Jump to content

Idea for higher resolution square photos with the X-T1

Frankos

By Frankos
in Fuji X-T1 / Fuji X-T10

 Share

Recommended Posts

Frankos Newbie

Frankos

Posted
Posted

When you make square pictures (ratio 1:1) with the Fuji X-T1, only a part of the sensor will be used. Why does Fuji not make the sensor bigger (higher)?

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!

You can still use the same lenses but the quality of square pictures will increase. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
milandro Grand Master

milandro

Posted
Posted

Funny you should say so @PatrickB, the original Kodak format was round,  after all the lenses produce an image circle not an image square or rectangle   ;)

 

The world of fantasy features is immense, I always marvel at the fact that some folks find it difficult to stick to reality of what there is and wish for what there will never be.

 

The reason why Fuji doesn’t do that is because they buy a sensor with this size, a bigger sensor would cost a fortune and make cameras cost a fortune too.

 

If my grandmother had wheels...she would be a wagon!

 

 

kodak1_3.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vidalgo Community Regular

Vidalgo

Posted
Posted

quality of square pictures will increase. 

Nope. For every lens, IQ degrades from center to edges, less or more. Rectangle sensor gets part of the image circle, with best resolution in the center and some soft corners/edges. With square crop of the same sensor we get less pixels, true, but overall picture quality is best due to best optic resolution and uniformity. With bigger square sensor we probably get more pixels, but most of these extra pixels falls to areas with lesser quality goes from lens, so uniformity will drops and we get even lower overall quality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Frankos Newbie

Frankos

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hmmm...sounds reasonable Vidalgo. The center of the lens is optically the best. But the rectangle's edges (the short edges) are further away from the center than the square edges. So quality of is edges in case of square format will probably better then the right and left edge of the rectangle format. But building a bigger sensor is expensive and maybe not worthwhile.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vidalgo Community Regular

Vidalgo

Posted
Posted

But the rectangle's edges (the short edges) are further away from the center than the square edges. So quality of is edges in case of square format will probably better then the right and left edge of the rectangle format.

Good point, thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • thelostkiwi
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By thelostkiwi · Posted

      I also use a Nikon to GFX Fringer and it works very well.  24mm f/1.8 vignettes so best used on 35mm mode.  50mm f/1.8 covers the entire frame very well with no issues and is a superb little lens. 105mm Sigma vignettes slightly but is perfectly usable. 300 f/4 likewise the 105.  I have a 70-200 f/20+.8 incoming to test so will report back but I'm expecting a little vignetting.  Even in 35mm mode the image is still 60MP and if you're prepared to manually crop and correct you can get 80-90 MP images.  I also have a C/Y to GFX adapter.  The 24mm Sigma Superwide vignettes strongly. Ditto 28-80 Zeiss Sonnar. 80-200 f/4 Sonnar is perfectly usable. All work fine as 35mm mode lenses.  I also have an M42 adapter which I tried with the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 with good results. 
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Thank you. I will research it.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Typically you need to make sure the lens is compatible with the camera, i.e. check the lens compatibility charts for your camera, then make sure the respective firmwares are updated so older issues are resolved. After that, each lens has a manufacturer’s profile which will be embedded into the raw file meta data for the images captured using that lens. From there, it is up to the raw conversion software to apply the lens correction to the image. Different converters do that differently, some automatically, some only if a setting is turned on. For in-camera jpegs, the on-board converter does the corrections automatically, assuming the camera recognizes the lens, it applies a generic profile otherwise. I do not know if that can be turned off or not.
×
×
  • Create New...