Jump to content

Medium Format Rumors


Patrick FR

Recommended Posts

$5000 is actually probably the "lower bound of reason". I'm not sure Fuji could get it that low, but, unlike calls for $3000 and the like, I'm also not sure they COULDN'T. Yes, it's lower than the Pentax, by a substantial margin, but the mirror, all the motors (Pentax has screw-drive lenses to deal with, and those are BIG screw-drive lenses, requiring a substantial focusing motor), the AF module, and most importantly, that huge prism, all have costs. At $5000, there's no chance of the big sensor - it's GOING to be 33x44mm, if it comes in that low, and, in just the same style as the X-system is optimized for, but locked to APS-C, it will be optimized for and locked to 33x44mm.

 

Of course, a 33x44mm mirrorless has a ton of appeal. It will give medium format mobility it hasn't have since the days of Texas Leicas. The lenses will be a lot smaller than 645 lenses could be. Zooms, at least in modest focal length ranges, may even be a reasonable size. . The image quality would be a significant step above any 35mm full frame camera of the same generation (with 1.7x the sensor area, assuming similar pixel pitch and technology, the jump should be similar to going from an X-Pro 2 to an A7rII). The current Sony 50 MP sensor isn't the latest generation, and, by giving up a generation, is not all that much higher quality than the A7rII (it usually wins side-by-side comparisons, but it's pretty close). Hopefully, the sensor would be a new development of the X-Pro 2/A7rII generation, but another big jump in pixel count - at 70-75 MP, it would be close to the same pixel pitch as the current APS-C and FF image quality champs. A camera with 1.7x the image quality of an A7rII, paired with well thought out Fujinon lenses, is nothing to sneeze at. Sure, it gives up some image quality at the extremes to the high end of the Phase One line, and some flexibility in the studio as well - but it's half the weight and little more than 10% of the cost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I agree with you... or we have different ideas of what slow is.

 

My X-T1 is not slow. 

 

But how would the X-T1 perform with a 50+ MP sensor?

 

With each release, Fuji's mirrorless models get faster. The X-T1 is faster than the X-Pro1, and the X-Pro2 faster than either. 

 

The reality is that my X-Pro1 is a lovely camera, but it does slow you down. If it had a 50MP cropped MFD sensor it would be intolerably slow, and I doubt that the X-T1 would have coped that well with a 50MP sensor either. But mirrorless is improving. The problem is that there may be little point in bringing out a MFD mirrorless model with the Sony 50MP cropped sensor, since Sony already offer the a7RII with a FF 42MP sensor and Canon offer the 5Ds with a 50MP FF sensor model. If you scale the Sony 42MP FF sensor up to cropped MFD size, it would make it a 72MP model. How would a mirrorless model cope with that? Or else with the Sony 100MP full frame MFD sensor?

 

There is no doubt that mirrorless is currently significantly slower than SLR designs. Even the Sony a7RII is slow when reviewing shots. The Pentax 645Z may be fast enough for many, especially compared to how slow Hasselblad and Phase One MFD models handle, but the Pentax is an SLR model. If it were a mirrorless, it is simply a fact that it would be much slower to work with. 

 

It is just currently impossible to expect that a mirrorless be as fast as a SLR design. However, mirrorless is catching up, and it is only a matter of time before a mirrorless design can handle a 100MP sensor and still perform reasonably well. The question is not if, but when that becomes both practical and cost effective from a sales-marketing point of view. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Of course, a 33x44mm mirrorless has a ton of appeal. It will give medium format mobility it hasn't have since the days of Texas Leicas. The lenses will be a lot smaller than 645 lenses could be. Zooms, at least in modest focal length ranges, may even be a reasonable size. . The image quality would be a significant step above any 35mm full frame camera of the same generation (with 1.7x the sensor area, assuming similar pixel pitch and technology, the jump should be similar to going from an X-Pro 2 to an A7rII). 

 

Yeah, this is the possibility that interests me... I would prefer that sensor size (33 x 44) to the bigger one. Both for cost, and size/mobility... especially mobility. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But how would the X-T1 perform with a 50+ MP sensor?

 

With each release, Fuji's mirrorless models get faster. The X-T1 is faster than the X-Pro1, and the X-Pro2 faster than either. 

 

The reality is that my X-Pro1 is a lovely camera, but it does slow you down. If it had a 50MP cropped MFD sensor it would be intolerably slow, and I doubt that the X-T1 would have coped that well with a 50MP sensor either. But mirrorless is improving. The problem is that there may be little point in bringing out a MFD mirrorless model with the Sony 50MP cropped sensor, since Sony already offer the a7RII with a FF 42MP sensor and Canon offer the 5Ds with a 50MP FF sensor model. If you scale the Sony 42MP FF sensor up to cropped MFD size, it would make it a 72MP model. How would a mirrorless model cope with that? Or else with the Sony 100MP full frame MFD sensor?

 

There is no doubt that mirrorless is currently significantly slower than SLR designs. Even the Sony a7RII is slow when reviewing shots. The Pentax 645Z may be fast enough for many, especially compared to how slow Hasselblad and Phase One MFD models handle, but the Pentax is an SLR model. If it were a mirrorless, it is simply a fact that it would be much slower to work with. 

 

It is just currently impossible to expect that a mirrorless be as fast as a SLR design. However, mirrorless is catching up, and it is only a matter of time before a mirrorless design can handle a 100MP sensor and still perform reasonably well. The question is not if, but when that becomes both practical and cost effective from a sales-marketing point of view. 

 

What you are saying makes no sense.

 

Nobody is talking about putting a high MP sensor in an X-T1 or X-Pro1. A medium format Fuji would of course need a processor capable of dealing with the extra data. That might already be there with the X-Pro2 processor.

 

Also, Mirrorless is not slower than an SLR. It is slower in some ways and faster in others. Mirrorless does not need to move the mirror so it can easily have faster frame rates for example. 

 

The speed of reviewing shots has nothing to do with whether the camera is Mirrorless or SLR... 

 

Autofocus is faster with the SLR's but for many people, the difference is already insignificant and the X-Pro2 is looking like it's a solid step faster than the X-T1. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They ARE already there with the X-Pro 2 processor (assuming their claim of 480 megapixels/second bears any relationship to reality, and there's no shooting mode on the X-Pro 2 that needs that much, so no way to tell even if you had an X-Pro 2 in hand). That's 9 FPS on the 50 MP sensor, and about 6on the hypothesized 72 MP sensor. Of course, that's without AF or the viewfinder, BUT medium format frame rates are MUCH slower than smaller formats (the Pentax 645Z and current Leica S are considered EXTREMELY fast at 3-4 FPS - Hasselblad and Phase One are mostly hovering at less than 2). At 3 FPS, the processor has 2 X-T1s worth of speed left over, just to handle AF and viewfinder duties. If, for some reason, the processor isn't fast enough, Fuji could simply use TWO of them - some Nikon and especially Canon pro bodies use dual processors...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are talking about two different things. Canons ISPs have had ARM based CPUs for decades now. (afaik they were based on TI OMAPs)

And since they weren't really made for their highest end cameras, they literally put two chips on the PCB.

 

To be honest, I haven't really done a Fuji tear down (why would I ^^), but I think they have put two cores in their processors (so one chip, not two) for quite some time now.

 

 

The big thing is, that EXR III moved to Cortex A7 (dual!) cores and also increased the clock. 

 

 

And looking at the pure specs of the EXR III I would say it is a bit over designed for the X-Pro2. The processor most certainly is no bottleneck when talking about a bigger camera. 

 

So one could say, that Canon is building their processors for the entry/mid level and if need be, they put it into the pro bodies. Twice.

 

Fuji on the other hand has a really modern, very powerful high end processor, which it puts into their cameras (I think it will stay high end exclusive for some time and we will also see EXR II and X-Trans II not go away for months/years) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Autofocus is faster with the SLR's but for many people, the difference is already insignificant and the X-Pro2 is looking like it's a solid step faster than the X-T1."

 

I combine Fujifilm mirrorless with non-Fujifilm DSLR, using the system that is best for the particular kind of photography I'm doing. Mirrorless is getting better all the time, but there isn't any solid evidence yet that AF is as fast on mirrorless as it is on DSLRs. That's fine for the work I do with my Fujifilm systems, but when I want faster AF and a few other features where DSLRs are still ahead, I use the DSLR system.

 

Those working with a single system have a tougher choice, since there are pluses and minuses to both types of system — you have to choose what is most important to you.

 

Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is absolutely no reason for an SLR Medium Format camera, anyway.

 

The sole reason DSLRs still sell (apart from market inertia and brand value, of course), is because of the relative advantages in AF performance with the mirror design.

 

A MF will never be used in sports/wildlife/action or, even, extremely low light environments. If it's one camera format where mirrorless makes absolute sense, it's digital MF.

 

After all most digital MF cameras are used tethered with a huge EVF (a laptop)! Why do you need a mirror, or really even a built-in viewfinder most of the time?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

After all most digital MF cameras are used tethered with a huge EVF (a laptop)! Why do you need a mirror, or really even a built-in viewfinder most of the time?

 

 

 

It's a fact that most of us are used in composing using a viewfinder of sorts. A mirrorless option could do even more to get MF out of the studio and, even, detach it from the tripod, where off-studio MF cameras spend most of their lives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

We shall see how wise this thing is.

 

It will certainly absorb a lot of money because they need to develop not only a technology that they don’t yet have but also all the lenses to go with it.

 

Not for me anyway.

 

Since I’ve abandoned the active profession, I am no longer interested in a MF digital camera ( I did use a Contax with a phase one back ages ago) and I wonder how big is this market and more importantly what the purpose of this market actually is.

 

Short of wanting to produce incredibly large gallery images ( there is certainly a demand for this but how big is it?) there is not much that one can do with 24 or 36Mp and I am already way happier than I really need to, with my poor 16Mp.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to enjoy the more deliberate pace of shooting MF on film for landscapes but do not actually need the MF camera  for work anymore.

 

Still, I may buy a Fuji MFD depending on performance and available lenses. It would be a personal indulgence with the only partially valid excuse that I do make bigger prints from time to time.  ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The camera could find a solid market with high-end wedding photographers as well as product, advertising and fashion shooters, specially if it uses leaf shutters. Certainly there will be a few prosperous enthusiasts as well, but they are not the critical targeted customer. 

 

As X-camera buyers, we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. We think of Fuji as a small company, probably struggling to sell enough cameras to keep afloat. The reality is far different. Fuji is bigger than Nikon in fact. 

Nikon

Revenue ¥857.8 billion (FY2015) 

Employees 25,415 (March 31, 2015

 

Fujifilm 

Revenue  ¥ 2492.6 billion (2014)

Employees 79,235 (as of March 31, 2015)

 

With regards to medium format, B&H shows the GF670 still in stock. The current Hasselblad line was based upon a 2002 Fujifilm camera that was sold under the Fujifilm brand-name in Japan. It still may be. All current Hasselblad lenses are manufactured by Fuji.

 


See under the heading "A History Lesson".

 

They are also big time suppliers of lenses for video and movie production. Checking the B&H pro-video site, they list 157 video lenses starting at $1995.00US and ranging upward to $233,490.00 for a single lens. They offer other lenses for ciné production and industrial use. This is not a small-time company! When digital arrived much of senior management at Kodak regarded it as a passing fad and just decided to ride it out. Fujifilm, on the other hand, diversified widely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope this rumour isn't true...as I am a bit shocked that Fuji would be thinking of implementing the Sony 50MP cropped MFD sensor on a 2017 model.

 

Canon already offer a 50MP FF sensor on the 5Ds, as well as having announced plans to increase this towards 100MP in the next couple of years. Come 2017, Canon will have followed on from the upgrade to 5D X by bringing out the 5Ds Mark II (so that they can use the same magnesium body for both models rather than manufacturing multiple bodies) either with a higher resolution sensor, or a 50MP sensor with better dynamic range and high ISO performance.

 

Sony has already released a 44MP FF small format sensor a7RII model last year, which is barely differentiated in resolution from the cropped MFD 50MP sensor. By 2017, Sony are highly likely to have released a higher resolution FF small format sensor, perhaps in the form of the a9 or a9R. If Sony sensors release a 50+MP FF small format sensor, then they will likely also bump up the resolution of the sensor in the format one size above it (namely on the cropped MFD sensor).

 

Phase One are now using a 100MP full frame MFD sensor from Sony, and it is likely only a matter of time before Sony sensors will release this to other manufacturers e.g. Hasselblad.

 

The Pentax 645Z is already two years old. Pentax will also be wanting to increase the resolution of the sensor for the next iteration of the 645 series within the next year or two, with either a full frame MFD sensor, or a newer and higher resolution version of the Sony cropped MFD sensor.

 

So, if Fuji release a cropped MFD camera in 2017 with only 50MP resolution, they could end up looking awfully silly when FF small format sensors have started to not only match, but surpass the 50MP cropped MFD sensor in both resolution and possibly even in overall performance. The only reason I could imagine Fuji ever wanting to use, what by 2017 would now be an aging 50MP cropped MFD sensor, is to reduce costs and produce a sub-$5000 MFD camera. I fear they are shooting themselves in the foot by forgoing premium specs for such a compromised bargain basement design.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope this rumour isn't true...as I am a bit shocked that Fuji would be thinking of implementing the Sony 50MP cropped MFD sensor on a 2017 model.

[...]

 

Question, where did you got that information about the cropped MFD sensor ? As far as I know, there is only Medium format (roughly 44mm x 33mm or 1.7 x 1.3 inches) larger than this is called Large Format/

 

Unless I am missing something ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing about "ultra high resolution" 135 format sensors: "diffraction at f/4 anyone?" ;):P:rolleyes:

 

If Canon or Sony are foolish enough to pursue resolutions over 50Mp, this will be their own undoing.

 

Please also keep in mind that even the "cropped" 50mp Sony MF sensor is about 80% larger in surface than a FF sensor (thus, larger pixel pitch, for equal resolution)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

+50MP 135 format sensors? How about 250MP? Canon have one in development. I've heard that diffraction will cause a 50MP FF sensor to yield unusable results above f8-11 but I haven't experienced that to be the case at all on the 5Ds. Either the Canon engineers have never heard of diffraction or they think it isn't a major practical limitation. 

 

The latest statement by a Fuji manager stating that "we are not really interested in medium format" also suggests that the senior managerial staff aren't all in agreement about when or even if an MFD line should be brought out. I would be happy for them to take their time over it, and try to get it right. They need to seriously rethink whether they really want to rush into using that rapidly aging Sony 50MP cropped MFD sensor as the rumour mills suggest they are doing. This might result in them manufacturing a cropped sensor MFD lens line to go with it, thus excluding the possibility of upgrading the system to a full frame MFD sensor in the future. I suspect that the Pentax 645 digital system is full frame ready (because it can take film era 645 lenses), and they will bring out a full frame 645 series body when sensor manufacturing costs come down enough to permit this. Fuji do not want to be seen lagging behind Pentax when that happens. 

 

In the meantime there is plenty of work to do on the APS-C X-system. Perhaps Fuji might want to even wait till they can make an organic 645 sensor, perhaps even in a genuine 6 x 4.5cm format?

Edited by Sator-Photography
Link to post
Share on other sites

Question, where did you got that information about the cropped MFD sensor ? As far as I know, there is only Medium format (roughly 44mm x 33mm or 1.7 x 1.3 inches) larger than this is called Large Format/

 

Unless I am missing something ?

Medium is everything between 35 mm (36 mm x 24 mm) and large format (102 mm x 127 mm or 4" x 5"). The most used medium format film was 6x6 (60 mm x 60 mm). And 6x6 is what I would expect from a digital medium format camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this might have been true at some point when the formats were defined by the films the cameras used ( and I am not even mentioning box films like 126 or 110) 

 

So anything using 8 or 16mm were called " spy cameras” ( Minox, Minolta) or miniature cameras.

 

 

35mm film (or Leica Film) was the small format but was used to shoot anything from half-frame ( 18mm x 24mm) to panoramic formats ( many sizes and brands . With non moving lens, with moving lens, with moving film)

 

 

120/127/220/70mm ( which could be anything from 4 x 4 cm using a 127 film to the alpa rotor camera with rotating camera and lens!) and let’s not even talk of rollfilm serving on lager cameras which disappeared in the night of times.

 

 

Then you had cut sheet film often usable on some “ medium format” cameras too but stretching up to 50 x 60 cm. ( and larger, on request!).

 

 

Since the 126 cameras such as the rolleiflex baby weren’t 35mm they had to be “ medium format” too!

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, Sony make MFD sensors in two sizes, the 44x33mm aging 50MP cropped MFD model and a more recently released "full frame" 100MP 53.7 x 40.4mm model. Many detractors point out that actual size difference between a small format digital sensor (36 x 24mm) and a cropped MFD sensor (44 x 33mm) is actually not all that great. A cropped MFD sized film equivalent would not have been considered medium format in the day:

 

3-Pentax-645-Sensor-Size-comparison-640x

 

However, if Fuji do make their own 60 x 45mm organic sensor, it means that you would be forced to buy Fuji's own lenses, and be unable to shoot with other maker's lenses with adapters as they would not cover the sensor area. Even vintage lenses would be inadequate as the actual area of usable film on a 645 medium format roll is actually more like 56 x 41.5mm. The amount of actual usable area on 645 film is close to that of a full frame MFD sensor. But it would give Fuji bragging rights to having a true 645 system, whereas the Pentax 645Z really should be called the 4433Z. 

 

I think it might be a bit optimistic to expect a true 60 x 60 mm format sensor (or even a 56 x 56 mm sensor) simply because of the cost of manufacture, and the question as to whether such square formats will ever become popular again. It might also make the size of the camera bigger than what Fuji want from a mirrorless MFD series.

Edited by Sator-Photography
Link to post
Share on other sites

Question, where did you got that information about the cropped MFD sensor ? As far as I know, there is only Medium format (roughly 44mm x 33mm or 1.7 x 1.3 inches) larger than this is called Large Format/

 

Unless I am missing something ?

Yes, I think you might be. The 44mm x 33mm format is not what used to be thought of as medium format. There have been various flavors of MF in film such as the 60mm x 45mm 645 format, and larger formats. Sore refer to the 44mm x 33mm format at "mini-MF," since it is so small.

 

That said, it is significantly larger than full frame, being roughly equivalent to what you would get by stitching two overlapping full frame images. 

 

Regarding the wisdom of introducing a 50MP full frame system (which is a theory mentioned by an earlier poster), from Fujifilm's perspective that might not seem at nuts as some might think. I'm guessing that Fujifilm has thought a lot about product differentiation. Notice the effects of that with their introductions in the current x-trans system: cameras that mostly bring to mind old school rangefinder cameras and which come with complete lens systems. Basically, Fujifilm decided to zig where the market was zagging and to NOT make another DSLR, and this worked for them. 

 

I suspect that Fujifilm believes (and probably has market research to back up their reasoning) that they cannot penetrate the market for full frame cameras, either DSLR or mirrorless, at this point. They have hinted at more or less this when they have said that they don't think that full frame is that much of an advantage over their 1.5x cropped sensor systems. However, a mini medium format camera, perhaps at a price point competitive with the high end current full frame DSLR systems, is enough different from their current offerings to not impact them and it could attract folks shooting full frame who think they want even more image quality.

 

We'll see. Perhaps.

 

Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

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...