vs medium format system:

 

http://www.fujirumors.com/poll-the-fuji-x-future-medium-format-full-frame-or-stick-with-aps-c-vote-now/

 

There are problems with Fuji going into the full frame market:

 

1. Full frame offers little or no significant gain in IQ over APS-C, meaning than any full frame Fuji system will be a poorly differentiated product line compared to the X series, one that will merely confuse many prospective buyers. APS-C systems are only going to improve in IQ, and Fuji made an excellent choice in committing to this format with its balance between IQ and compactness. They should continue their commitment to this decision rather than having showing indecisive second thoughts about going back to creating yet another system based on a sensor size that is only trivially larger.

2. Once the lens is factored in, full frame mirrorless cameras offer little size/weight advantage compared to DSLRs unless the camera is deliberately crippled like the Sony a7 system by making the battery too small and the lenses too slow. The Leica SL full frame mirrorless gives up all pretense to being smaller or more compact than a DSLR, and comes with elephantine zoom lenses.

3. Fuji have never traditionally been a major player in the full frame camera industry, and do not have a range of film era full frame lenses ready to be implemented on a full frame system after a digital refresh

4. The full frame market is already an increasingly crowded and competitive place without Fuji entering it too. Along with Sony and Leica, Canon will soon release a mirrorless full frame system and Nikon are rumoured to soon do the same thing. Pentax are about to release a new full frame DSLR. Fuji risk being crowded out of this market before they even begin.

 

The advantages of Fuji going into the medium format market:

 

1. Fuji have longstanding experience as one of the major players in medium format

2. Fuji already have a full range of medium format lenses from the film era that could be reissued after a digital refresh

2. A high-end professional MFD system that gives the brand prestige (alongside Leica, Phase One, Hasselblad) is a perfect compliment for a compact yet uncompromisingly high-IQ prosumer APS-C X-series. These two ideally complementary product ranges would be nicely differentiated from each other and cause no confusion.

3. Fuji is better off using their medium format expertise to complete against the runaway success of the Pentax 645Z rather than trying to complete in the increasingly overcrowded full frame market place

4. No other firm is better placed than Fuji to unveil a revolutionary "GX-Pro1" mirrorless medium format camera. Many pros would convert from FF DSLR and SLR MFD to such a system, thus enhancing the image of Fuji as the brand of choice for discerning professionals.

 

The major question is that of the sensor. The simple answer is to use the same 44x33mm Sony sensor of the Pentax 645Z, while future proofing the system, ensuring it could in future be used with 53.7 x 40.4mm full frame MFD sensors. However, there is more to it than just plain technical specifications.

 

Some may point out that Canon have plans to bring a 120MP full frame DSLR to market in the next 2-3 years, and that they already offer a 50.4MP full frame 5Ds camera, raising questions as to what the point of Fuji offering a similar resolution 51.4MP MFD sensor might be. The answer is that resolution is not everything. Larger sensors have larger pixels, and reduced signal noise ratios. I do not think there is a danger of the Sony sensor division issuing a +50MP full frame sensor that will make the 51.4MP MFD sensor look redundant until they have first upgraded their MFD sensor to around 72MP resolution (upscaling from the 42MP sensor of the a7RII).

 

If Sony were to issue any sensor size at a resolution that exceeded that of the sensor size above it they would anger their clients. For example, if Sony sensors issued a MFT (micro 4/3) sensor that had a 72MP resolution while they still only offered a maximum of 42MP on their full frame sensors there would be an uproar amongst their full frame sensor buying clients. If Sony came up with a 120MP full frame sensor while still only offer a maximum resolution of 51.4MP on their MFD sensor, Pentax/Phase One/Hasselblad would likewise be understandably outraged. The only reason Canon can press ahead and make a 120MP full frame sensor camera is because they don't have clients who buy sensors in larger formats that they have to keep happy. Unlike Canon, Sony sensors has to upgrade the resolution of all sensor sizes right across the board to keep their clients happy. That means that Canon full frame sensors may end up being the first commercially available camera sensors in any format with 100MP resolution or more. 

 

This is clearly the reason why Sony have only put a 42MP sensor in their a7RII. Sony sensors probably could make a 56MP full frame sensor tomorrow to complete against the Canon 5Ds if they wanted to, but then their MFD clients would be angered that they weren't offered a higher resolution 72MP MFD sensor at a price competitive with the current 51.4MP MFD sensor first. Sony will have to make a cost effective 72+MP 44x33mm MFD sensor first before they increase the maximum resolution of their full frame sensors to 50+MPs. By the time Fuji are ready to manufacture a GX-Pro1 mirrorless MFD camera this 72+MP 44x33mm sensor should be available.

 

Kimio Maki of Sony cameras has bragged that if they thought there was market demand they could easily make a 100MP sensor camera tomorrow:

 

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/interview-kimio-maki-of-sony-if-customers-need-more-than-100-million-pixels-we-will-create-such-kind-of-a-product-63138

 

But as I read this, it means that although they have the technology to do so, the bigger question is of avoiding upsetting their MFD sensor buying clients by coming up with a full frame sensor with a higher resolution than that of their best MFD sensor.

 

Or put another way, Sony has switched places with Canon in preferring lower resolution high performance sensors, leaving Canon in a one man race pressing to break the 100MP milestone, while Kimio Maki is left stammering weak excuses about how there is no customer demand for a 100MP full frame sensor anyway. Unless, of course, Sony can first come up with an affordable 100+MP MFD sensor for Pentax etc to use in their next generation MFD cameras before Canon comes out with a 120MP sensor.

 

Nonetheless, irrespective of whether Sony sensors has a 72MP or 120MP MFD sensor on offer, by the time Fuji are ready to go to market with a mirrorless MFD series, it can be assumed to be of excellent quality. The number of megapixels is far less important than the IQ and signal noise ratios it manages to achieve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are any readers here who think that MFD is too expensive a format for Fuji to ever bother with they should read this article dating from 2004:

 

http://www.shutterbug.com/content/classic-digital-camerasbrkodaks-vintage-dcs-520-digital-slr-now-bargainbrbut-tech-1999-just-#PZeC6Kpmezhs0VBk.97

 

I quote:

 

At a retail price of around $15,000, [the Canon EOS D2000/Kodak  DCS 520] was considered a reasonable investment by most daily newspapers, event imaging companies, and commercial photography studios. Certainly the 2 megapixel was plenty for newspaper work, and the big 6-megapixel sensor on the big brother DCS 560/D6000 would set one back $30,000. 

 

 

Today, any phone camera has a resolution higher than the Canon EOS D6000, which used to cost $30,000 back in 1998. Canon is in a position of market dominance today because it had the foresight and vision to commit early to digital technology. Admittedly, today, Fuji too would be ahead of the curve by committing early to MFD, as Canon once did. Yes, a Fuji mirrorless MFD camera will one day seem preposterously expensive, if not quite as absurd as Canon's 1998 EOS D6000. However, Canon has shown us that there are advantages in being ahead in the technology game.

 
The only thing is that, please Fuji, don't install any video games on any future "GX-Pro1" like this:
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

It looks like we are on the brink of a breakthrough on the medium format rumours front. 

 

I would say that we are going to find (surprise...surprise...) that the reason Fuji are taking longer than Pentax to re-enter the medium format market is because, whereas Pentax is taking the easier SLR route, Fuji is taking the more difficult mirrorless route. 

 

Just imagine if Fuji had upscaled the X-Pro1 to MFD proportions four years ago. The X-Pro1 is slow enough as it is, so any MFD "GX-Pro1" would have been so slow as to be unworkable. It has taken time for mirrorless cameras to become faster, and although they have now advanced to a point where an APS-C system may work fast enough, Fuji might need to further hone their experience with mirrorless systems before they eventually developed sufficient confidence in them to upscale to MFD size. 

 

It's about looking at the intellectual property infrastructure capacity of the corporation. Fuji has IP related to their extensive experience in medium format, and with the X-system now has IP related to mirrorless. Put 2 + 2 together and it equates to a mirrorless medium format camera. If Fuji wanted to make a SLR MFD system they could have already had it in production to compete against the runaway success of the Pentax 645Z, which currently has no competition . 

 

My guess now is that Fuji may find that even after scaling up the X-Pro2 to MFD proportions, that it could still be a little too slow, in which case Fuji might be best to consider delaying a mirrorless MFD system for another 2-3 of years until the X-Pro3 is ready to go into production. An X-Pro3 scaled up to MFD proportions might represent a far more mature product. By that time the Fuji-Panasonic consortium may be in a position to offer organic MFD sensors (perhaps both full frame and cropped MFD sensors) at a more competitive price than if sourced from a third party such as Sony. Also in a couple of years MFD sensor manufacturing costs would have dropped further, permitting the system to be offered at a price competitive to high-end full frame systems (as was the case in the film era)

 

That said, I am sure that Fuji have the Sony 44x33mm cropped MFD sensor in lab already for testing on a MFD experimental model. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems it will by a MF system with interchangeable lenses: http://www.fujirumors.com/fujfilm-medium-format-rumor-here-is-the-answer-to-one-of-the-7-crucial-mf-questions-source-right-in-the-past/

 

Grain of salt still mandatory though, at least until we finally have a confirmation from trusted source

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting. I've always argued that Fuji need to follow Pentax in making a competitor to their highly successful 645Z. This is very much a professional segment of the market and for that you need to offer an interchangeable lens system. Pentax has shown that is the best formula for this market segment, and it would be ill advised to waver from that. Pentax would feel incredibly relieved and let off the hook, if after waiting for Fuji to fire back with their answer to the Pentax 645Z, Fuji merely came up with a fixed lens MFD camera.

 

It should also be kept in mind that just because Fuji engineers (may) have an experimental prototype in lab, it doesn't mean that they have committed to putting it into production. There are multiple steps before that, starting with the need to make multiple prototypes until they come up with the optimal formula. Next they need to carefully analyse the economic feasibility of the model for the market eg how much a Sony 44x33 MFD X-trans sensor costs to put into a body, cost of reintroduction into their production line of their medium format lenses with a modified shorter mirrorless flange distance etc etc. 

 

One sticking point with respect to relying on Sony sensors as the source of MFD sensors is whether Sony demonstrate a commitment to looking after their MFD sensor buying clients such as Pentax. I am gravely concerned that Sony sensors will soon release a full frame sensor with greater than 51.6MP resolution onto the market before they offer the MFD makers an upgrade on their current 51.6MP MFD sensor found on the 645Z e.g. a 72MP MFD sensor upsized from the 42MP FF sensor on the a7RII. The release of a 50+MP FF BSI sensor would leave Sony's MFD sensor buying clients stuck with a grossly overpriced older generation of non-BSI sensor with lower resolution than what Sony offers on their latest full frame models. It would be like giving the M4/3 makers a 36MP BSI sensor while leaving APS-C sensor buying clients like Fuji still stuck with the 16MP non-BSI sensor. It would be a major stab in the back that would result in a gross loss of confidence in Sony's willingness to cater for all sensor buying clients across the board. Why would you buy a Pentax 645Z with an older 51.6MP non-BSI sensor when you can buy a Sony or Nikon full frame camera model with a newer generation of BSI sensor, with say, 56-72MP resolution? Pentax and other MFD makers would feel hugely betrayed by Sony. That sort of bullying behaviour from Sony would at least give the Fuji-Panasonic consortium a major incentive to start making their own sensors rather than being reliant on Sony to "look after" them.

 

If Sony fails to demonstrate commitment to developing medium format sensors then Fuji would be better off waiting until the Fuji-Panasonic consortium is in a position to manufacture them themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shit yeah. An affordable medium format styled xpro would kill it 

 

Fuji-Optical-Fujica-GL-690.jpg

Not to spoil the Fuji lovefest, in the 90's and early 2000's I owned the Fujica G690BL and both the 100/3.5 and 180/5.6 lenses. Despite being really heavy leaf shutter rangefinders, they were clunky and not very reliable, esp. in cold weather when the shutters would slow down. The images, however, were very sharp at smaller apertures like F11 and smaller and quite beautiful under a loop, esp. with Fuji Velvia and Kodak EPZ 100X. That said, they were not close focusing, esp. the 180/5.6 had a minimum distance of 2.5m!! In the end, my Nikon FM2 and 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor was a better choice for landscapes because the image quality was just as good. Years after I sold the body and two lenses and began printing internegatives of my chromes, I noticed that tiny hairs from the internal flocking (it was like short pile wool) kept entering into the image areas, esp. at the bottom edges and corners. They did make nice 30x40" color prints, but my D800 is a much sharper imaging device.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I moved from Phase one to Fuji-x....   Main reasons were ongoing cost of maintaining the kit and the shear size and weight i was carrying around.

 

If we were to see a MF fuji i would love to see low noise long exposure capabilities like my Phase P45+ packed in a body that was lighter and more compact.

 

So if i was to ask a question/questions:

what is the long exposure capabilities?

How heavy and How big would the kit be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to spoil the Fuji lovefest, in the 90's and early 2000's I owned the Fujica G690BL and both the 100/3.5 and 180/5.6 lenses. Despite being really heavy leaf shutter rangefinders, they were clunky and not very reliable, esp. in cold weather when the shutters would slow down. The images, however, were very sharp at smaller apertures like F11 and smaller and quite beautiful under a loop, esp. with Fuji Velvia and Kodak EPZ 100X. That said, they were not close focusing, esp. the 180/5.6 had a minimum distance of 2.5m!! In the end, my Nikon FM2 and 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor was a better choice for landscapes because the image quality was just as good. Years after I sold the body and two lenses and began printing internegatives of my chromes, I noticed that tiny hairs from the internal flocking (it was like short pile wool) kept entering into the image areas, esp. at the bottom edges and corners. They did make nice 30x40" color prints, but my D800 is a much sharper imaging device.

 

It is unclear too whether a MFD system will take lenses that are descended from their rangefinder line or from their SLR line...or both.  

 

Given that these decades old QC issues have never been reported on current Fuji X-series lenses, making it even less likely that they will emerge as a problem on lenses made for a more high-end MFD system. Fuji already make MFD lenses for other medium format brands, and I am unaware of them currently having this issue. Fuji have even made lenses for Leica before.

 

There are those who say that the IQ on a Fuji X-T1 already matches a D800 (or the a7RII) anyway, so any MFD system that sits above the X-series would likely surpass anything from Nikon in terms of IQ, although not in terms of speed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

I'm very surprised by Sony's latest move in medium format sensors... I was expecting an upgrade to the 50 MP CMOS, perhaps to ~70 MP, using the technology from their most recent smaller sensors, but keeping the size. Instead what we got was a 100 MP sensor that is very close to the actual size of a 645 film image. It probably costs twice as much to manufacture as the 50 MP sensor, if not more, because of the increased area and lower yield. If Fuji uses the big sensor, I'd revise all cost projections upward by 50% or more. Anything close enough to 645 to be called full-frame has been well over $20,000. Fuji may come in lower, but I'd be shocked to see the body under $12,000 - $15,000 with that much sensor cost. What would other FR readers think about the following options?

 

1.) 100 MP full 645 sensor size, $12999, bulkier lenses

2.) 73 MP "medium format 33x44 mm" (Pentax 645Z sensor size but an upgraded version), $6999, lenses 30% smaller.

3.) 50 MP "medium format 33x44 mm" (using the 645Z/IQ250 sensor), $4999, lenses as for #2 above.

 

#1 goes for the absolute ultimate in image quality, while #2 and #3 provide an option comfortably (and significantly) above 35mm full-frame image quality, while potentially maintaining size, weight and cost competitiveness with top full-frame cameras.

 

I'd personally prefer #2, especially because it also enables #3. The existence of the big, very expensive camera makes lenses much larger, even if they also bring out a camera using the smaller sensor. I also think Fuji's not Sony, and they're likely to try and keep confusion down by sticking to one MF size.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sony 16 MP sensor that became X-Trans was not an older design when the X-Pro 1 was released (it first became popular on the Nikon D7000, released about a year before the X-Pro 1). Yes, the Sony NEX-7, which introduced the ancestor of today's 24 MP APS-C sensors, had been announced a few months earlier, but it was announced significantly before it was actually available, and that sensor turned out to have a lot of image quality problems, not to mention that the NEX lenses of the time, meant for the cheapest of consumer bodies, were entirely inadequate (aka mostly garbage). The 16 MP sensor was a very solid choice on the leading edge of mainstream sensor design, in an era when many DSLRs were still in the 12 MP generation, and the only 24 MP options were the NEX-7 (with a troubled sensor design that was never used again, although its descendants spread like wildfire a couple of years later) and two full-frame models - the VERY expensive Nikon D3x and the Sony A900 that used only old Minolta lenses and one or two lenses introduced with the body - it was the only FF Sony (and the only FF A-mount camera since the days of film) at the time, and it barely sold, probably due to a lack of lenses. The X-system had the highest image quality of ANY mirrorless camera (arguably unless you count a Leica M as mirrorless) until Sony released better lenses, the A6000 and the A7 series around 2014. It was competitive with all but a few (generally full-frame) DSLRs until the 24 MP DSLRs began to spread widely in late 2013.

 

The reason Fuji has a reputation for older sensors is not that they were behind at introduction, but that they used pretty much the same sensor for so long. Perhaps due to X-Trans, they skipped a sensor generation. Their current sensor pick (to be revealed on Friday) appears to be at the leading edge of mainstream design again - a new generation 24 MP model. Yes, Sony may well introduce a 36 MP APS-C sensor a week or two later, but it's likely to be a repeat of the NEX-7 situation. If history repeats itself, a second generation version of that sensor will become mainstream in DSLRs in a few years, while Fuji sits on a well-optimized 24 MP sensor.

 

I'm guessing they'll do the same thing in medium format if they enter that market - pick the best proven sensor at the time of release, but hold onto it for a long time. One difference in medium format is that everybody does that (new sensors are released, but the old ones hang around and make up a substantial percentage of sales). Phase One just released a brand new back with a 2011 60 MP  sensor, and it sits in the middle of their range. Hasselblad also uses a similar 2011 era 60 MP CCD, except theirs sits at the top of their line! They both offer a 2014ish 50 MP CMOS design as well, but it is smaller, lower resolution and sometimes slightly cheaper, although with better DR and much better ISO performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we finally have it from official sources that they actually considering making a MF camera (and probably starting a MF system?)

 

Technically, they did had MF camera, the X-Pan is a Fuji made camera. And I think they also made the lenses, a 43mm F4 and another one which I really can't recall at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, they did had MF camera, the X-Pan is a Fuji made camera. And I think they also made the lenses, a 43mm F4 and another one which I really can't recall at the moment.

 

If you refer to the film era, Fuji already had a number of MF cameras, both fixed lens and system, from 645 to 690 format.

 

On a different note, I happened to watch one of Zack Arias tutorials the other day, and had a thought. I believe making two lines of cameras, one APS-C based and one MF based, makes sense in a way, since a lot of professionals would be rather confortable with such an arrangement.

 

Many pros have found the X-System to be adequate for most of their work apart from a limited very high end commercial segment (which is also high-paying). Using a FF DSLR or mirrorless for this segment doesn't make a huge amount of sense in terms of overall size and cost, over a more capable MF system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Looking more like the next Fuji camera we see will be an X-T50 but it is still a rumor and no specs have been published.
    • Hey guys, The shutter on/off button switch may be loose on mine. After turning camera on and pressing the shutter/holding close to the area, the camera will turn off and say 'sensor cleaning'. This doesn't happen if I'm shooting via touch screen at all. Everything else is functional. Anyone else experience this before? Would love a much cheaper fix since Fuji Canada just quoted me $700 CAD to fix it, and considering everything else is functional except that part I'm not even sure why MPMB Main Board parts is being replaced😕 I got no explanation from them either.
    • As far as I know the firmware is not country specific. Are you sure that the filename has not been changed ( I am told this can happen with mac os). That's the only thing I can think of.
    • My x-t5 does not exhibit the focusing switch behaviour as you report it, so that is very strange and indicative of a fault. It does not matter whether the flash is attached or not. Once you set the camera for your studio flash, say 1/250th at f5.6, the camera, which is showing you what you will get at that exposure without the flash, will show a black screen unless the ambient light is brighter than what you would typically get indoors. That is why, as Jerry says, you have to set preview exp/wb to off. I have set a button for this.
    • I connected to FRAME.IO a while back and it works fine, but the camera wouldn't connect to the internet all of a sudden today and would get stuck on the reset screen, including initializing and even switching USB Connection mode. Is anyone else experiencing the same thing?
×
×
  • Create New...