[shoplink 26808 ebay]
[/shoplink]
What you see on top is the nice [shoplink 26808 ebay]Fuji GF670 film camera (here one eBay)[/shoplink]. Well, according to the usually very reliable Fujirumors Fuji launch a medium format version of the same having a new X-PRO 1 alike hybrid viewfinder this summer. What doe sit matter for us? Because it should use the same Sony 50 Megapixel sensor of the recently launched Hasselblad H5D (in Stock now), Phase One IQ250 and Pentax 645Z cameras.
The question now is if Sony will at the same time launch their RX medium format camera. Would be a bit weird Sony outsourcing the sensor to a direct competitor but on the other side that is exactly what Sony keeps doing in the DSLR and Mirrorless market too.
This is going to be a hell of exciting time on SAR this summer! Stay tuned. Lot of things to come for the big Sony Photokina time 🙂
0 Responses
Nice! It would be great to see X-Trans technology on this medium format
What do you like about X-Trans?
It is nice innovation that has potential to rid us of the AA filter and moire at the same time. I realise that good processing of the sensor outputs from X-Trans is far away but there is some hope.
And how does not needing an AA filter do anything for you? The X-Trans has its own limitations that come up in terms of colour accuracy.
And in resolution as well. Still, the bayer filter is the best compromise with its own shortcomings, but those of xtrans are even more severe.
Both Bayer and X-Trans are lossy in resolution, due to interpolation. That is why the DP Merrills are comparable in resolution to the D800E at base ISO, despite the D800E having more than double the amount of mega pixels and a larger sensor. Unfortunately, the DP Merrills have poor high-ISO performance. A Fovean-like sensor with excellent high-ISO performance would be far better than any bayer or Bayer-like sensor. Unfortunately, they do not exist yet.
> Both Bayer and X-Trans are lossy in resolution, due to interpolation.
You probably don’t know, but there is a magic word called comparison and there’s a wonderful thing called comparison criteria. Some smart people discover what parameters are important in detail perception and they mathematically proved bayer preserve more details.
> A Fovean-like sensor with excellent high-ISO performance would be far better than any bayer or Bayer-like sensor.
Foveon-type CFA passes a bit more light in general (very slightly) thus it will have very slightly higher SNR. The NR method has much higher influence to SNR than this CFA transmission difference. Unbiased comparisons based on the (Saturation, Exposure time) equivalency comparison shows there’s hardly any difference between these CFAs in noise. So, the sensor with better NR software turns to be better high ISO performer. Currently, the best is DxO PRIME. It only supports bayer filter. Thus, bayer is better.
http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/50200/files/ASH05.pdf – here’s the paper where they prove bayer alike filter is the best for resolution. So, we have the fundamental limitation with xtrans and it will always be inferior resolution-wise.
Actually, the Fovean sensor out resolves bayer or Bayer-like sensors. All sensors that require interpolation are lossy in resolution, due to the estimates involved. Unfortunately, sensor technology is still in its infancy, and bayer and Bayer-like (X-TRANS) sensors will hopefully be replaced in the future. A Fovean-like sensor with excellent high-ISO performance would be a better option, as the image quality would be more pure.
You’re using the term “lossy” incorrectly, actually. Also there’s no loss of information from the interpolation alone… although it’s difficult to reverse the process.
And no… not all Bayer sensors are worse than Foveon/layer type. At the same size, a Bayer sensor with a MP count around 3-4x the native resolution of a Foveon x3 can match it. It will also be better in terms of noise and colour accuracy as the ISOs go higher.
The better way to compare a Foveon x3 against a Bayer output is by up-scaling the Foveon image. Bayer interpolations are fundamentally up-scaling algorithms themselves and they are optimised to reduce Bayer artifacts. Best to keep things as is with Bayer images. Up-scaling also helps visual inspections.
At 3-4 times the native resolution, it would need a far superior lens to be able to resolve it. Also, the diffraction limit will set in earlier, reducing the ability to obtain sufficient depth of field and sharpness. Definitely, bayer sensors perform better at higher ISOs. However, that is only because they have been around longer and have been the standard for digital sensors, which means they have benefited from far more R&D.
But, honestly, we are spoiled to have any of the cameras that are available today…
Diffraction won’t affect the Bayer sensor any differently in this particular comparison because all we’re trying to do is equalise the resolution between the two capturing methods. It’s not as if the Bayer actually captures 3-4x the resolution to show the diffraction more. DOF is also not related.
Here’s something I wrote on this a while back:
http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com/2012/04/more-resolution-without-going-foveon.html
Also which has been around longer doesn’t make any difference to photography the same way no one cares about the Alfa Romeo parked next to a Ferrari 🙂
Could this be the potential MF RX that we heard of before? So, instead of Sony launching its own MF, perhaps they think they will do better in sales if a MF cam comes out from a legacy manufacturer?
An RX would make a lot of sense, especially with a 35mm ish fov. If it’s an ILC then we run into the usual Sony lens situation. At least FE lenses are compatible with AE bodies – that market wouldn’t exist for mf lenses and I can’t see pros buying into a system on a “wait and see” basis.
Agree. Shall not be ILC. 42mm (35FF) would also be preferred from my side.
I think Sony’s would more likely be a fixed zoom lens situation. 50-110mm or similar
This is what I’m hoping, only more like 40’s-80’s, mid wide to portrait. With the right lens, it would be a very fine portable camera. I could see it being my travel and take along camera easily—and it would be superb for it.
What I asked was whether this Fuji Cam could have been the supposedly rumored RX MF camera we heard of before. The rumor went something around the lines of “RX-like MF camera” but what the original source could have been talking about was this Fuji camera but thought it would come from Sony instead.
Would Sony still want to launch its own RX MF camera after this is out?
Or it might be that Sony has some deals in place that prevents them from using the sensor for a certain period…
I don’t think we’re looking at a d800 scenario. They’re selling mf sensors to pretty much all of the big players so a non-compete clause would be pointless.
Simply, the sensor division is separate from the imaging division and has as its objective to maximise volume and profits. Sensor production is a volume business and Sony’s own usage would never make Sony the world’s largest sensor producer.
Great Addition, but I’d like either Sony, Nikon or Canon release a proper system utilizing MF sensors. Sony a110, Nikon D1000 or Canon 0D… In your dreams!
Besides to own one would be very nice, I wonder whether I could see a difference compared to FF in my daily use… However, if Fuji offers a practical and rugged model I’d feel some GAS!!!
non interchangeable lens + medium format price = niche product for (rich) enthusiasts
With the right lens for me, I’d buy either this rumored camera or a Sony one. I’m far from rich, but we all manage our priorities: I drive a 2003 truck, am wearing old clothes, live in a modest house we bought in 1982, one daughter will be married this summer and the other is halfway through college. As the say YMMV.
But Fuji have their own X-Trans sensor, why would they buy sensor from Sony? It is like saying Sony sensor is better and free advertising for them.
Nay, Dr. X-Trans is only the Colour Filter Array…I think those 16mp sensors are the same as the ones in the 5n (X Pro 1) and PDAF variations after with the same core sensor tech (XE2, XT1)
Thanks for the info – John & Hendrick.
xtrans is already a sony sensor, only with fuji’s non-bayer cfa on top.
‘Would be a bit weird Sony outsourcing the sensor to a direct competitor
but on the other side that is exactly what Sony keeps doing in the DSLR
and Mirrorless market too.’
Weird? .. really ??? Sony has consistantly sold its best sensors to the competition and said screw you to it’s own consumer base. How long has this site fielded rumours about the next hi end FF large sensor A mount Sony for the Pro market? – more than 4 years! Come on! If Sony can fit a 36mpxl sensor in the little A7r then they could have got a 50mpxl sensor into the A99 body a long time back, think they will?
It does seem unfair that Sony has constantly screwed you by not building you the exact product you want.
Sony- are they going to release any FW updates (e.g. silent shutter mode for the A7/7R, etc)?
If they can make and sell medium format CMOS sensors, surely they can??
FW updates for feature enhancements? …Nooooo! Sony only delivers qualified products without bugs or feature missing. It’s a SONY, right?
Sony has been generous with fw updates in the past in the E and A line. I’m sure you’re new to all these…
lol …fanboy… grew up!
grow up… lol
Learn the subject first… that’s your problem.
you’re funny as always …
This has to be sarcasm.
Nope… ignorance on your part.
Ever checked what they fixed and added in fw in the past? Why talk about stuff you’re clueless about?
Yes, I have. What evidence of generosity do you have?
I’m not obliged to fix your inability find things out for youself
Or back up laughably false claims, I guess.
If you want to learn something there’s a way to ask… doubt you made it to highschool even LOL
This is actually the GF670w in the picture. The GF670 is a folding lens camera.
Actually your image is showing the GF670W which has a 55mm wide angle lens (approx 28mm FF equivalent). The GF670 has an 80mm normal lens (approx 50 mm FF equivalent). Both had a quite decent reputation among medium format photographers but are far from compact (see e.g. http://www.gf670.com/gf670-technical.php and http://www.gf670.com/gf670w-technical.php for the specs). Since they were built for 6x7cm film I assume Fuji could make them quite a bit smaller with the much tinier “medium format” sensor. In case Fuji sticks to the size, there’s quite some room for Sony to come up with a smaller version. I assume the price point will put them out of reach for most of us mere mortals anyway.
Doubt they will make it like the lenses in their MF rangefinders. Typical fixed lens digital cameras have lenses with very short back focus. The lens in the GF670 is a classic Planar (design is same as the 6 element f/3.5 Planar in Rolleiflex TLRs) and the GF670W lens is something a bit unusual from the regular wide angle suspects:
http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com/2013/10/fuji-gf670w-rangefinder-review.html
But it’s not a digital optimised wide angle.
Also there’s nothing to really say the digital MF Fuji will look anything like a GF. Fuji has made a wide variety of medium format models… perhaps more than any other manufacturer of recent times.
They are quite compact vs other 6×7/6×6 cameras. It folds flat vs a Mamiya 7, is FAR smaller than an RZ, and feather weight vs the Pentax 6×7. It’s also a great 2nd camera/backup to a large format photographer.
this would be nice … a MF travelling camera … like the X-PRO with wide angle lens… +1
Why would Sony go to MF? They have absolutely no reputation over there. They barely make it into the (FF) Pro-market. All they have are some old Minolta customers and a lot of enthusiasts. But where they make their money is with entry to enthusiasts amateurs (and maybe secondary cameras for pros). That’s why we’ve seen so many entry- and mid-level cameras over the past years and such a few Pro-grade cameras. And Sony is busy to be perceived seriously at photographers. That’s why they innovate so fast. And in the last years (with SLT and mirrorless) they, at least, got their attention. But it’s not like everybody throws his old Canons and Nikons away and buys his way into the Sony eco system. So, leaving the (already very small and very conservative) MF market for the old players and benefit from it by selling them the base technology, is a understandable decision. Maybe in a couple of years, MF became the new FF, and Sony already has advanced base technology and enters the market in a superior position.
Umm Nikon uses Sony sensors… they seem to do “ok” in the pro market 😛
Also why do people think MF is for high fashion photographers who look like Bruno or for landscape photographers with big beards wearing tool vests?
Did I say MF photographers are fashion/landscape only? Point me to that.
And the “Nikon uses Sony sensors” … well, my point excellently. I bet Nikon sold more cameras with Sony sensor than their own A99. And the A99 didn’t sold badly at all. But you can’t say Sony is a pro’s first choice brand – and it’s not because Sony’s cameras are bad but pro photographers already have put alot of money into their Canon/Nikon system. Why should they switch? It’s the same with a switch from Canon to Nikon or vice versa. You put 10th of thousand dollars into their gear, know their equipment in and out … and Sony just came last, and also brought the third largest competitor Konica/Minolta before. And this is all fine and we are all happy with our Sony cams … But going into the MF market is a completely different story for Sony. And remember: Sony is financially struggling. No good time for prestige projects and experiments. And it’s not that Sony has that MF sensor and putting out a new MF camera system would be at no costs.
Didn’t say that you said it.
But why do you think it’s fine for Phase One, Hasselblad and Pentax to use this sensor but giving it to Fuji suddenly is a “prestige project”? Does Fuji pay Sony less for the same product? Even then is it better than not selling at all?
Nono … IF Sony releases a MF camera system on it’s own (Sony brand), it’d be a prestige project/experiment, IMO. If Sony sells it’s sensor to Fuji, PO, Hasselblad, Pentax … whoever … it’s just fine.
Most of the well established names in the medium format camera industry have switched to Sony sensors recently. Apparently they, the manufactures of such cameras are satisfied with Sony’s reputation. Perhaps you should contact them and explain to them where they went wrong being that you know so much about medium format cameras.
A fixed lens MF camera could be a big success if done as well as the rx cameras. It would not seem to compete with their MF sensor customers and Sony would not have to build out a lens system for it. With the MI Shoe it would use all the existing accessories.
Smart move Sony, just sell as much of these sensors as you can, but stay out of that market.
Sigma Quattro Sensor vs Sony 50MP MF, which are better?
The Quattro is an APS-C sensor. The Sony MF is ~3.8x the area of the Sigma. That’s almost the same size difference between FourThirds and full frame.
The Quattro seems to deliver in the resolution charts against the D800s but the Sony MF sensor has both a size advantage and a resolution advantage. The Quattro will also be behind in terms of noise, although it’s supposedly better than current Merrill sensors.
Colour accuracy of the Quattro isn’t known. I feel this will be an issue for it in general, looking at the way colour is resolved in their new sensor. There are certain colours that are not possible because of the way Foveon sensors perform. Hope this is not as big an issue though.
maybe 2014 is the year of medium format cameras! (or the year of sony medium format sensors…)
Could be interesting, but it can never match the resolution of MF film. For that market I still would prefer film for landscape and sports. Although, I’m sure there is a market for a “cheap” MF Sony camera. I just don’t see why it would be worth it given how full frame is giving MF a run for its money.50MP sounds like a lot, but it’s nothing compared to film.
If you’re going to compare film to digital you need to be a bit more specific. This sensor will definitely resolve better than film of the same size. It’s the lack of size limitations that gives film an edge over any digital sensor.
Is there a dmf camera that uses a non ccd sensor? Would that be real dmf?
Hasselblad H5D-50, Phase One IQ250 back (for DF+), Pentax 645Z. All using the Sony 50mp 44x33mm CMOS chip to varying degrees of modification. They were all released this year so not much work has been shown on them.
How many sports photographers are using medium format film? What a ridicules statement. Do we really need to rehash this tired old argument?
Not to many if any at this point, but it’s still a valid argument. I don’t do paid work, I’ll stick with the film for larger than 35mm needs.
I’ve used film for many years and love it, but the vast majority of professionals and especially the sports photographers have moved on to digital. The upside to this is that there a some great deals on medium format film cameras, the local craigslist shows a Hasselblad 500CM kit with lenses for about $600. A camera I could only have dreamed of owning back in my film days.
Hi ya’ll, I’m a time traveler from the (not so) long-ago days of film! You can say there’s more resolution in film, but the actual information being resolved there contains an awful lot of this thing we called “film grain.” You can’t escape it. Seriously, I’ve shot tons of the stuff, including whole bunches of 50 ISO Fuji Velvia. We shot Velvia because it had very little grain, but today’s digital cameras have less noise at 800 ISO than 50 ISO slide film, and that film was so slow you had to shoot from a tripod or in broad daylight, and it had only about three stops of exposure latitude, so when shooting in broad daylight something was going to lose detail, shadows or highlights, and there isn’t a lot of film R&D going on today, know what I mean?
Great post and thanks for the perspective. I was wondering, I hear Velvia 50 also has some of the worst DR, but the colors do pop. I just bought a roll of 120 and will start examining the pictures on my Rolleiflex. I really am interested in what film might offer in terms of very large prints- landscapes. I also understand color positive film is better than negative in terms of latitude and color rendition. I guess we’ll see, but there has to be something as to why so many landscape photographers still shoot film. Maybe it’s the tonal gradation. I’m about to find out.
Wow, I get all my Sony, Nikon, Hasselblad, Canon, Fuji and more rumors right in one place. Thanks admin. But I am not sure why Sony users are concerned with a Fuji camera seeing as Sony manufactuers the sensors for other compnaies, and Sony engineers do not design or architech them.
I am pretty sure at the end of the day there are more important things to consider like body, controls, menus, flash sync speed, evf quality, focusing, and on and on and on, which do not revolve around who Fuji is using to manufactuer their sensor.
The sensor is the heart of the camera, analogous to the engine in a sports car. Sony has already proven that they can package electromechanical assemblies better than everybody else in the camera business. Sensors are a very important part of the Sony business model and they want to stay on top of the game. That’s exactly what they are doing, and don’t think for a minute Sony couldn’t developed their own medium format camera. They could easily and do it as well as the competition if not better. So in effect this is Sony news, because the image from this new Fuji camera is provided by a Sony sensor. The best sensors available. Sorry if this breaks your little fan boy heart. 🙁
what breaks my heart is that you cannot not read and fully understand a simple statement about people getting caught up in just the sensor and forget the importance of other things that make a photograph like lighting and composition.
i owe Sony gear, not a fanboy, so no need for name calling you meathead…oh, see what you did there, you got me calling people names now. byt wait this
i NEVER said the sensors are not important, i said there is much more to consider when buying a camera. ie. lens choices, support, evf, body style and controls,..wait. why am i explaing this again??
you sir are an idiot 🙂
no one is concerned about sony selling sensors to fuji, they sell sensors to most cameras and cellphones, so.
Well here you go:
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/23511/which-digital-cameras-are-using-which-sensors
It’s been happening for a long time.
Hey lets not call names. He did mis understand you but his first language is obviously not english. I get what you are saying and agree. Sensor is not camera. Hell sesnor is not even image processor in camera. thats how nikon was getting better results with same sensor sometimes.
You have read this rumor, analyzed it and posted a comment telling admin you dont want to read it.
Save the effort and just dont read it.
sony builds a medium format sensor and sells to Pentax Hassleblad and fuji? They can build a camera with this revenue and further the line of their revolutionary rx series. Sonys money and contemporary expertise is in sensors and evfs amongst other technologies, the money men will be focused on this. This is why they are lax on lenses, no money to be made. Sonys camera business is a showcase of their overall capacity to produce parts that are needed across the industry and the fixed lens Rx cameras are advertising brochures for this. I think the success of the camera business as a whole is Sonys goal, the only brand they want to see fail is Canon and Canon are doing a good job of killing their reputation themselves. Panasonic is the other current competitor they fear. Primarily because their business model is similar. Their next focus will be the integration of high end video in affordable slr styled bodies hence a7s, the first shot across the bow of the big video guys Canon, Panasonic and probably Red. I would be very surprised if rx10 mk ii is not 4k. Sony’s strategy is solid and successful. Good luck to them, digital medium format may be a niche but if every company selling these cameras is using Sony sensors and they are the best sensors available and if in time technology allows MF to be affordable who wins this new battle?
Lax on lenses / no money to be made? If you combine all of their lens production (a-mount, e-mount, broadcast video and cine lenses) you can see that Sony makes a lot of lenses. They price them high too, so while it’s not as big as the sensor business it’s not insignificant either.
Sony selling its sensors to competitors will be to its long term gain if sony gains monopoly and they become dependent on sony sensors
Fixed lens or interchangeable?
Sony has been selling their technology to their competitors for a very long time.
It’s not like Sony is loosing anything by doing so.
It’s a smart move. They can afford to lower their costs as their competitors pay off most of the R&D costs.
Everyone wants Sony sensors on their cameras, but Sony… 🙁
What Sony camera doesn’t have a Sony sensor?
Sony selling sensors to competitors isn’t so weird. Sony’s semiconductor business and their camera business are parts of two different companies within the corporation. Sony the camera manufacturer is just one customer among many to Sony the sensor manufacturer. Why would they sell sensors to only one company, when they could sell to many?
I thought that was obvious since the days of the X Pro 1, the many Nikons and the iPhone 5…
isn’t sony going to launch a curved sensor RX with bsi sensor with possibly much higher pixel count, so why would you want to buy that camera? (the lens will almost certainly be slower and thus the depth of field not larger)
Yes, THAT is the camera that I am waiting for.
Let’s say for sake of argument that it comes with a 35 or 50mm equivalent lens, IBIS, and has a sweep panorama function and a tilt/pivot screen. WOW, with lots of MP and crop-zooming possible, that would really kick.
Maybe conversion lenses could be offered, down to 25mm and up to 100mm. Anybody know if a lens of this optical configuration is amenable to some sort of a conversion lens system?
I have used Raynox conversion lenses and they are among the best but tele converters are typically not very good for wide angle lenses..this will be a ff sensor and 35mm lens.
Raynox does make a good 1/1.4 tele adapter but I think putting this on a 35mm lens will be problematic.
I believe they make some very good wa converters that might be well suited to this camera but I have never tried one because I dont shoot wide angle.
If it’s a fixed lens, a zoom seems more likely than conversion attachments.
I could be wrong, but I don’t see IBIS working well with curved sensors. Anybody care to weigh in on this?
fujiandsonyalpharumors.com
47
the photo above is actually the GF670W (the wide angle version) and not the GF670
Am I at fujirumors or sonyalpharumors? This site is obviously different from other rumor sites. It does not only report Sony’s rumors but other mirrorless rumors as well.
Welcome to SonyNikonFujiOlympuRumors.com
The connection to Sony is self-evident.
Well, then all rumors concerning cameras and smartphones using Sony sensors may be posted on this site.
I don’t mind Sony RX cameras being covered here, even though they aren’t Alpha cameras like the A- and E-mount cameras. I don’t even mind the occasional post about the Hasselblad rebadges, since they really are Sony cameras and use Sony’s lens mounts. But covering another company’s camera just because it has a Sony sensor is really stretching it.
Cameras from other brands and even smartphones have already been covered many times on SAR. Seems to me, it’s easier to simply skip the post for those who aren’t interested. That’s childish whining.
What a scandal! Is that even allowed?
this is Pancanikonpusrumors site LoL…
You forget Pentax. This site is actually PanCanNikOlymSonyPenLeicaHessaSamsungRumors.com
Yes, put a shutter release on front of camera for comfy vertical shooting without a large add on grip. Fuji MF rangefinders are so comfortable in vertical mode. Sony won’t do it.
While their medium format rangefinders enjoyed a certain popularity, I don’t understand why they went for medium format rather than a full frame “35mm” sensor. Surely they’d sell a whole lot more of those. As far as I can tell, it’s the one thing holding back the X-Pro.
Stoked.
I think, it’s just a Fans did. Look at the lens, EBC Fujinon Lens? Back to 90? Now Fuji use Super EBC, no more EBC “only”. Also it’s very weird that Fuji has very famous X-Trans CMOS sensor that surpassed its level to higher level, and then use Sony’s sensor? It’s a joke, right?
That is Fujifilm’s GF670, the file medium format camera by Fuijfilm. It was released to market around the first quarter of 2010. See here…. http://www.gf670.com
Fuji as a major mediumformat company ( 645X = Hasselblad H-serie ), several 645,67,69,612 and 617 camera’s and the studio 6×8 SLR. (Fuji is also the manufactor of all present hasselblad lenses). It make sense that Fuij come up with digital mediumformat because it is an impartent player on the medium format market.
The Sony sensor is already used by Fuji in the Hasselblad H serie, so why not in a mirorless Fuji medium format camera. (maybe in corporation with Sony)
The Hasselbald-Fuji-Sony team can do it.
Seems like the natural evolution of digital photography. I will buy one, if and when it becomes available…turning blue holding my breath