This is one of the most intriguing rumors that ever landed in my Inbox, and it comes from a source, who was right in the past (SRP).
However, as every rumor, you should take it with a grain of salt. Even the best sources can sometimes mix up things (especially with Fujifilm changing plans every few months 😉 ).
That being said, it’s the first time ever we hear about a bigger sensor X-series camera from a source, that is not “new” or “anonymous”… and here is what it told us:
Fuji is working on a bigger sensor camera. The source would like to specify, that the release of this bigger sensor size camera is everything else but imminent (so don’t expect it to come anytime soon). We are just in the early stages of its development. But Fujifilm is already paving the way for its arrival, since, always according to this source, some of the recently announced/released Fujinon XF lenses are already designed to cover the bigger sensor.
End of the rumor.
Does it make sense? Well, the APS-C camera and lens lineup is almost complete. I think that this could be the right moment for Fujifilm to start to develop a new system, APS-H, Full Frame or Medium Format.
But I’d love to hear what you think about. For example, in the comments Lars wonders if “maybe that’s the reason why the latest lenses (e.g. 2/90 mm, 2,8/50-140mm, 2,8/16-55mm) are so huge?”
NOTE: In the image above I called this camera X-TF, but the name is just my pure invention… or my suggestion to Fujiiflm ;).
stay tuned on Fuji Rumors,
facebook, google+, RSS-feed and twitter
216 Responses
Hm, maybe that’s the reason why the latest lenses (e.g. 2/90 mm, 2,8/50-140mm, 2,8/16-55mm) are so huge?
Can someone who ones one of theses lenses and a Sony A7 camera confirm? Image circle of theses lenses bigger than APS-C??
Yes, a test described above would be very useful!
dont need an a7 for that, just hold the lens into the light and let it project the image onto a sheet of paper from around a centimeter away. if that projected image is at least 36mm wide it´ll cover a full frame sensor. well…my 35 1.4 and 56 1.2 are clearly not full frame ready 😉
Sure. Don’t even need to go that far. The exit pupil on all Fuji XF lenses is clearly not sized to cover a full frame sensor. The exterior dimensions of the lens have nothing to do with it; most of those dimensions are made up of focusing gears, AF mechanism, image stabilization systems, etc.
Fuji’s been VERY unambiguous about their feelings concerning “35mm” sensors. Somebody’s pulling somebody’s leg here.
APS-H? Yes please!
FF? Please don’t.
Don’t think so unless FUJI develops the sensor completely on their own.
or they buy those of Canon
I’ve spilled my coffee.
sry 🙂
LOL, Sony likes cash they will make what makes them more.
Does Canon even produce them?
1Dx is FF 5D MKIII is FF
There is currently no Canon camera anymore that is APS-H except for the previous 1D series.
Please no….canon sensors are like 5 years behind Sony technology…
APS-H or a square APS-C format with multi-aspect would be nice.
You like 16:9 don’t you?
Yep, APS-H would be killer, Hell Im happy with what I have now 99% of the time I haven’t needed more then 16MP But 24MP will fix the times I needed more and with a H sized the pixels will still have the size for nice looking high ISO’s.
If most existing lenses cover that circle. Selling off everything for such a small upgrade? No.
Is “recently announced/released Fujinon XF lenses are already designed to cover a bigger sensor” a rumor or a known fact?
a rumor
quote: “But, always according to this source, Fujifilm is already paving the way for its arrival, since some of the recently announced/released Fujinon XF lenses are already designed to cover the bigger sensor.”
note: “always according to this source”
Maybe this in part explains the size of big constant aperture zooms.
I certainly do not believe this. And even if it were true, those mentioned lenses would probably only work in cropmode. Don’t think FUJI has a better R&D team than NIKON who donexactly that with their DX lenses. I believe it’s just a rumor to bring some internet traffic.
Nikon just doesn’t give a crap about DX, they want to up sell people to FX and that’s where all their energy goes. You can get a larger than APS-C image out of a DX lens on an FX camera anyway, you just tend to get heavy vignetting past a certain point. That and there really aren’t very many DX lenses you’d want to use on an FX camera anyway.
If I had wanted a big and bulky full frame camera, I had stuck to my Nikon.
Keep the APS-C size and work on organic sensors. That’s the way to go …
If it’s the same mount there’s no reason the camera bodies have to get any larger.
The lenses would, though. And they would be at odd focal lengths.
My opinion too. I also have and still use Nikons (because I’m still learning to use the XT1) but I chose the Fuji because of its size, format and weight, I think the APS-C sensor has a lot of potential for growth in both megapixels and quality. Somewhere someone from Fuji said that the future lies in high-end camera’s. I think they could go ‘full-frame’, but only if the body and lenses stay the same size, like a Leica M. I don’t know if that’s possible though.
Something like this could be the future: http://leicarumors.com/2012/04/11/quick-leica-m9-vs-fuji-x-pro1-image-comparison.aspx/
Medium would be nice — if in accessible prices. P1/Alpa is helluva expensive. 😉
Nobody said the Fuji lenses won’t fit APS-H 🙂
It’s likely more along the lines of a different aspect ratio and only slightly larger, perhaps a multi-aspect sensor like Panasonic has used. I doubt any of the current lenses are designed for a full 35mm frame, but maybe they could cover a 24mm x 24mm square sensor, or slightly larger. That’s a meaningful increase in area. Maybe the camera will know which lenses work with which size sensor, and switch automatically.
Yes, a multi-aspect sensor totally makes sense. Especially if new camera is capable of the trick that I’ve been suggesting for a long time (changing aspect with the camera orientation, for example shooting horizontals as 16:9 and switching to square when turned vertical).
That would be really small square 😉
This comment makes the most sense of what I have read. And you factor in Panasonic’s relationship with Fuji on the organic sensor. It’s certainly possible that Fuji would follow Panasonic on the multi aspect concept. I don’t particularly like that concept but I could see a product out there for it. Maybe they’ll wait to see if the Panasonic version gains traction.
I wonder how Fuji is going to solve the physical problem about FF not fitting the X-mount, unless it’s not FF, APS-H perhaps? But then, there are not many manufacturers making them, which can make things a bit more complicated from the business POV.
X-Trans means that Fujfilm’s business is already complicated ;~). The entire quantity of X-Trans sensors made a year probably doesn’t hit 500k at the moment. So I think Fujifilm could do anything they dang well please: it’s still going to cost them ;~).
Not really, X-Trans is just a Color Filter Array, and since APS-C is a very common sensor size, Fuji can buy the sensor and just put the X-Trans Color Filter on top of it, which is different from asking for an APS-H sensor, less variety means higher prices to choose from.
Making photosites in different sizes (or aspect ratios) isn’t really all that difficult a problem. Yes, it would require a new set of validation tests at the beginning, but your yields are going to be predictable from small sensor to large no matter what size you put on the fab. And putting a different size on the fab using the same photosite technology is mostly a semiconductor-Autocad type of problem now.
Aligning a color filter array and microlenses on the finished die is a trickier problem, and not as easy as just putting together a new drawing.
But my point stands: Fujifilm is already paying more for the same sized sensor than someone buying off the shelf. Moreover, their volumes are low, which push their final prices higher. I really don’t think Fujifilm has shown that they’re worried about that price difference. Especially if they can market a usefulness difference.
But that wasn’t my main point. The thing is that there are far more manufacturers making APS-C sized sensors, so there are more offer, so the price is lower and ultimately, it isn’t a great business thinking to just say “if we are already paying more, why not pay even more?”.
Not that many. Moreover, I’m pretty sure every one will make a sensor of any size you ask for.
If Fujifilm were buying off the shelf sensors, your point would be valid. For example, it is for the X-A1/2, which are using Sony sensors. But the minute you say “change your process” in any way, you might as well change it to whatever you actually desire.
That said, I would highly doubt that Fujifilm would opt for anything other than APS or full frame at this point. The problem is that picking anything else becomes a huge marketing problem.
Just when the things were quiet and nice… out of nowhere, here comes the heat, the intrigue, the thrill and the excitement. And 1000 questions and hopes.
I could go for a square sensor. That will at least work with current lenses. Maybe APS-H but the focal lengths would be all weird.
I agree square sensor is most efficient at using imaging circle, and existing lenses would work. I would also lose less when I crop to 4/3
an aps-c sized sensor but with extra width along the long sides making it 4×5 or 1:1 would make perfect sense if one takes a look at fujis history. That someone else considers 24×36 to be a standard doesnt seem to bother them the least.
IMO it is only a matter of time before Fuji brings out a camera with a larger sensor. Although it has created its own relatively comfortable niche market right now it is unlikely to stay that way with Sony making huge inroads with their FF cameras and prices for not recent FF Sony cameras going under APS-C prices. I would be surprised though if some XF lenses were already designed for that. I would also be surprised if Fuji were to go the FF road. An already overcrowded market. Medium Format seems more obvious, also given Fuji’s historic presence in that market. Time will tell.
FF x200 with evf only and non xtrans sensor.
The fixed lens X series will always have duel viewfinders
Always is a very long time. I could see Fuji putting out a cheaper X100 alternative with a slower lens and EVF only. Like a 23 f2.8, EVF only, a few other reduced items for 30% less or something. Could be interesting.
X-E2 & 27mm 2.8 is a cheaper deal than the one on the X100T and you can change lenses. I would agree If it was OVF only.
No way these lenses are made for use on a bigger sensor body. If anything, the image circle is larger to improve the quality of the image hitting the APS-C sensor.
Just the opposite. I’d be surprised if the telephoto lenses DIDN’T cover the full frame. There’s little benefit in building telephoto lenses with smaller imaging circles for APS (or any other smaller sensor). Most telephoto designs are going be equal in length to their long focal length, and the aperture is going to dictate the front element size. Sure, you could do things internally to get back a little bit of glass, but it’s just not worth the time and effort. Thus, a 50-140mm f/2.8 is going to be a minimum of 140mm long and it’s going to have a front element that’s a minimum of 50mm wide whether it was designed for APS or FX. As it is, the Fujifilm lens is actually larger than that (176mm and 72mm front element). I’ll bet it covers full frame at 140mm, and it probably covers it at 50mm, too.
“Well, the APS-C camera and lens lineup is almost complete”.
Not for me, some Fuji lenses are too big for street and fast shooting, and it changes the main reason of decision I have made to leave big DSLR and went to small mirrorless. Now I am considering to go back to DSLR (small D750). 56/1.2, 23/1.4, 90/2, 16-55/2.8, 50-140/2.8 and probably also new 16/1.4 are too big for mirrorless. I loved to shot with samll 18/2 on X-E2 on street and events with people, 35/1.4 is ok too, but the rest lenses make you quickly noticed by people you are shooting. This is frustrting, and this was the reaso I sold X-E2. If I knew Fuji brings small lineup (f/1.8-2) of primes I would stay with this company, but I doubt it will happen soon. I do not like this new direction Fuji took for bringing bigger and bigger lenses… it does not make any sens to me to mount such monsters on small mirrorless body.
Please please let it be square!! I love that format, and for everyone who wants other aspects ratio’s it’s easy to crop.
For that matter it’s easy to crop to square also. In fact, you can do it in camera.
Yes, but you’re starting from already cropped data (in terms of lens coverage)
I rather it be 3:4 ratio
Square format utilizes all of the available image circle – seems smart to me, it’s just efficient, really. A square, MF fixed lens rangefinder? If they can keep the costs down that could be SUPER cool. That would be an awesome X200. The Sony 50MP sensor in the PhaseOne IQ250 (and others) is 44mx33mm… so maybe not even a true MF but more of just a “square full-frame”, that is to say 36mmx36mm sensor could work. Or heck, even a cut-down-to-square version of that very sony sensor at 33mmx33mm is 6208px square, or 38.5MP. If they could somehow build a lens that can cast a large enough image circle in a small enough body, resolve enough detail to take advantage of all those pixels, AND keep that price down to under, say, $4000, then it just needs to come packaged with a purple unicorn and BAM! SOLD!
to see hoq bigger is the projected image , you can try to put a lens unmounted near a white wall and focused in it
“Well, the APS-C camera and lens lineup is almost complete”
Well we are getting 90, 16 and 140-400 mm
so: 14,16,18,23,27,35 ….90, 50-140,140-400
How about a 13,15 and 17 mm 😉
Personally I’d like to see a 300mm or longer prime als well as a ~100mm 1:1 macro lens. And then comes the special and mk2 stuff (35mm mk2 anyone?!)
So I think the lens lineup COULD be complete in 2-3 years
As is the lens lineup is already of high quality and pretty comprehensive. IMHO it only really lacks in the long end (200 and beyond) but there are already many MF options available
Maybe Zack Arias’ medium format rangefinder blog post got to head office. That’d be sweet!
If those lenses are already designed for Full Frame that would be great but then then 23mm won’t be equivalent to a 35mm,the 35mm to a 50mm or the 56mm to a 85mm….
Finally, the mother of all rumors has returned.
Despite of millions of official denies, the folks out there want to believe in Full Frame.
Let’s take a deep breath.
For some hope springs eternal. I suspect this will come and go as all the previous ones have. Is Fuji looking at other possibilities? Sure! I would certainly hope so. Are they going to bring them to market? Probably not. Most things never do see the light of day.
It’s not too much of a stretch to say some XF lenses cover a larger sensor. Lots of other manufacturer’s APS lenses cover a larger sensor in certain zoom ranges or apertures. If there is a larger sensor Fuji coming out, I wouldn’t expect the XF lenses to be all that great on it when it’s all said and done.
Personally I really hope they stick with APS-C. They found a great niche for enthusiasts and they can do so much more here to draw people in an ever-decreasing market.
Also the lens line up is not complete. Far from it, even with the previously roadmapped items. To be more complete Fuji needs:
1. Another 1:1 macro option at a different focal length than zeiss
2. Tilt shift lenses
3. 300 f4 prime
4. 400 f5.6 prime
5. Older lenses updated to current standards plus sealing
6. Fisheye
7. Fast wide zoom (like Sigma’s 18-35)
8. Others
Not including third parties like Rokinon
1:1 macro, 300 f4 prime, instead of the 400 f5.6 prime (which would be nice) a teleconvert would work too
and I love the Sigma 18-35
If one can dream I’d love to see a lens for astrolandscape (the 16mm could be great, the Rokinons are good, but I’d love to see something like a 10mm 1,8 sharp edge to edge wide open
I wonder how a 20MP 1.25 crop sensor would behave compared to the 1.56 we have now.
I do not think this rumor is plausible – the focal length ranges of the new zooms would be awkward on FF sensors.
While I can see some advantages, I don’t see Fuji going FF. I do foresee a MF fixed lens rangefinder. Though I would actually much prefer a Sigma to produce a MF fixed lens rangefinder using the Merrill chips, I’d pay $5k for that.
Just measured the image circle of my 14,23 and 35. It is about 33mm at 16mm flange distance. So maybe slightly more in practice, which is far from the 43mm required for full frame. Even APS-H probably not. And of course the lenses are not suitable for Medium Format.
I have just measured the light rings projected by different lenses.
XF 50-140 approx 3.2 – 3.5cm XF 56mm and XF 23mm about the same.
I consider the XF23mm not as very new.
Nikkor AiS 180mm f/2.8 ED has an circle of approx 4.8-5.0cm
same with AF 300mm F/4.0 and AiS 100mm f/2.8 micro.
If you expect the sensor to be FF then dream on.
I doubt that it will even hit APS-H format.
Looking at the sensor size now it’s 23.6×15.6mm
An 24mmx16mm is probably possible… everything else is just dreaming.
but all this does not make any sense. Nikon uses 23.5×15.6mm sensors with 24mp. They reduced the sensor size from 23.6×15.8mm
Fuji is doing nice with the current system. If they are going for an FF or medium size sensor it’s an risk. If the current X-mount systems operate in an profit zone is to me not known.
The consumer products like A & M had no chance against Olympus pen with the IBIS.
The X-Pro1 is an niche product (thought perfect for me). The X-T1 is nice but on paper the Sony mirrorless looks better (for want to be professional FF users).
I am sorry that there is no digital throw-up option, but if I hear again Fuji X and FF i’m going to invent this.
We have so many very nice lenses who give so narrow DOF, we just dont need FF sensors. We have also the XF 56mm APD with lovely smooth out of focus rendering.
I suggest the next who is whining about FF shall shut-up and buy an Sony mirror-less FF system and keep out of here.
Personally I’m fine with current sensors. All I would ‘want’ is IBIS and better ISO (Base 100 would make me happy), and also allow us to turn off NR completely.
Also, I bet the CMOS chips in the Nikon D5500 will be the ones that Fuji will use for the next iteration of their lineup.
You can not “deactivate” NR with a CFA. Be it X-Trans of Bayer.
I second the better base ISO; (or at least RAW in lower ISO would be a start)
I am not convinced at all by the IBIS technology even if I can see a benefit for old MF lenses, in general I much rather have OIS (especially what FUJI has developed which is spectacular on the newer lenses) than IBIS; That said, it cannot fully replace better high ISO and fast lens.
If you’re right and Fuji uses the Nikon D5500 chip plus Fuji own “magic” that could be fantastic (100-25600 base ISO, not excited at all about the 24MP, but I am probably an exception)
Or 1/8000 mechanical shutter
I agree completely! I come from full frame and the huge lenses. I have no wish to go back to those days. I also use a m43 which is great in most circumstances too. I love the x-t1 and all it’s dials, it is a genius camera. I would also like ibis, 100 base iso and a better focusing system in s and c modes. The lens lineup is what brought me towards fuji in the first place, I hope it keeps on improving, it is not complete by a mile yet!
Have you ever measured the light rings projected by a Leica M lens?
It’s “magic” but ir works …
A square sensor would be nice ! no more grip needed for better ergonomics in vertical shooting, just add an analogic control to chose the framing ! Square picture with better quality and lenses would be compatible. Add stabilization on sensor with the same body size / price and I buy it without hesitation !
No need for full frame if actual mount and lenses are not compatible…
I only expect more MP soon and I have no more wishes. If I want FF I buy a FF camera.
Medium format is the most logical step for Fuji, if any larger format going to be developed.
I would find APS-H a nice compromise. In terms of pixel density and DOF it is a perceivable difference compared to APS-c, and still required less bulk (lenses) than FF size.
So: Instead of a 24MP APSc sensor this could be 24 or 28 or in APS-H. Only drawback I see: As no other manufacturer is currently offering APS-H anymore, those sensors would have to be custom made, which would make them more expensive.
Question is also whether the difference in quality over an APS-c sensor would be worth the hassle of buildung an extra set of lenses. Also there are currently no third party lenses made for that sensor size either. As a manufacturer, I’d stay with APS-c or go with 36MP FF. The 24MP sensor of the a6000 seems quite decent. At low and medium ISO speeds hardly a difference compared to the A7 I and II.
I too like APS-H…worked well in my old M8. That said, I think the liklihood of Fuji releasing an APS-H sized sensor are zero….I think it will be a square sized sensor based off of APS-C.
I wonder why no one said “organic” yet. And another fappable word on FR: “X-Pro2”.
If Fuji makes an X-Pro2 with organic APS-H sensor, they’ll have to produce that sensor themselves. Change of format makes sense then.
If some of the existing lenses really cover APS-H, that’ll make for a nice starter kit. It would also boost future lens sales, so that makes sense too.
Well, maybe noone said it because it is a very unsure perspective. I would not bet that it ever becomes reality at all. It might be groundbreaking now, based on the specs Fuji released 2-3y ago, but according to a Fuji manager (interview here on this very site) it is still far away from realization.
And once it may be ready, it could be already be in the middle of other non bayer pattern sensors devellopped by Canon, Sony etc. But then it will no longer be revolutionary.
The inner diameter of x mount is the limiting factor. There won’t be any way to use current lenses on a bigger sensor. They have to roll out a new mount for that.
These new lens are decent. But $1.5k usd for a corp factor lens, hmmm…. It will be a reasonable price for a FF lens.
Jeez I thought people forget about the “organic” fable by now.
For a full frame, Why not this name; X-PRO-F1
I doubt there are physical limitations preventing this from happening. Plus, the lens mentioned just can’t be made too small. However, I do hope Fuji could give us a FF and more affordable lens.
Caught myself staring at this comment for way too long, trying to find a meaning in it. Meaning of life maybe. And then, when I nearly reached nirvana, it suddenly struck me…
This camera out there (unless a guess should provide the confusing news) we get a reality. Beyond all the (way too expensive, sorry that’s my feeling) Fuji-equipment more detail in the most impossible quirks. Nevertheless, I’ve done great work at loss & repairs and ISO-behavior than ever and still no wax skins, no softness we would get a lot of performing compacts with some money in the ‘pro’ logo finally become a mission that may not go experimenting with near-DSLR IQ but it with near-DSLR IQ but failed to deliver truly more detail in any other camera needs a computer while you’re in greens, no real X-Pro2-release on a normal Bayer sensor like any sense into – but it should provide the (way too much a mechanical Nikon F.
Thank you for reading the hallucinogenic crap above. What was that, you ask? Markov chain generator, that’s what it was.
🙂
There are really two separate lines of analysis:
Technical – Would FF REALLY offer any significant improvement in IQ, DoF separation, low light perfromance, tonalities or otherwise, so as to justify the significant investment, both by the manufacturer and the purchaser? Or are we already well within the realm of “clearly good enough?” I suspect we are, at least for 95% of the photographers out there.
Marketing – Is there a legitimate market out there for FF MILC, as a business proposition? Sony has already entered that market, I have friends who were glad to pay premium prices for their Sony FFs and Zeiss lenses, and I wonder if Sony’s (or their!) return on investment (ROI) actually justified the exercise?
For myself, I have almost zero interest in FF, and this coming from a guy with years of expereince in the Nikon DSLR world. On the other hand, since I shoot NCAA Division 1 sports, I’m forced to use a DSLR, as no MILC yet introduced can do the job as well (up to 10 fps, deep buffers, extensive lens choices, pro-quality build in bodies and lenses, etc.).
So, what I’d be willing to invest in would be a Sony or Fuji MILC, whether FF or APS-C, that could do everything in sports that a DSLR can. Right now, it simply doesn’t exist, at least with either Fuji or Sony.
ill second the hope for 4/3, it would be easy to do, only increase the narrow dimension. I mostly crop to 4/3 for my commercial work.
I don’t think the lens mount is large enough for a Full Frame sensor. X-mount is smaller than E-mount.
Another possibility is that the sensor size will be as it is now, but the body of the camera will be larger to accommodate two SD card slots and a higher capacity battery. Such a body would also balance better with the f2.8 zooms.
When it is introduced the price of the existing X-T1 could/would be reduced thereby fulfilling the earlier rumour of a cheaper X-T1.
Have a look at the lens tests at photozone.de Fuji lenses show quite a lot of vignetting already (looking at the raw output, not the software corrected output), that does not give (me) the impression that these lenses are “overdesigned” for a aps sensor.
That would be fantastic. A full frame X-Pro 2 makes sense and would sell well. If they can make use of some of the existing lenses, that would be great.
A multi-aspect ratio sensor is what I think will be introduced. FF would really jack up the price of the already expensive bodies from Fuji. I can’t even imagine the price for a medium format body and lenses.
Maybe Fuji tries to satisfy some expectations for more pixels… But Fuji doesn’t want something like the 24MP of a Sony A6000. Maybe APS-C sensors don`t allow increasing the amount of pixels and keeping cleaner high ISOS (just a “decent” level). So the answer is FF… with a body similar to Sony a7 line…
If Fuji have made lenses bigger than required for APS-C then I think that is a bad thing as it reduces 2 of the advantages of fuji x – size & weight.
But for the longer lenses the size penalty may be negligible / nil. So if the 50-140 f2.8 is APS-H or FF capable then I would not object to a bigger sensor provided we still get at least 16mp for an APS-C (1.5) crop.
I would not mind an oversize sensor that maximised the available image circle for different image ratios – say full width for 16:9 and full height for 4:5 format.
But until we get a Fuji fabricated sensor (organic?) I do not see it as cost effective as sony, Toshiba are producing either FF or APS-C size sensors. Given the rumour said it would not happen soon, then this reasoning may indicate the rumour has some truth.
Don’t need a bigger sensor incompatible with most lenses, soft in the corner and with huge vignetting…
I would love a medium format with something like the Pentax 645z sensor. I would not want it a fixed lens though. If I’m going to be spending that much for a camera I would want the option to change lenses.
APS-H? Seriously people? Fuck up all the focal length equivalents of current lenses (all calculated for APS-C) just so the internet whiners can keep complaining about the lack of FF?
Go through all the hassle of confusing a ton of customers for a tiny gain in quality which APS-C will easily gain through technological advances within 2-3 years? That would be stupid!
Two scenarios I wouldn’t call complete BS:
1st: Square sensor with 24 x 24 mm. This would be supported by all current lenses and would offer some nice advantages. More pixels for square frames or 5:4 portrait frame. No more strange holding of the camera for portrait orientation, rather just flick a switch. Disadvantage: higher price but no quality gain using 3:2 (just convenience gain). Not too likely but not stupid considering the surge in 1:1 aspect ratio.
2nd: Larger-than-FF (lets call it medium format). If this it true I only see it happening in form of a fixed lens camera. Test the water to see if there is actually a market. Many people are claiming there is and I can imagine it but the real question is whether it is large enough to make money. Would love to see this happen but it will ruin a lot of marriages and then disappoint the buyer because they will notice that it doesn’t suddenly turn them into a Gregory Heisler. Then they will hit the internet complaining about the lack of a large-format digital X400 and how medium format just doesn’t cut it. Then – dear friends – I will quit my broadband contract…
BTW: Full frame ain’t happening with Fuji. Too many compromises involved for a quality gain that can also be had through technology advances within the next few years. Go search Thom’s site for “good enough”.
>. Too many compromises involved for a quality gain that can also be had through technology advances within the next few years.
That’s kind of a hollow argument, those same technology advances will happen to full frame.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Fuji come out with a FF fixed lens camera, an x100F or something, at the very least.
No, it’s not hollow. That’s why I wrote about “good enough”.
Right now for very low light, resolution and acuity FF still has a useful advantage for pros and some enthusiasts. FF will always have an advantage but that advantage will be more and more irrelevant as APS-C gets better. Just like APS-C is way better than phone cameras but for average people even their phone has reached the point of “good enough”.
I could see a FF X200 happening but that would push Fuji into a difficult situation so I believe an even larger format would be more sensible and would set them apart more than “just” FF.
Ok… If your idea is that APS-C is the sweet spot for “good enough”, and FF advantages are in the realm of “irrelevant”, why would they go to MF? To make the advantages super, ultra irrelevant?
No, Brett, because full frame 135 will stand still in two years, but of course APS will advance in two years.
MF would have it’s special uses. Of course the difference would be totally irrelevant for most shooters. But billboard ads and very large prints will do much better with bigger-than-APS-C sensors and even FF isn’t usually enough for that. It’s a niche and I’m pretty sure you can hardly make money there but that wasn’t the topic.
Well said. Jano is completely and totally wrong. Full frame destroys APS-C in the IQ department, pure and simple. It’s got to kill Fujifilm seeing the Sony A7 success train roll on. Now they are finally doing something about it.
Given most of the current lenses would likely operate in a crop mode I don’t see the problem with moving to APS-H. That would allow Fuji to do a small megapixel increase without sacrificing light sensitivity. People coped with Canon using a mix of APS-C and APS-H. A square 24×24 sensor would be nice too though, especially with a 4:3 ratio as a shooting option.
The question is whether the mount is large enough.
But even if it is the main problem would be that in the long run people don’t want to pay for sensor area that only a fraction of their lenses can use. So they want all the lenses for APS-H which leads to a whole new lens set Fuji would need to build. For doing that the difference between 1.3x and 1.5x is not big enough and would only cost them money.
The size difference between APS-C and APS-H is small enough it should fit I think. But it’s true it may or may not be much use depending on the lenses you own.
Leica M mount has FF and a much smaller mount.
You’re right, though it only looks to be a tiny bit smaller (couldn’t find a number for the Fuji diameter). But I’m afraid the lens contacts will prevent FF usage.
It probably also has to do with the lack of AF or the extremely high prices of the Leica else I wouldn’t understand why nobody else makes lenses that small.
This square sensor idea is genius. I often crop my 3:2 landscape photos to 4:3. I have always been annoyed Fuji’s don’t have a 4:3 crop mode, only 16:9 and 1:1. Having a square sensor would give me amazing 1:1, 4:3, and 4:5 images. It should also have a 4:5 portrait mode as you suggest (5:4) to not force user to hold camera sideways or break out the annoying battery grip. I’m honestly surprised Sony never did this, but I guess their focus was always ditching APS-C for 35mm.
Square wouldn’t be supported by any of the current lenses, unless they are going to replace all the lens hoods!
I’d rather buy new lens hoods (or just use the lenses without) than buying new lenses compatible with bigger sensor !
Well nothing is easier than taking off a lens hood or buying a new one for a few bucks, is it now? 😉
Square isn’t going to happen. Why do people think eccentric sensor design is going to come from? What fab will make these magical sensors? At what cost and quantities?
Learn the economics of chip fab before sharing your wet dreams with us.
Learn the basics of kindness before sharing your insults with us.
Instead of being rude how about telling us what you mean? Google couldn’t tell me what eccentric sensor design is supposed to be. All I know is that there are very different sensors around (some of them square) and that to my last knowledge you can cut pretty much any shape from a wafer.
Wow, a well thought out post!
I agree with your points. 24×24 is a neat idea, but very niche to come out with a cam at good price point. Still may work, since const of investment should be lower than going FF or MF.
Going FF is garbage – what for? To lose portability? To produce F/4 lenses to keep the size down and lose the FF advantage (ala Sony?).
MF – very questionable, despite some vocal advocacy (Zack for instance). I suspect most people yearning for MF here are measurbators and gearheads. When I ask what price they would pay for it they are strangely silent (or if you ask them to show us their portfolio). FF is a niche market compared to APS-C, MF is a much smaller niche than FF.
A fixed lens MF? Doubtful. The cheapest MF solution now is Pentax at 9K, and one complaint about that system is lens selection. So if it comes, it would be a very limited run (far less volume than the Pentax 645z) which probably would mean $10K++ price point. MF sensor development costs would be astronomical (if they don’t want to line Sony’s pockets buying their 50mp sensor), new body design from the ground up, etc. It would cost as much as development of the APS-C line, and they are just approaching break-even after 3 years, and they have some volume there – a fixed lens MF would need huge margins to get ROI back.
Arri have built a rental-only movie camera with three sensors in vertical orientation somehow stitched together into one single large-area sensor. Doing so should be much cheaper than manufacturing an actual sensor that size (the larger the size of an individual sensor, the higher the probability that its area encompasses a bad spot on the wafer and thus cannot be used, hence price usually does not grow linearly with sensor size, which such a stitching technology would circumvent).
May or may not be, but if some XF lenses are already designed for larger sensor formats, it is certainly NOT for medium format. Maybe FF, maybe slightly smaller.
Please refer to my reply above.
aps-h and FF probably not. i bet a medium compact-fixed lens (for start) and then an ILC
For kicks I did a mockup to see if a 1:1 APS-C sensor would fit in the X mount. It does – just. There certainly isn’t much room to work with though, if they keep the mount any new sensor can’t be physically much bigger before obstacles like the lens connection pins get in the way.
If you just square up the current sensor, you’d have a 24mp camera without changing the density of the pixels. If you went with the density of the A6000 sensor, it would be a 36mp square camera.
Yeah, you’d effectively have the same sensor area as a square cropped full frame.
“That is why 90mm ,etc is so huge” ?? Whatta nonsense. Should those cover the Medium Format too then? Really nonsense. APSC makes images like some some top of range Full Frame cameras, so I don’t see the point of such a rumour.
it’s not going to happen on any camera with the current X mount that’s for sure. But obviously Fuji have to say they are working on FF sensor cameras, they are increasingly being marginalized. Already we’re talking about 50MP cameras and already have FF 24/26MP Sony cameras you can buy for much the same price as today’s little APS-C 16MP sensors. Those little sensors might be convenient for the X lenses out there, but the sensor behind them is not competitive.
A better question would be is more megapixels even something fuji shooters want or care about. They seem more interested in retro styling and the jpg colors. Nothing wrong with that, for enthusiasts that might be more important. I personally think that 36-50+MP cameras so far exceed the majority of small camera lenses, or the AF ability of those cameras to resolve anyway. We need to start looking out those lovely old medium format lenses again.
Having more megapixels doesn’t improve most photographs, but APS-C is too small to be very useful for all but compact cameras, and the iPhone takes perfectly good “compact photos”. For light gathering, for depth of field, for color tonality etc etc the bigger the sensor the better and the 35mm “full frame” size is about as small as is reasonably useful.
I want a Mamiya 6 with a 6×6 sony sensor, until them I’ll continue with film until digital catches up.
Well, if Fuji upgraded to 24mp to 28mp organic with the X series it would be competitive. I’d love a 6mp 6×6 FF back for my SWC for $2500 to $3000. I’m not going to put a $20,000 back on a $1500 camera. 6mp with FF 6×6 is fine.
35mm flatbed scanned film is only = to 3 or 4 mp with a P&S. Film is very low res in the small formats.
http://www.photographycompared.tumblr.com/
So, a FF 6×6 6mp back is more than enuf to = or better film.
Maybe Fuji is working on the FF Fuji R-M? (A Fuji 28mp to 36mp organic rangefinder Leica M mount.) They don’t even need to make lenses for it…enuf out there already.
Fuji X fills a niche for disposable high quality cams. I wont necessarily move up to high MP Fuji cams with the same screwy Fuji controls and are high priced. I like the X-E1’s. They are cheap, disposable and produce very high quality images that I like better than my 24 MP M240 Leica images.
The majority of my latest book was done with Fuji X. (Maybe 65% to 75%?)
nsfw
http://bikermardigras.tumblr.com/
As no organic sensor has seen the light of day any claims of its excellence is based solely on the puffery of Fuji and Panasonic.
As for 6×6 sensors….not gonna happen. The yield at any pixel count is so low that no one is willing to produce them knowing that they could never make money on it.
PS: Your numbers are way wrong. In order to get down to your quoted resolving power you would not only have to use a cheap point and shoot, but one with very poor lens at its extremes of aperature, and have it hand held with inadequate shutter speeds.
Don’t get me wrong, shoot all digital and am constantly amazed at the qualities I find in the F cameras I use, but if you take the 80% of the film bell curve to be far, you are looking at flatbeds more like 7-8mp’s, and being that you can get a 5400dpi dedicated neg scanner for $300, you can get very close to the average true 4000+ l/mm that most films will capture. And that is standard Agfa/Fuji film of consumer qualities. 5300+ l/mm are the norm on the holo agfa/velvia/etc. With that you are looking at something much closer to a theoretical MP max of 88MP and a realistic amount of 47.
Just so the record is straight.
Yep, I’m using digital back on Hasselblad all mounted on a copy stand. Film is being kept between 2 pieces of glass from Kaiser (originally for enlarger, one of them is AR). You can get relatively nice scans from 135 film and 120 can be stitched – I worked out something in the range of 60mp using this setup. Although usually can’t be asked as I’m getting excellent ~25mp files from 6×6 that result in really nice prints @300dpi – but if needed there’s headroom left. Also worth trying is FlexTight scans or other drum scanners.
APS-C is too small to be very useful? Such nonsense. The files from Fuji X100T and X-T1 are extremely useful, for and including fashion and landscape. They make gorgeous prints up to 20×30, and Fuji lenses are superb. Again, your statement is hogwash.
I hate Sony sensors, fake colors, bad skin tones.
Plop a Fujifilm X-Trans on it and BAM! Sony rocks your cock!
ouch, careful with that!
If you don’t know how to get good color out of your camera you are doing it wrong.
Sensor has nothing to do with the image color. The only thing that matters is the interpolation algorythm. Even Sigma’s Foveons have to be processed.
haha, very amusing. maybe you need to learn about lighting.
I almost missed you. Almost.
I almost thought you said something relevant for a moment. Almost.
It’s just physics why the X mount is a non-starter for full frame. Let’s hope Fuji bump the MP this year to stay ahead of the iPhone.
Canon culled their aps-h sensor because…. It cost more than apsc AND full frame to produce with little gain. I also think apsh is a silly idea for the very marginal improvement. The xmount can’t fit a full frame sensor, and as pointed out below the lenses can’t either. I call this a hoax
Agreed.
It seems that you have access to some really interesting commercial secrets. Care to share?
Hi Trenton. I read that info one of the Canon rumors sires (doesn’t guarantee if true or not). However it makes sense. Economies of scale after all
More to the point, Fuji has to buy what sensor fabs are offering. To my knowledge, APS-H is not offered in any volume or current designs so the point is moot. (not mute)
Yes that’s my knowledge also. Fuji source their current sensors from Sony – which are the best in the business. I reckon they should keep buying from Sony…
yeah!!
Don’t need and don’t want fullframe.
Don’t want higher pixel count either – use sensor improvements to further reduce noise instead!
…but a slightly oversized sensor would be neat for different crops, with the most benefit being a 1:1 crop. It would mean some pixels are never used and it would mean slightly larger raw files if you want to be able to do the crop as an afterthought, so probably only worthwhile if Fuji makes it a marketing advantage and the cost difference is not substantial.
Fuji is already doing too much to “reduce noise”. I’d prefer if they allowed users to reduce the noise reduction.
Well being so happy with the APS-C XE 1 and XE 2 cameras and being a FX Nikon shooter I would love to see a mirror-less full frame Fuji because I actually like the color and work-ability of the files more than the Nikon FX BUT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A Medium format Fuji especially with there great color and current history of making really good cameras and glass but that’s just my pipe dream and opinion 🙂
OH and PS I recently sold my back up full frame Nikon and replaced it with the Fuji xe 2 bodies they do the job I need for 90% of the work I am doing these days 🙂
How much would you pay for MF fuji?
4000 € and your question just made me realize that I wouldn’t buy it. As niche as I am.
The last 10% of your work you can’t do is because Fuji isn’t full-frame ?
Perhaps this is why they are taking so long with the X-Pro 2. Even though I am heavily invested in Fuji glass already, I would be willing to buy a full frame X-Pro 2, if they support it with some fast primes (21mm, 50mm, and 85mm to start)
A full frame X-Pro 2 with a sensor competitive with the latest Sony A7 offerings, combined with fast, small-ish primes would get me to invest in Fuji beyond the X100s that I already own. I would also buy a full frame x100 with a sensor competitive with the latest A7 offerings.
Not saying any of that will happen, or that it would necessarily make sense for fuji, but that’s my two cents for my needs.
Don’t be a sellfish person asking for full-frame and new mount whereas most of Fuji owners just need new X-mount lenses and improved body.
Just buy a Sony / any FF camera instead.
Fuji working on bigger sensor X-series camera?
See Betteridge’s law of headlines: “Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word ‘no’.”
APS-H? Why would Fuji bother?
Current lenses able to cover FF? Nope.
Gonna call BS on this … unless it refers to a medium format attempt with a small selection of dedicated lenses.
Who doesn’t?
Bingo?
The name should be longer. Extend ‘PRO’ to ‘PROFESSIONAL’; add in ‘bitch!’ (with an exclamation point) for extra enthusiast credit.
actually in the headline there is no questionmark… I put it in the image though. Sorry for this inconsistency !?!?
In 2014 I’ve written many rumors with questionmarks… lucky me that 83% of the time the answer was “YES” and not “NO” 😉
Suggest using the word “may” in the headline instead of a question mark. Better editorial form for English. 🙂
One of the main reasons I switched to Fuji from Nikon APS-C was the lack of APS-C designed lenses. Of course one can use FF lenses on DX cameras but the focal length will be shifted from classic values. Fuji has only APS-C system so lens’ focal lengths are designed to match classic values. On FF sensor the values would be downshifted and be messed up again. To me it’s not an option.
Holy moly, classic values. Using directors viewfinder often?
Funny, Fuji must think that is important to people, or they wouldn’t have made every single one of their lenses with the crop factor in mind for angle-of-view relative to classic 35mm focal lengths.
They are classic and important because they’ve been made in a classic and important way, gotcha.
It’s hard to adapt after 15 years to unstandard focal lengths
So basically if you plan on shooting something with 50mm prime and you only have a 54mm at your disposal, you’ll be experiencing Extreme Perils? Oh dear.
What’s the focal length of your phone’s lens, and how does it translate to FF?
No. What a stupid suggestion?
Talking about FF to APS-C adaptation. When I want to shoot 85mm and the best I can get is crappy 50mm (75 eq.) with not a great bokeh or stupidly expensive 58mm that’s disappointing. When I want to shoot a wide prime and the best I can get is 20mm (30 eq) that’s total fail. Moreover I have to pay more for these lenses because they carry extra glass to cover FF I don’t need.
Talking about APS-C to FF adaptation. Longest prime 90/2. Seriously?
What an idiotic question about a phone camera? Why should I care? I use it only for paper documetation.
I can’t see a questionmark in the headline… if you talk about the image, then yes, using “may” is indeed better. Thanks for the tip, I’ll use it in future
Oh YEAH! As a low-light music photographer, I really appreciated if Fuji allowed to turn off NR completely. Still see the waxy stuff at NR-2 (not there in the RAW files).
There is no “one size fits all” noise reduction algorithm – please Fuji, let professionals decide how to do it (at least if you want us use JPEGs). 1 option beyond NR-2: NR OFF. Simple. In a firmware update please!
or just NR -3 / -4 / -5 because I see no interest shooting jpg if noise is awful. Just shoot Raw if you want to apply NR by yourself ! (and that is what professional do)
Wasn’t this XF mount designed for APS-C purpose only? If that’s true – most of all, that lens-related statement is weird. Because the last lens group would require to be very adopted and different since Fuji maintains an extremely short flange/sensor distance. Leica has also experienced terrible technical issues in getting an equal light dispersion over the M’s bigger sensor’s surface with the existing range of lenses – what explains the particular sensor microlens approach. Strange rumor after all because Fuji really has done everything to become ‘the master of the premium APS/C-CSC’ and excluded in interviews this kind of development several times.
I suspect Fuji will test the market with a full frame x100 at some point, just as they did with the original x100. Depending on how that goes, they might start to develop a FF system camera.
I want a full frame X20 or X30, compact but large sensor cam. Zoom lens that is optimized (small) for the camera, 28-85 mm @ f 2.8. EVF or OVF, maybe hybrid. About the size of the X100 (probably slightly larger) but with bigger lens obviously.
That thing would be a monster. Realistically speaking, a smallish fixed lens full frame should be doable – see the Sony RX1.
The RX1 is quite a bit bigger/heavier than the X30.
Give me a GF670 with a 6X6 Foveon sensor
Agreed. I prefer a better focusing APS-C camera vs a FF with poor focusing. Please putt all resources in R&D on AF instead of stupid FF sensor / new lenses we don’t need at all…
It is not fantastic, it’s fantasy…
Today’s rumor that F are working on Full Frame should not surprise anyone.
Particularly now when Sony has introduced the new stabilized A7, rumor of a 50Mpxl A7 is floating around, and a low cost A7 at less than 1000$.
And Canon is rumored to introduce new high Mpxl cameras, plus an EOS M (a real one, or just a ‘look at me camera?’, but that is side issue).
Surely, Fujifilm has been aware of all of this, after all they are in the business.
So a very interesting test, which is simple enough to make, is to see how large an image circle the lenses from Fujifilm will cover.
This can be done with a ‘simulated’ camera setup, using a cardboard tube with some greaseproof paper at the end to focus on.
Then walk across the field of view with a flashlight, and check if it covers 24 or 36 mms.
It would be very good purchase advice for customers, knowing that their lens might be useful on a larger sensor camera.
I have compared with some historic lenses (for a Contax G2, last camera before I went digital), and it is not unreasonable to assume that several of the present lenses will cover a 35 mm image (and this is also the reason the exhibit such excellent performance, as only part of the lenses is used).
Big Fuji lenses mean larger coverage areas? Let’s get real here. There is a size and weight penalty to be paid for making moderately fast constant aperture zooms.
The Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8 weighs in at 1.44 pounds with a 77mm filter. My Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 (DX, so it’s APS) weighs about 1.75 pounds, also with a 77mm filter.
If we look back to a year ago, this is the same type of rumour that was circulating then: possibly a full frame X100 at Photokina; and perhaps a full frame X-Pro 2 in early 2015. Now, it is early 2015 and we are talking about the same possibilities.
I would be surprised if they weren’t thinking about it. However, I doubt we will see anything like this for a long time.
Some of it is platform envy, I think. Some is just regular trolling. I think a lot of people are in denial about the market as a whole, too. It just doesn’t make a lot of business sense to go into all these markets when the whole market is declining so rapidly. I hope Fuji is doing the sensible thing and focusing on a profitable niche in photography: enthusiasts. If they serve our needs well then the better for them.
I hope they release the XPro2 before it becomes uneconomical to manufacture it
Fuij has said repeatedly that APS-C is the sweet spot between portability and image quality. I suspect this rumour originates from the fact that they no doubt do test other sensors. But that’s just called R+D. I don’t see a FF sensor in Fuji’s stars and its products will be better for it.
Fuji sensors already deliver solid high ISO performance, DR and sharpness in a small package; I suspect the Xpro-2 sensor (which we all-but-know will be APS-C) will improve in all these areas yet further, since competitors have caught up.
Unless you’re the kind of photographer that really needs the globbiest globs to mask that your kid was standing in front of an ugly wall when you hit the shutter, or are predominantly concerned with measurebating and bragging rights, hard to see why you’d want/need a FF sensor from Fuji.
I think Fuji hit a sweet spot with compact mirrorless cameras in APS-C size. Small enough to be compact, yet big enough sensor to make a difference compared to M43. (Even if this difference doesn’t really show in real life and mainly serves marketing purposes.)
They’d be stupid to invest into anything that appeals to the same customer group and cannibalises their still new X line. I can imagine a “medium format” offering from Fuji, something like the Leica S, just with a different price tag. After they’ve more or less replaced the Leica M line for many enthusiasts, why not take on the next successful product from that very same company…?
Sure, MF is a niche, but let’s be honest: “FF” DSLRs with huge price tags are just another niche. They’re mostly selling because of the many legacy lenses and marketing efforts.
Speaking for myself, I couldn’t care less about a Nikon D800 or similar offerings. But a mirrorless, fixed lens and compact “MF” camera with a high end sensor (and the ability to be used hand-held) in a reasonable price range – tempting!
Here is the list of things Fuji needs to develop.
1) FF Fuji R-M 28 to 36 mp organic Leica rangefinder knockoff in the $2500 to $3000 range.
2) Increase the current X sensor to 28 mp organic.
3) A Fuji M43 with shutter speed dial – 24mp organic.
4) A FF 6mp 6 x 6 back for the old film Hasselblad’s in the $2500 range.
5) Fuji needs to stop dummying down their gear removing manual controls.
You guys and gals start shooting at 50 mp your drives will be filled up in no time with all the snapshots you shoot.
I’m very choosy what I shoot. I delete in-cam a lot. I only shoot projects that have museum or artists’ books potential. Still I’m sorting through 600 gig of pix I took last year to trash most of it.
Your problems are not a lack of mp, they are a lack of soul in your photos. If you don’t produce museum quality work at 16 mp you wont do it at 50 mp…that is the bottom line.
Your gear is not holding you back…YOU are holding you back.
“A technically perfect photograph can be the world’s most boring picture.” ~ Andreas Feininger
1/ if Fuji don’t sell lenses, they lose money : NO
2/ YES but not soon
3/ Same as 1/
4/ contract with Hasselblad probably make it impossible and it may not be profitable
5/ X-T1 (last flagship) have many analog controls, more than previous X…
100% agreed with this comment. I believe on a 1:1 sensor. Probably 4:3 aspect ratio. Niche product? I’d say the X-Pro2.
If Fuji wants to go Medium Format with the X philosophy, great. I’m all for it. I’ll probably buy it as a complement for my current X kit. But if they start to have the APS/FF cameras/lenses mess of current DSLRs, it’s going to be a huge disappointment for me.
I’m all for MF camera, until I know the price I’m afraid…
Well, yes. Me too. But I would love to have a digital version of my Fuji GA645w… I probably wouldn’t get a complete system as I have now on DSLR/Fuji X…
For a Fuji MF I would gladly be willing to pay in the same rage of the price of the new Pentax systems $8000 $9000 of course you have to add the cost of new glass. so add that in
Well yes, APS-C is really crappy. Sorry for writing such rubbish…
It all goes back to the ongoing debate on the camera forums…it is not the camera…it is the photog pressing the button.
These were shot with a FF Leica 24mp
http://danielteolijrcurrent.tumblr.com/image/90113821726
http://rangefindercamera.tumblr.com/image/108404692249
http://rangefindercamera.tumblr.com/image/108397522959
These were shot with a Fuji X 16mp
http://danielteolijrcurrent.tumblr.com/image/64877331076
http://danielteolijrcurrent.tumblr.com/image/56968514491
This was shot with a Oly M43 12mp
http://danielteolijrcurrent.tumblr.com/image/56421173751
This was shot with a Sony P&S 20 mp
http://danielteolijrcurrent.tumblr.com/image/56420615518
This was shot with a Pentax 645D 40 mp
http://danielteolijrcurrent.tumblr.com/image/41325162620
This was shot with an Epson RD1…a lousy 6mp!
http://danielteolijrcurrent.tumblr.com/image/41300935147
Sure, the design of some tools make it easier to freeze time. And different cams and lenses produce different results. But if mp was the only factor then you could just shell out some bucks for high mp’s and be fantastic. But as we all know it does not work like that. But the camera fondlers out there will not have their hopes dashed. The only thing standing in their way of greatness is more and more mp’s.
HDR pictures look pretty ridiculous, regardless of megapixels or sensor format.
These look awful. So you proved your point, it’s the photographer, and not his tools, which are the most important. And I hope you are not the photographer of the linked images. They are really bad.
I think if you kill all the life out of your images like danielteolij in those links you can get away with using a potato as a camera and not really notice any diference.
There ARE differences between cameras, but not every will appreciate them…as is shown
Could those new “large” lenses possibly cover a medium format sensor? Seems like a stretch. Full frame, on the other hand, sounds entirely possible. But would FF be enough of a jump in quality? Fuji’s made a point of marketing their XTrans as competitive with FF at less cost, size and weight. How do they back away from that? This doesn’t add up to me, but I’d love a MF Fuji.
Sorry there’s no chance on medium format or full frame. APS-H maybe with some vignetting correction but that’s realistically about it.
Of course. Full frame will always make a imponderable jump in quality in any situation.
Fuji has a long tradition of making medium format film cameras with fixed wide angle lenses, sort of “one off” designs that they kept in the catalog for years. They did not have many features, but some very nice image quality. A medium format Fuji with a fixed lens that they could sell at a price that would be profitable would be easier to believe than another FF camera.
All I want from Fuji is a weather sealed x200 with a slightly improved sensor.
but he also praise iPhone images as useful, with much smaller sensor?
Are you serious?? http://camerasize.com/compare/#563,468
Smaller in some dimensions and only a little longer because of the lens. Considering the ridiculous difference in sensor size, the dimensions are pretty similar. I’m sure Fuji could use their optical magic to make a lens a little smaller, making it a similar size to the X100.
I loved my XPRO1 and Fuji XF 23mm & 35mm lenses, but it takes to much time for a descent sensor upgrade (more resolution for large format prints). I hoped there was coming an 24MP or more in 2014, i didn’t mind if it was in an XT1 or XPRO2 body or anything else, but after all these years they are still using the 16MP sensor from the first XPRO1. Last week i switched to a Sony A7 Fullframe 24MP with a nice Carl Zeiss 35mm. Sony gets it. Even more, they whill announce a A7R upgrade in februari, a fullframe 50MP! Same sensor we will propably find in the new Nikons.
Greetz,
Franky
http://www.deschampheleer.be
Sony gets it?? Look at their lens line up, not to mention quality of lenses, and lossy compressed RAW??? Watch for posturization. What Sony seems to do is through a bunch of stuff up on the wall to see what sticks. I’m not saying you won’t get nice images from your new Sony. You will. But to think Sony “gets it” just because they have a 24MP camera is simply not true, IMHO.
Fuji has a game plan, just like Sony, and the others. Now, you have made a decision to switch based on their R&D focus and marketing plans. That’s good. But I seriously doubt Sony “gets it”. Sorry.
They have a nice 35 & 55mm Carl Zeiss and have anounced a lot of quality lenses for 2015. Carl Zeiss is good, and 35mm & 55mm is all i need (same with xpro: 23 & 35mm), no need for zooms or big tele lenses on a compact body. PS: i waited more than 1 year for the 23mm came out, and it was announced on the XPRO1 launch. Now i go for Sony, but i’ll keep following this blog for news about Fuji because i really like Fuji.
But for now, they are standing still. And no, images from XPRO1 from several years ago and a XT1 is still the same.
Nikon does two levels of compression. “Lossless” compression is just that, in practice. Most pros use that setting. I used to use it with D700s as there was no noticeable compromise in quality, at least in practice.
Exactly, “Lossless”. No loss. It is very beneficial. Smaller file sizes and no loss of quality due to compression.
Fuji will take this premium xpro replacement full-frame, along with in body image stabilization; is this new glass rumored to work with larger sensors? I actually believe this works now from a marketing perspective, as the form factor and cost between full-frame and aps-c is becoming more negligible. Fuji cannot ignore this space, there is room for an XE/Xt aps-c lineup alongside something full-frame like this new xpro. A large mp full frame xtrans sensor would be fabulous. There is nothing more to be done at the cropped sensor size that isn’t already being done with their other cameras, I would personally not pay more money for something with slightly more mp or a few new features beyond what the xt1 offers. The XE2 replacement will cover off the ground that the xpro 2? would have occupied.
This sounds really odd/unlikely. I think it’s more likely Fuji would be working on their own take on MF (see Zack Arias pushing for this so much). I don’t buy these new Xtrans mount lenses would cover a bigger sensor with good image quality unless the camera went perhaps reasonably big. I don’t see the win if it’s just a “slightly bigger sensor”- it has to be much bigger than that.
I’ve been waiting for Fuji (or even Olympus) to increase the resolution. 16mp was fine a few years ago, to start, but when I am shooting with a D800 at 36mp the difference is pretty dramatic. I’d love to give up the bulky equipment, but 16 is just too low for me (once you have it, tough to go back!).
I hope that they do something soon. Sony does “get it”, as others noted. 24mp is fine, more is better (generally speaking, it’s like having a fast car…it can’t be too fast, having flexibility is always better).
Olympus’ 40mp “boost” is intriguing. I don’t care about full frame or super ISO.
I’ll keep praying! It’ll happen sooner or later, you can’t stand still and survive.
Could the new lenses have been designed to accommodate different larger mount. In other words same glass but larger “XD” mount for full frame? This would cut development costs for Fuji.
There is not one “right” answer to what cameras will be successfull. There are too many variables to know what will work best in next year’s market. We all tend to make guesses that favor our personal desires.
I would buy a full frame XPro2 and a few lenses in the 24-90mm range. With mid-range lenses this range-finder style camera could still be reasonably small and handy, smaller than the XT1 and battery grip with a lot of the big new lenses. It could give both higher resolution and better IQ. Adapted manual lenses could be used at their designed focal length. Nothing about this camera would make my APSc Fuji gear any less useful, it would simply add new capacity to my system. My adapted lenses would now all have two FOV choices. I would have two choices of file size availlable.
A camera like this could be fairly expensive and still be a bargain compared to Leica, and nothing Sony has made so far is as nice to use as the Fuji X-series is already. There are lots of reasons to continue to develop higher performance APSc bodies alongside a new FF line, particularly if the FF system is designed around the Rangefinder model, with a smaller sellection of mid-range FOV lenses. Rangefinder style cameras were once extremely popular. They can be again, when they achieve performance that surpasses DSLRs. Trying to make camera bodies with one particular sensor size that can work in every situation makes less and less sense. Long lenses have an edge with smaller sensors. Wide lenses benefit from big sensors. The traditional FF 35mm film sized) sensor is a very good match for the “normal” focal lengths of the traditional photojournalist’s high quality compact camera.
I can imagine that ILC systems could move toward a model with 2-3 camera bodies designed for ideal performance with wide (big sensor for landscape), normal (FF sensor fordocumentary) and long (APSc sensor for wildlife/journalism) lenses.
Improvement of their existing X-Trans Sensors, especially in low light, would be a good idea. An 8×8 pixel pattern (RGB, with transparent) X-Trans Sensor is the next step from their current 6×6 RGB design.
On Nov 29 2013 FujiFilm released a YT Video titled “Why a larger sensor is more important than the number of megapixels a camera has”, so perhaps a FF is coming (without an significant increase in MP).
Why they would want to go ‘half measure’ to APS-H and either: make new Lenses, offer Canon Lenses (the few available specifically for APS-H) or strap on FF Lenses (especially when their past has been for the smaller Camera).
APS-H is a road that Canon already abandoned. If your going to be saddled with the larger Lenses more often than not then you might as well have a Sensor that is matched to use the Glass you pay (plural) for (pay more $, and lug more weight; the only bonus is the quality is usually better).
My guess is small body Camera with FF Sensor, an small increase in the number of megapixels, likely bigger pixels, maybe a more complex Filter Array. All those improvements together will not be difficult for FujiFilm and will result in a much improved Camera (which is what they need to stay ‘Top Three’ ( / four ) and beat back Samsung’s NX Sensor).