*Fujifilm Reads You!
Click HERE to see the original FujiRumors Poll, that Fujfiilm used in an official presentation to the Press
APS-C line-up is (almost) complete
If you take a look at the eXcellent Overview over ALL existing and upcoming Fuji X mount lenses here, then you’ll see that with about 70 X-mount lenses available (or soon to come), we can not really talk of a lacking X-mount lens system.
Moreover, if the rumored lenses in Fuji’s roadmap will ever become true, then most of the needs of us X-shooters will be covered. At that point, the APS-C line-up can be considered almost complete.
The Poll
So the big question now is: once Fujifilm completed its APS-C line-up, should they offer a Full Frame sensor or a Medium Format sensor system in addition to its APS-C line-up? Or maybe none of the two and just stick with APS-C?
What would be the better choice for Fujifilm? Feel free to vote the Poll and drop your comment down below.
– – – POLL: Medium Format Fuji: Top 7 questions – – –
stay tuned on FujiRumors,
Fuji X Forum, Facebook, Google+, RSS-feed and Twitter
[poll id=”137″]
236 Responses
This poll is hard to answer.
On one hand APS-C is fine (for me), but I’ll think the market dictates that more people would like to have a full frame sensor inside their X-T or X-Pro.
As far as X-100 is concerned I’ll think that would be the perfect candidate for a cheap MF camera.
I think the same, and I’d buy it.
I would like fujifilm to make a x-10 S , with the S standing for the same as in sony’s cameras. A fully functional 51000iso would be grand! And maybe offer some videocapability.. But I’m satisfied with their products, very much!
APS and MF would make sense. 35mm not so much. Whatever people see in a fullframe sensor… sensor formats that sit next to each other aren’t offering enough to justify an upgrade (e.g. upgrading from APS to 35mm). The issue many people take with 35mm is often a mindset problem. When it comes to: “how much is enough?” we can choose any current camera and expect great results. Medium format on the other hand would offer a big enough jump in quality to justify the existence of both lines of bodies and lenses.
On the basis, that Full Frame relates to 35mm format and MF
relates to 6×6 or 645 format I voted MF. My reasoning is simple, the
benefit of 35mm over APS-x is relatively negligible with today’s sensors and
the facilities required for post processing, whereas the benefits of the sensor
size (re Pixel size) far outweighs that of 35mm format. APS is more than
good enough for the enthusiast photographer, while the benefits gained for the
professional with an MF format is always going to be desirable.
Why am I unable to edit my post? I needed to state “whereas the benefits of the MF sensor size (re Pixel size)”
Fuji should be the niche market queen.
There is room for ultra-simplified high end camera bodies.
Imagine:
24mp FF Sensor
Fujifilm simulations VSCO equipped
manual focus (split screen), digital needle exposure, hybrid viewfinder
ISO dial (back)
shutter speed dial
7 buttons: play image, delete image, exposure lock, flash on/off, wb, 2fn
Stop.
No need for instructions manuals, great legacy.
Take pic, choose film simulation, contrast, brightness, grain, print it.
Oh, and I would love a Pro Instax line, maybe working with the now sadly dead FP-3000b film…
Truly “ultra-simplified” would be a camera with just three dials (ISO, Tv and Exp.Comp.), a shutter release button and that saves in RAW only. (Aperture is set on the lens.)
Why not jpg only? Ultra-simplified means no need of a Mac…
Because RAW negates the need for in-camera “film simulations”, DR settings, etc.
Yeah, but I’d like 2 levels of simplicity.
1) The Hardware user interface (and we agree about controls);
2) The Software user experience. I want that CF/SD to be my multi-film roll in three steps.
;-/
The answer to (2) would be that you write an INI file onto the SD (or CF) card that sets the camera into a certain “film” mode. Swapping cards changes the film simulation and JPEG settings.
Wonderful! Give me a call when you are ready to kickstart this. ;-/
I disagree that the APS-C line-up of lenses is “almost complete”. There are many lenses still lacking, e.g. a 24mm f/2.8, a 135mm f/2, a 400mm f/5.6 and a fish-eye (that communicates with the camera).
the rumor says (but it’s still unconfirmed by trusted source), that Fuji has plans for a 8mm and 200mm.
Fisheye and 200mm prime already on the inofficial lens roadmap. And that 100-400 zoom has that 400 5.6 you want.
I don’t need the 100~200mm part of the 100~400mm zoom, as I’ve already got the 55~200mm. So can I get a discount on the zoom lens when it is released?
Besides the nonsense part of your answer… are you talking fullframe focal lengths or real focal lengths? That 24 2.8 sounds like you want a 16 2.8 as Fujis focal length is 23 for a 35 equiv.
Then it’ll have to be a 23mm f/2.8, even though I really would prefer that extra millimetre reaching power of a 24mm lens.
It’s not only a technical discussion – from a commercial point of view and market expectation only we can be sure that staying with an APS/C-only solution will be the least promising option to keep the X-series alive. Soon there’s not only Leica, but we all know how the Sony A7-line attracts a lot of professionals now, Canon will join the same segment soon and I also expect Nikon – all will show a very fierce competition in the same premium segment. MF will only be of interest for a very small niche – far too expensive for most and I’m not so sure what kind of thing Fuji can do with it. Look at their magnificent GX680 system, Once top of the bill and only affordable by a few studio-photographers that didn’t mind to miss a kidney and a leg – but all this gear is now on e-bay for a few 100$. Very used 50 year old Hassy-gear is still doing better. The only Fuji system that did retain some value are the TX1/2 panoramic 135-cameras. I’d rather see they did do something with a panoramic X-trans sensor for landscape photographers – within the x-series – than just going MF with the same Sony MF-sensor used by Pentax.
The biggest argument to support Fuji introducing a full frame mirrorless system isn’t image quality, it’s marketing. If Nikon and Canon bring out serious full frame mirrorless camera systems to join the ranks of Sony and Leica, it will be hard for Fuji to compete against the psychology of “bigger is better”.
An organic sensor might change that, I suppose. If you can argue, “Yes, our competitors’ sensors are bigger, but our sensor is four times more advanced…”, it might work.
From my own greedy perspective: full-frame! I mainly use old manual-focus legacy lenses, and a full-frame camera with IBIS would be ideal for that, and I don’t want to buy Sony. Fuji colors, controls, and styling are what I want.
I have no idea what makes financial or strategic sense from Fuji’s perspective.
As much as I’d love a MF system from Fuji, it’s a niche in a shrinking photo market Fuji plays a niche role in. To be honest, I can’t see how that R&D money could ever be regained trough sales… A single camera akin to the X100 with a MF sensor and a prime lens afixed to it, that would be a different story – I doubt I could afford/justify it however, as probably most of us. It would be a great HALO product, but probably with no positive influence on the financials.
I also think that – as many have already said – we’re at a point where nearly any camera with 1″ sensor or larger is good enough for 99% of us. APS-C as I see it is maybe two years behind in IQ compared to FF, so Fuji won’t gain much by spending considerable amounts on a FF system. If they invest that money wisely instead (AF, new sensor tech, software), they could probably come up with really useful innovations, that could give the X-lineup a comparative edge and help them conquer a larger piece of the market.
Fuji should concentrate on the niches it can be great at and that are maybe still not fully discovered by the market. The interchangeable line needs some trimming for example: X-E, X-Txx, X-Tx and X-ProX should be all there is but better differentiated through features, not IQ or handling: the same basic button layout and knobs so you could pick one up and feel right at home, all with EVF and tilt screen. Those don’t need to be equally good however. Just as materials, buffers, processors etc.. I’m no engineer, but I’m certain there are enough technologies you could safe on enough to offer compelling products between $500 and $2,000 that are profitable, offer same basic IQ, cater do different consumer groups and still allow for seamless upgrades or side by side using.
Next step would be to reinvent the compact line-up. The small sensored basic models don’t make much sense now and will make even less sense in the near future. I say bin them! Introduce a line with 1” sensor and also the basic control layout of the interchangeable X-line. I’d say three models: a super-zoom with at least a 500mm equivalent at the tele end akin to Canon’s G3X. A real Sony RX100 competitor – a beefed up X30 so to say. Last but not least, and a real industry first, a dream for sports, beaches, snorkelling etc.: waterproofed to at least 10m, fast, fixed prime between 28mm and 35mm equivalent with F1.4 or better. With 1” sensor mind you!
Last but not least a new X100, weatherproofed, bigger battery, tilt screen, new generation hybrid-viewfinder, faster lens with better IQ to compete on more equal grounds with Leica Q and Sony RX1.
Fuji, if all those boxes are checked, get cracking on that MF fixed compact, now will ya 😉
Great post. I like that the Fuji X cameras are only differantiated by features, and not image quallity.
I would disagree that a 1″ sensor is good enough for 99% of us. (My last camera was a Sony RX-100ii)
By us I meant people that take photographs, also the smartphone users. So I stick by it- 99% would be happy with a 1″ sensor, as long as the dedicated camera offers more than a phone and that would mostly be haptics that encourage creativity.
I took ‘us’ to mean those of us on this site (which not many of at all would be satisfied with 1″).
I see what you mean if your referring to 99% of people overall (including mostly people who just want snapshots)
Medium format sounds cool, but remember it is quite expensive. Check out the prices for PhaseOne or Hasselblad. How many of you guys are willing to pay between US$ 25000 – 53000 for a camera with digital back and one lens? Chances for Fuji to succeed on this market (= make a profit) are slim.
The big cost is the sensor. And they’re becoming cheaper by the day.
Lenses should also not be a problem. There are heaps of old Pentax and such lenses dating from the 1970’s onwards available.
What would be the differentiator for fuji medium format?
Canon has 50 MP, Sony has 42 MP, Nikon will probably have 42MP before long.
Imo, any MF around this MP range will be a very difficult thing to market – particularly given that fuji would be needing to develop a lot of other tech to compete (proper flash system, IBIS, etc).
To differentiate MF from existing/future high MP FF cameras, fuji would need to look at
– extremely high MP (100-150 MP)
– larger pixels at moderate MP for extreme high ISO performance
Either option, I can’t see how fuji could develop and sell such a system cheaply enough to make decent $. The market just isn’t there.
A MF x100 type camera could work and would be a differentiator but that is still quite a hefty investment.
Imo, FF is a better option for fuji to pursue – licence existing tech such as IBIS where possible to minimise development costs – priced around the same level as canon/sony, fuji design (dials) and colour would be sufficiently differentiate a fuji FF option (wouldn’t occur for MF as you’d be looking at >2-3X the price of current FF options)
Let’s remember that MF isn’t about just megapixels. It’s also about dof and spreading those pixels over a much larger sensor.
sure – but that is only part of the issue.
Would dof be sufficiently differentiated between a FF 85/1,2 vs the equivalent MF?
Given the expected price difference between the two products would easily be in excess of 5k USD (body/lenses) – try as I might, I just can’t see the differential being enough for fuji to attract sufficient customers.
The only way to attract such customers would be the 2 options I listed – Extreme high MP or low light performance. Both options would come with huge development and marketing issues.
IF fuji were to go MF, their best option would be to upscale the 12MP sony sensor + x-trans + IBIS for an approx 36-40MP low light king – but then try selling MF that has lower resolution than the 5ds @ upwards of 3X the price…
I agree, it’s not a huge market, but its also not a highly tapped market. Pentax is really the only company doing affordable MF cameras and it’s HUGE. If Fuji could get into MF with a smaller body it would attract a lot of people, myself included. Lets not forget that camera’s like Sony’s A7rii cost twice what an X-T1 or X-Pro2 will probably cost and they’re stealing customers by the day.
I don’t think a smaller body would do. The body needs to be big to balance the bigger lenses. IF fuji wants to come out with a MF system they have to differentiate from the other guys to gain a competitive advantage. A few features I can think of are
– fast AF with AF points all around the sensor. Current Phase, Hassys, and pentax have af points in the middle only. The Phase and Hassy AFs sucked so much that most people manually focused. If Fuji can get the AF to at least X-E1 level and have AF points all around the sensor, it would be a vast improvement. I think that alone can make a few people switch.
– Price comparable to Pentax. Phase and Hasselblad are charging a premium for their names. Fuji doesn’t need to do that.
– Leaf shutter
– Reliability. Phase and Hasselblads are known to be unreliable for their price point. Make the cameras and lenses rugged.
– This is the biggest thing to get current pros to move away from Phase or Hasselblads: have it work perfectly with Capture One including tethering. Capture One is the industry standard for most commercial photographers who use MF cameras. So it’s the most important piece if Fuji decides to come out with a MF camera.
If Fuji can do at least those points mentioned above, they might have a chance gaining some marketshare in the Medium Format area. I’ll probably won’t buy one, since a body and lens would be around $10000. But it would look attractive to a lot of working commercial photographers.
“The big cost is the sensor.” True
—
“And they’re becoming cheaper by the day.” False
Your false is wrong, because you failed to factor in the increase in resolution. For example, ten years ago an 8MP (APS-C) sensor cost X to produce; whereas today for the same cost of X you can produce a 24MP (APS-C) sensor. I really doubt whether it will still cost X to produce an 8MP (APS-C) sensor today.
Except that nobody would buy an 8mp sensor today, so that’s a red herring.
Sensor wafer production is still the single most expensive part of the camera. That has not changed one iota. And as the sensor size goes up, the failure rate in the yields goes up as well, which is costly. Unlike microchips, sensor wafers are not falling in relative cost.
If that is indeed so, then explain the huge difference in price between, for example, the Canon 7DII and the 750D.
It remains a rule of silicon manufacturing that larger sensors cost more to make. A lot more. The examples you’re asking for clarification about contain so many additional parameters and variables as to make such a comparison irrelevant. I would suggest you do that research for yourself.
FF doesn’t make sense. It’s only a format just a tiny bit bigger than APS-C. MF makes more sense although the market is probably just big enough to sell only a few cameras.
a) Full Frame 24 x 36 = 864 mm2
b) APS-C 15,7 x 23,6 = 370,52 mm2
a/b = 2,33
I don’t think that is “a tiny bit bigger”.
The backside: Body and lenses will be bigger as well, accordingly.
FF is overrated. The difference between APS-C and FF is way smaller than the difference between FF and MF. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY
I always used FF in the past. Sold my last FF only months ago.
Hilarious ! H’ve seen it before. So APSC for me with (new) supertech inside the box.
A Sony ?
Hilarious but so very true; This video should be a mandatory watch before posting
APS-C is overrated. The difference between APS-C and m43 is smaller than the difference between APS-C and FF. For someone who is “Not so much into debating”, you clearly do engage a lot in it.
You have a lot in common with the other guy. You have no links to backup your point. You show no work to backup your point. All things I actually did. Only thing you can do is being rude into the debate. If you need a FF in order to satisfy your small ego it’s fine to me. Heck, buy 3 FF cameras and a bag full of lenses if it makes you happy and feel superior towards the poor APS-C users. Do you really think I give a f*ck what Vladimir has in his camera bag? I don’t even know you man. Get a life!
How was I being rude precisely? Because you were. My work is entirely irrelevant to the discussion – it won’t make my argument or worse. And I certainly do not feel superior to APS-C users, that would be ridiculous; not to mention that this wasn’t my point at all. But hey, play the victim and continue with your nonsense.
[But hey, play the victim and continue with your nonsense]
Rude again. Now please could you just offer us some links to websites that prove your point? How difficult is that. I posted a Youtube clip and an article. I can even post more articles if needed. Just use Google. Others mentioned the same thing. One stop benefit from FF over APS-C. That’s basically all. And yes. Why don’t you give us samples of your work that prove your point? You feel uncertain to post your portfolio? I posted mine.
I don’t understand people who are so certain of themselves and their opinions but hesitate to show their work. You should be proud of your work and grab every opportunity to share it with others.
“your small ego”
“makes you happy and feel superior towards the poor APS-C users”
“you really think I give a f*ck what Vladimir has in his camera bag?”
“Get a life!”
For anyone reading this, it is pretty clear who is the rude on here.
Now, to reiterate the point I made above – saying that FF is “overrated” or that the increase in IQ is too small to be relevant is saying that APS-C is good enough. However, that is nothing more than an entirely subjective view, as it depends entirely on the user and his requirements – hence my initial comment which was meant to show that you can place the point of sufficiency anywhere. So, this is a bad argument against FF, or for APS-C or whatever. >>The argument is bad.<< My work doesn't change any of that, no matter how much you want to see it. You work doesn't change that either.
“For
someone who is “Not so much into debating”, you clearly do engage a
lot in it”.
Totally unnecessary remark don’t you think? I stated that FF is overrated since the difference between APS-C and FF is much smaller than the difference between FF and MF. To back this up I posted some sources. The only thing I get back from you is a personal opinion without any sources to back it up. Why is that? We can debate for weeks but as long as you can only express personal opinions instead of facts it seems we are done debating. And you still don’t show work. Why not?
Agreed, that remark was unnecessary. However, it was way less rude than what you wrote.
Now, to answer your other questions. Yes, the difference between APS-C and FF is much smaller than the difference between FF and MF. So what? And the difference between m43 and APS-C is even smaller. And the difference between a phone and APS-C is bigger than that between FF and MF. All of this doesn’t make anything overrated or anyone superior. These are personal choices. That’s the only argument I made above (I made others throughout the comment section, we can discuss those too).
Now, how is my work going to make what I just said better or worse? It is irrelevant. It can’t support my point, because my point has nothing to see with the quality of my photos. It also has nothing to see with the quality of yours. We are all making personal choices based on the quality that we perceive as good enough.
So, I do not see the need to show my work and I certainly wouldn’t like to have comments about my ego or how I should get a life on my website.
Ok agreed. I maybe was too harsh in my response to what I considered a personal attack. My apologies for that. In the meantime you still don’t seem to be able to backup your claim with simple samples and sources. I did show a small part of my work on Flickr to make a few points. It will be hard for you to see if work was done with APS-C or FF. My second point by showing my work was to show that I have experience with both APS-C and FF (and 43 for that matter). So if we skip the facts which I already proved with some links and keep it as a personal opinion which you consist in doing than I can tell you it really doesn’t matter. My last documentary which I shot last year december (not on Flickr for privacy reasons) was shot with the 5D MKII and L glass mixed with the Fuji X-M1/X-T1 and some primes. There was no difference at all. As soon as you are really in need for a bigger sensor (studio photography) you should get into MF. The difference between APC-C and FF is marginal and it is the marketing that does a great job into telling you the difference is substantial. So there we are. Enough debating for today I think. I need to start doing some work. Still feel free to post some of your work. It’s always nice to see other peoples work.
Ok, I see. You are talking about my other points below. Basically, why FF is better (or not). As I mentioned previously, these are personal choices, so I will explain what it means to me.
One thing that I consider as an indisputable fact is that the IQ (overall) of FF is better than APS-C. I can’t really speak as to your experience, but the 5DMKII is a rather old sensor, compared to the Fuji X-T1 and X-M1. There’s a 5 year gap (or something like that) and that surely accounts (to an extent) for the results you see. Other things that would account for said results would be your subject, workflow, output and what you perceive as good enough quality.
Onto my case. I pretty much always see a difference, but depending on the situation, it can be so small that it is entirely irrelevant. This is not always the case though. In difficult scenarios, the IQ is clearly better, especially when printed relatively big. Another thing to consider is that the files are generally more flexible, so it allows for more convenient PP. I also like to crop to zoom, as I am using primes almost exclusively and the highest res sensors are FF. Two things here; first, as you say, MF would be better, however the price jump is huge; the jump in IQ from APS-C to FF isn’t that big, but then the price difference is also much more acceptable; second, none of what I just described would make or break the shot. Most of my shots that I am happy with could have easily been taken with even a compact and would still look fine. However, I prefer to get the best quality I can afford.
I am simply unwilling to post a link to my work here, but let me know if you participate in some forums where private messaging exists.
Before I even start to respond I really need to know more about your work. What cameras you use to get to your conclusion. Otherwise it’s useless. Feel free to contact me on Flickr if you feel more comfortable with that. I posted a link to my feed.
Sent you a message.
Got it 😉
We’re fighting against a billion dollar marketing indoctrination using reason as our only weapon. No way we can win.
“The difference between APS-C and FF is way smaller than the difference between FF and MF”
No, that is not (entirely) correct. The quote between FullFrame/APSC is larger than Medium Format/FullFrame, which means that it is a bigger step to go FullFrame from a Fuji X than it is to go MediumFormat from FullFrame. Let’s do the math:
If we by FullFrame mean sensor size
c) Leica S: 45 x 30 = 1350 mm2 or
d) Pentax 645Z: 43,8 x 32,8 mm = 1437 mm2
c/a (LeicaS / Fullframe) = 1,56
d/a (Pentax645Z / FullFrame) = 1,66
and as before
a/b (FullFrame/APS-C) = 2,33
PhaseOne sensors are bigger though… lol
Conclusion: It is a big step up in sensor size from APS-C to Full Frame. It is even bigger than going from Full Frame to Medium Format. I am not talking image quality here, just sensor size.
You will get better low light performance and capable to use longer lens.
One stop extra isn’t worth it.
Fuji is currently using a sensor that has same pixel density with D810, which is 36MP. You definitely can buy a 16MP or 24MP FF camera. I don’t believe D4s is just one stop better than D810.
There is no evidence it has more benefit than this one stop. I understand people like to believe it’s more but currently it is what it is. Only benefit is that you can use extremely shallow DOF. But how often will you shoot FF wide open @ 1.2? I never did with my FF cameras. https://photographylife.com/sensor-crop-factors-and-equivalence
you need something more intuitive. Of course this is only part of it. Tone range is better with big pixels. http://neilvn.com/tangents/review-high-iso-performance-nikon-750-vs-nikon-d4s-d4-d810-d610/
Anyway it seems you dont see the benefits of lens with longer focal length.
It seems you know. Explain it to me than and show me some of your work which couldn’t be done with APS-C. It is possible I overlooked something.
Do your homework. This topic is an old cliche and had been discussed too much.
I gave a few links to explain my point. You didn’t. You just get rude. Have a nice day.
I also wish my debating skill is related to image quality of my camera.
I have no clue what you mean. I’m a humble amateur who makes pictures for fun. Not so much into debating. https://www.flickr.com/photos/sjoerdvenema/
Lol nice way of avoiding the topic and showing an example of your work to prove your point.
You ever learn anything about photography other than pressing the shutter release? You can keep using your 23mm and 35mm to take portrait and complain later why your face looks fat or nose sticking out too much. Below shows the same setting taken with different lens.
This also arises other practical issues. With D810 (same pixel density with XT1), to avoid shaky hands I need to push shutter speed to 1/(3.5*focal length). On a 24MP or 16MP FF model it should be less than 1/(1.5*focal length). You already have 1-2 stops of better performance on FF and now can have lower safe shutter speed with higher resolution.
System wise Fuji is not cheaper anyway. Canon/Nikon+Tamron is doing a great job at similar price tag.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0f518a3bac890ec70844d5e07b905cab031b971f53975e91c130bccfd1a5cfdc.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c1f900df842c02d35958a9c3632b20dace5dafc399003ade9eb10c45681cd632.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4db53a0c171ce51bbb31157d173d1037e84924b711f6ca0dee74ba77e24f46fd.jpg
sooooo this is you example why we need FF? lol
So you didn’t deny my first sentence. Interesting.
Ok I’ll bite. Your giving examples of focal lengths so what? The photos are crap – this could have been shot with any camera. Yeah FF will give you thinner DOF and you can push ISO higher – but the photos are still crap.
You didn’t even see the point. This is to show prospective compression of longer focal length when your FOV is about the same.
You really need to sharpen your “teeth” (skills) first.
yeah i understand compression. omarbarcenas.com have a look at the very first photo – shot with a 135mm equivalent on APSC. So what’s your point?
What’s your point by going in the same direction with me while denying me?
you are so lost.
You were making point about the benefits of FF. This whole thread is about FF vs APSC. There isn’t that much of a difference in REAL life between FF and APSC hence my post about shooting with a 135mm equiv on APSC -no one knows the difference,and no one cares – except for nerds.
I thought I had posted pictures to show REAL life difference in prospective compression. However being a photographer doesn’t seem to make you happy so you start to drop self-requirement.
What does compression have to do with FF? I can get the same compression on APSC so what? You’re the one arguing about the benefits of FF and now you talk about compression which has nothing to do with FF.
Right, it’s related to distance. But we use cameras with FOV in mind which means you shoot at same distance with cropped lens and FF lens with equiv FOV. For example, at 1m, a 90mm 6*9 lens and a 14mm apsc lens, which looks more exaggerated?
As a paid photographer, I believe you know this.
I know what compression is. I understand what FOV is. Wide lenses have exaggerated lines. So what?
I definitely don’t want to use a 18mm apsc lens but a 28mm FF lens when I am in a coffee shop taking a picture of whoever sits across the table.
Compression with equivalent focal lengths is the same, smart ass. The two above produce exactly the same result. Sorry Chris, but somewhere along the line you’ve picked up false assumptions.
If a native APSC lens says 23mm, it is 23mm. But you use it as a 35mm FF lens. They are not the same.
You’ve tried it already? That was fast.
If you adapt FF back to apsc it’s another story. However in native mount they are different.
You’re confused. Shooting 35mm f/1.4 with APSC will look exactly the same as shooting a 50mm f/2.0 lens in full frame. Same compression same DOF, etc. Also, don’t be so focused on bokeh. You don’t want your subjects to be out of focus every time they breathe.
Oh, please! Seriously, if this was true, then it should also be true that if I crop the FF photograph in my favourite image program to the same dimensions as APS-C I would get the same image as taken with the 35mm lens. Only I don’t, because perspective and friends are different.
If you do that then you would get the same image if you took it with an APSC camera using the same lens. Where am I wrong here?
The perspective is different, that’s where.
Maybe I wrote it wrong. You stand 10 feet from a subject with your full frame camera and 50mm lens at f/2.0. You shoot the subject.
Then you stay where you are and take your APSC camera with a 35mm lens at f/1.4 and take the same picture.
The two photos will be framed pretty much the same. The depth of field, the perspective, the compression, the framing, etc.
Yes, the field of view (FoV) will be roughly the same; however, the perspective will be different.
You’re mistaken. Perspective is not based on lens. It depends on distance to subject.
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2014/08/15/debunking-the-myth-that-focal-length-affects-perspective/
Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle, because that is indeed so. Then why all the ruckus about full-frame if we can get the same from “equivalent” micro-4/3 lenses?
Well, depth of field. You would need faster lenses to get the same DOF with smaller sensors. To get a full frame 50mm f/2.0 look on m43, you would need something like a 25mm f/1.0.
Also, high ISO quality would get better as sensors get bigger. A 18 megapixel m43 sensor would have much worse DR and high ISO capabilities than an 18megapixel full frame sensor. With all things equal, the m43 sensor would need to be about 9 megapixels to match the high ISO capabilities of an 18 megapixel full frame sensor.
Also, the lenses for bigger sensor cameras tend to be better. I don’t know if it’s because larger lenses are easier to make, but generally it seems the lens quality goes up as the sensors get bigger.
DoF ain’t everything, but I reckon if it’s really important then that person should anyway be yearning for medium format.
High ISO etc. has to do with the photosites on the sensor and not the size of the sensor, as you stated. However, this type of discussion I can never understand, because if the micro-4/3 sensor has more photosites (i.e. more points of failure during manufacturing because the photosites are smaller), then why are they cheaper than full-frame sensors?
Larger lenses should be easier to make, although the cost of the increased optical glass would probably negate the saving. For me the answer lies in marketing: try asking the same for that micro-4/3 25mm f/1.0 lens as a full-frame 50mm f/1.2 lens (not exactly optically the same, but that’s marketing): “You’re asking that much for something that small!”
The lenses for smaller sensors are actually usually better which is why they are also quite expensive compared to equivalent FF lenses.
The problem is that on small sensors the pixels are much smaller so the lens sharpness needs to be much higher to end up with a sharp image. That’s why many old Nikkor Ai(-S) lenses are wonderful to use on a camera like the D700 but really show their weakness when used on 16 or even 24 MP APS-C cameras.
“Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle, because that is indeed so. Then why all the ruckus about full-frame if we can get the same from “equivalent” micro-4/3 lenses?”
Diffraction at smaller apertures, and performance limits at big apertures. With MFT you can only go up to F5.6 or F8 max before you encounter diffraction, and at something like F1.4 the lens performance starts to show its limits. Compared to FF where you can go up to F11 to F16 before you start to notice diffraction, but lenses can still perform all the way to F1.4. This means you have a much wider range to choose from, offering more flexibility and control over the results.
So F1.4 to F8 on MFT will give you the same as F2.8 to F16 on Full Frame, but on FF you get two stops of extra play assuming you have F1.4 available. With performance stopped down to F2.8 of course much better than on MFT forced to shoot wide-open for a comparable result.
The difference is basically exactly 2 stops between FF and MFT, and 1 stop between APSC and FF. It makes sense because FF is 4 times the surface area of MFT, and APC compared to FF is twice. It’s all so very neat and perfect really once you get your head around it.
It doesn’t matter what you’re typing now Chris, your assumption about compression is wrong and you’ll see it only when you try it .. since you’re obviously not going to take my word for it.
Your theory is true when you adapt a FF lens on apsc.
Another thing is you will loose bokeh.
http://petapixel.com/2013/01/11/how-focal-length-affects-your-subjects-apparent-weight-as-seen-with-a-cat/
“there isn’t that much of a difference in REAL life”
Well, that’s the issue, isn’t it – what is “much”? Why not shoot M43 then, not much difference. Or, Nikon1? I mean, only the nerds could care about APS-C and interchangeable lenses, no?
It is clear that for you this doesn’t matter, but simply discarding the benefits of FF and explaining how those who are interested in them are some clueless nerds is hardly the best argument. Actually, it isn’t one at all.
You do understand that compression and FOV with sensors this close in size is affected as much by relative camera-to-subject and subject-to-background distance as it is by focal length, right?
Time for a trip to the dentist, perhaps? 😉
Back in 2012 Fuji released a unique system based on what most people considered ‘a large sensor for a compact system’. A part of the photography-enthousiast market bought into the X-Pro1 believing this X was some kind of new, Japanese Leica, cheaper, more affordable – like myself – performing to comparable standards. Some expected they would beat Nikon & Canon’s mass-production by converting to a niche manufacturer that had gained some credentials in camera-history. But the early X-series were not without flaws – slow and often frustrating cameras – I’ve literally seen people that bought an X-series, and sold it a few weeks later. In my view, the X-E2 was the first mature version. When Fujifilm would have to to release today a new camera line based on ‘just’ an APS/C concept I don’t think the system would make commercially any chance to survive vs current of FF-based camera’s – DSLR’s like the D610/D750/Df and Sony A7x. A lot of the present user base came from APS/C DSLRs and never even owned a real 35mm camera. Though there is a lot to love in the X-series pure photography-oriented kind of style, when the money I invested in this system was back on my bank-account – I don’t think I would back select Fuji. They’ve really hurt me a few times with serious technical issues and thought they did the outermost to overcome this, I’m still missing f.i. a decent flash solution. The true fact is that the X-series are just a small sidekick from a company reaching out to entirely different markets, what also explain why they are moving so slow. I predicted a few times they will be in the danger zone when the X-Pro2, X-T2,… disappoint. The benchmark for most new buyers will not be the OM-series, but the Sony A7-range and I’m really curious to see whether how they are going to beat a camera-line based on FF 24-42MP sensors with very high ISO capabilities, a 5-axys IS. I don’t know – it would be a pity to lose the X-series after all, but not going full speed for something better and staying way to long with this 16MP APS/C concept while even a smallest DSLR doesn’t do less than 24MP might have been the wrong historical decision.
What does an example of his work have to do with the fact that full frame clearly provides advantages over aps-c? Sometimes it makes my head spin the stuff that is said on this page. Aps-c vs FF isn’t even debatable. Can you make good pictures with aps-c… Sure. But you would be getting better results out of FF
but I won’t be carrying around that FF all day – so there won’t be a camera in my hand in the first place. Do you understand that at a certain point quality does NOT matter,if the photo is good I don’t care if it’s grainy. You’ve obviously never seen Magnum photographers? You would be shocked at the lack on DR or megapixels in their photos.
But you know what the funny thing is.PEOPLE DON’t CARE.A good photo is a good photo no matter what camera you use.
Yeah FF is cleaner at high ISO – that point has been made for years. People who buy into Fuji buy it for other reasons rather than hoping Fuji will go FF.
Oh yes the rx1r mk2 is just small as x100t.
but it’s 2.5 times the price.
And it’s not interchangeable. We’re talking about X Pro 2 not x100T
Pick up A7 then. Not much bigger except for some lens. You get similar DOF anyway. I am very sure your paid work can pay off these easily.
ahhh but lenses are a big part of the system. no way is the A7 with a 35mm 1.8 VS XPRO with 23mm 1.4 would be the same QUALITY as Fujinon (Sony is NOT up to par, their lenses are crap).
Size and weight comes with image quality. You forget Sony has 35/1.4.
http://admiringlight.com/blog/sony-zeiss-fe-35mm-f1-4-vs-fuji-xf-23mm-f1-4/
The Fuji looks way smaller in that link you posted. Soooo again you miss the point.
Well that’s a 28-70 zoom and a 23mm. Just pick up a smaller lens, genius.
It is you who also missed the point :
“Sony is NOT up to par, their lenses are crap”
I would like to see how the Fuji will come anywhere close to the a7rII with any FE lens, with the exception of the kit zoom and the FE2470. Get real.
Actually no you missed the point. You have not read this whole thread and just replied out of context. Read what was written before you make pointless arguments. Look at that size difference and what do you actually gain from it? Photos that look better at 100% magnification? Lol.
Can you show me you work? Can you show me prints that’s literally almost billboard size to show off these megapixels?
Haven’t you seen the latest iPhone 6 ads that’s printed at about 2 x 3 meter? Do you know how many people have said how many megapixels is that? – none. You know what they say? – That’s a nice photo.
Only geeks peak. Photographers take photos.
Didn’t miss any point – you said that Sony lenses are crap, which is simply a ridiculous statement – that’s my argument and that is the point I addressed.
You really need to read the whole thread. Let me spell it out for you. People buy Fuji because it’s small and light. You’re comparing to a A7 that is massive and heavier with the same lens setup. Do you comprehend yet?
I think your argument applies more to street photography then some other areas. Landscape for instance is a complete game changer…
now you’re understanding. What type of photography do you think Fuji attracts? S T R E E T
So why would we want a bigger camera for a similar performance?
I think Fuji attracts photographers who come from a film background, like manual controls, and love the aesthetic and colors that Fuji provides. I do however know (since I worked at a camera shop) that Fuji does not specifically attract street shooters. There are lots of travel photographers as well as new day street/city shooters (think hype beast) who want a smaller stylish camera. Fuji shooters often look at what Sony has and wish they could have that tech in a Fuji body with manual controls and a decent menu system. Assuming the majority of X shooters just want to shoot street is incredibly incorrect.
“I do however know (since I worked at a camera shop)…”
Well, that explains everything right there. 😉
Maybe I should elaborate. When I say “worked” I should have said “consulted”. And not at a local shop, a big one, maybe where you get your cameras tax free…
I’ve spent the last decade working daily as a brand director for companies you wear everyday and work with both up and coming and top A-list photographers. Let’s talk a little about your background before you assume I’m some shop kid making minimum wage.
Well, first of all you have no idea what I wear every day [I don’t go in for “designer” labels]; second, anyone can call themselves a consultant; and third, being a brand director isn’t the same as being a professional photographer.
Frankly, you’ve talked about nothing, just thrown around some hyperbole. What makes you think I have any interest in getting into a pissing contest with you about careers? I’m quite comfortable in what I’m doing, thanks just the same.
Maybe the fact that you choose to assume because I’ve worked with camera stores and have actual experience with why people in mass scale by X cameras that I don’t know anything, or “that explains everything”.
My job is working (booking) and producing photo shoots and video shoots on a daily basis. On top of being a photographer as a hobby (a pretty serious one) I get the chance to talk to people in the industry everyday about this kind of stuff. If you can see any value in this then it’s kind of lost on you.
To be frank every point you make on this forum kind of hurts my head. You regurgatate things we hear from the Fuji managers like the advantages of aps-c over FF and refer to them like they’re fact… Even though a majority of people in the comments never bought that story.
What you always fail to realize is that you think anyone with an opposing idea is drinking the full frame Kool Aid. Maybe you should start asking yourself hoe many professionals are shooting with APS-C sensors? Is there a reason they might choose full frame or MF for their jobs instead? Nobody is trying to say that you can make a great picture with an aps-c sensor or P&S camera but please stop defending aps-c as if FF really has no advantages and it’s all marketing. It’s not, it’s science.
People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. If you’re sick of hearing about how great APS-C is, perhaps you shouldn’t be on a Fujifilm forum constantly droning on about how much “better” full frame is. Everyone here is a bit sick of it.
As to your photographic “experience”; thanks for confirming for me that my expertise outstrips yours, period.
Care to support that? Or, is it just your opinion? Here’s mine – every Fuji user I know shoots landscapes and travel. It is funny how the discussion starts about which format provides better IQ and the moment those defending the smaller sensors run out of arguments, the format suddenly becomes irrelevant and all those who supported the bigger format are clueless geeks who know nothing about photography. Can’t win eh?
So you bought Fuji to travel lighter and shoot landscapes with Fuji glass that opens up to 1.4? You shoot landscapes at 1.4? Lol.
And now you want a FF camera that is somehow lightweight – defying physics? Have a look at the sony equivalent of a xt1 23mm 1.4 and tell me that the x pro 2 can do any better.
You can’t have it all.
You should chill out.
“So you bought Fuji to travel lighter and shoot landscapes with Fuji glass that opens up to 1.4? You shoot landscapes at 1.4? Lol.”
That doesn’t make any sense in the context.
“And now you want a FF camera that is somehow lightweight – defying physics?”
I also have an answer to that, but I will give it when you chill out and start thinking.
I’ve seen results out of a P&S that blew away a result I have seen from an A7rii. Seriously, the format has such a negligible impact on the picture, that the only advantage/disadvantage is the person wielding the camera. Those that think formats are the end all, be all, are usually terrible photographers.
So are you saying a P&S is superior to an A7rii? And that tech has nothing to do with anything?
I’ve said this a million times before… Under great lighting conditions any camera can take a great picture and format does not matter. Once you get into difficult shooting situations that where the cameras tech can really shine…
http://i.imgur.com/tyTc1Nl.jpg
You’re missing the point… Let’s be clear, the most important part of the camera is the person behind it… But that’s your “constant”. Don’t compare different people with different cameras, compare the same person with different cameras.
If I’m shooting a long exposure with a current Fuji in tough lighting conditions I need to bracket my images. With an A7rii I have a lot more room to push the shadows as well as get longer exposure time from ISO 100.
Saying the tech doesn’t matter is a dumb argument.
Too bad so many of the native Sony lenses are garbage.
I agree with this, and it’s one of the reasons I shoot Fuji and not Sony. But don’t think they won’t start releasing new lenses soon. People use to say that about Sony and firmware updates but they’re addressing those too.
“Sony lenses are garbage”
Lol. Ok.
In my experience that is usually when the technology in the camera fails and I have to resort to manual everything, i.e. photographic skills.
I’m always shooting manual everything… We’re talking about sensor technology…. Not AF or anything like that.
Really? No.
Huh? Im not sure I understand the point you’re trying to make. I agree that features like AF struggle in low light especially with mirrorless. But if you get into a situation where you need to bracket you don’t agree that having a sensor with wider dynamic range and better low light sensitivity is a tech advantage? Not sure how manual settings have anything to do with that if you’re already using them.
ONE: You wrote it as “cameras tech”, which means the whole camera as a complete package and not only the sensor.
TWO: the dynamic range and/or low-light sensitivity of a sensor has absolutely nothing to do with the physical dimensions of the sensor, but rather with the actual composition of the photosites, A/D processor, etc. For example, if you switch those full-frame NIKON cameras into APS-C mode, the dynamic range and the low-light sensitivity remains exactly the same … because it is the same sensor. Or another example would be to compare the output from a Canon 5Ds with the Canon 7DII and see if the full-frame 50MP sensor has more DR and such.
Sorry for the typo, it was in regards to sensor size so I thought that was clear.
I understand DR not being based on actual size, but am talking in more of a real world way. The sensor tech for full frame sensors is clearly ahead of aps-c sensors though and therefor you will achieve better results with the current full frame sensor tech compared to apsc.
And while this may change if we really do get 14.5 stops out of the new X-pro1 sensor (probably Sony) we can be sure that they will only further the advantage with there full frame sensor tech.
“Those that think formats are the end all, be all, are usually terrible photographers.”
Another straw man and an assumption.
Another that is more concerned with impressing the neighbors than improving skill and knowledge.
Nobody gains knowledge through straw man arguments.
Nobody gains skill blaming their equipment.
Rubbish. Define better. Because I can cite examples where APS-C would be the “better” choice. Like when you need a greater zone of sharpness while still shooting wide open.
greater zone of sharpness while still shooting wide open? You understand that doesn’t make sense right?
1. You shoot wide open for 1 of 2 reasons. Because you need more light or to blur the background. A full frame camera would let you bump your ISO higher (more light) without losing quality. And if you need greater zone of sharpness you could also stop down, and bump your ISO. Not to mention with Sony IBIS cameras you can handhold at a much slower shutter giving you more light.
“A full frame camera would let you bump your ISO higher (more light) without losing quality. And if you need greater zone of sharpness you could also stop down, and bump your ISO.”
And with an f/1.2 lens [for example] on an APS-C camera, you can benefit from increased DOF while using a lower ISO. With full frame you’ll have to stop down to ensure a greater zone of sharpness and subsequently raise your ISO, thereby losing some of the IQ advantage you gain from the bigger sensor.
Simple physics really. But hey, don’t let that stop you from drinking the full frame Kool Aid.
Your backtracking… Because you realize your wrong. FF has better low light performance, so if I can stop down and bump ISO, I’m not losing anything am I? Because I can produce the same results at 1-2 stops higher ISO. On the flip side, I have the option to shoot wide open with the FF and produce more shallow dof then the apsc sensor would allow.
Sorry, but once again, having to bump the ISO to gain more DOF means that at the end of the day you’re no further ahead. But you are packing a larger heavier system overall.
Advantage: APS-C.
Mardock, this is the last time I’m going to respond to you because you may be the most annoying person on this forum, it’s clear your just a fanboy, and you can’t even imagine things from any other perspective. Your goal is to defend Fuji, not to be objective or understand that some people may want other things or options out of a camera manufacturer. You constantly fail to understand that myself and other people on this forum are Fuji shooters which make our opinions valid to Fuji as a whole as we are people who would buy their cameras.
Now in response to your apps-c dof response. You’re an idiot. All I said was that you can still achieve more dof by bumping ISO without losing quality. If you think the majority of people want to shoot wide open to achieve more dof you are greatly mistaken. Most people want to shoot wide open for shallower dof and to blur backgrounds.
Advantage full frame.
“Define better.”
Better image quality – it was defined all throughout the thread.
Better image quality how? Comparing which sensors? I’m pretty confident that the sensor in the forthcoming X-Pro 2, for example, will have better IQ than a Nikon D4 … and it will CERTAINLY have better IQ than just about ANY Canon full frame camera ever produced (not counting those silly 50mp versions they just introduced – though the Fuji will probably beat them for high ISO).
Simply overall. In the sense that it will be more flexible. But I do understand your point and especially the Canon example 🙂 The D4 is old though, how about the a7rII, which also uses a Sony sensor?
Anyway, that 16MP sensor in the Fuji is excellent and many companies have done great things with it, Pentax comes to mind. However, it simply doesn’t compare to the tones and flexibility of an FF sensor; example, pulling the shadows in a landscape shot, having subtle nuances in how the sky is rendered etc. I also enjoy the higher resolution of newer bigger sensors a lot. As I mentioned in another comment, none of these would make or break a shot. But, by the same token, one could also invest in an even smaller sensor than APS-C. I see a difference, I find it relevant and useful, I splurge. And, to think about it, FF nowadays is hardly that more expensive, so it is not like I am paying some astronomical amount of money for a minor increase in flexibility.
Of course, as you put it, when one starts to figure in cost, features, different generations of sensors, different brands etc. it does become only a single aspect of the choice and certainly a minor one.
Nobody is arguing that the same work “cannot” be done with APS-C, only that the IQ will be better. And if you need proof for that, then… You can just google around.
Yeah one stop difference noticeable at 100%
The point being made is – is it really worth that one stop difference. I’d rather have lighter gear and enjoy my day shooting rather than carrying around a heavy camera with a heavy lens for a 1 stop improvement that can only be seen at 100% magnification.
You may say it’s all about IQ especially for landscapes, but what type of photographers do you think Fuji targets? It’s not landscape that’s for sure.
Also if people really need that 14 stop DR people need to go back to basics and learn to expose properly.
Also you can’t see 14 stops in print – it’s just there just in case, which goes back to my point, learn the basics don’t rely on RAW to save you.
“is it really worth that one stop difference”
Well, indeed, that is the question. For some, it will be. For others (probably most) it won’t be. But the difference is there and in specific situations can be very useful, although, admittedly it won’t necessarily make or break a shot.
“You may say it’s all about IQ especially for landscapes, but what type of photographers do you think Fuji targets? It’s not landscape that’s for sure.”
Yes, I am a landscape shooter. I disagree with that assumption, though. Yes, there are a lot of street shooter using Fuji, but people use it for everything.
Or buy a better printer.
“show me some of your work which couldn’t be done with APS-C”
Straw man.
As a general rule, assuming equivalent sensor technology across platforms, there is about a 1 to 1.5 stop improvement between each of the popular formats as you go up in size. Full frame provides about a 1-1.5 stop improvement over APS-C, which in turn offers about a 1-1.5 stop improvement over m4/3.
Dynamic range and tonal response are different matters, however.
Yes it is. There are many cases that 1 to 2 stops – and most of all the better ISO performance of the current FF camera’s matter a lot. Fuji’s weakest point remains dim light conditions – they can still be extremely frustrating compared to most FF-camera’s on the market. In this APS/C realm Fuji can’t overcome the optical limitations too – only create the same shallow depth as the standard FF-glass by developing far more complex, expensive and most of all heavy lenses. They’re very good in doing this, but there is no magic involved and some of those zooms are really huge, very FF-alike in my eyes.
What specific situations can you think of that 1 stop benefit really matters so much you couldn’t solve that with good glass? And don’t you agree that if you really need this extras you could better go for a MF setup like most professional studio photographers do?
“What specific situations can you think of that 1 stop benefit really matters so much you couldn’t solve that with good glass?”
When you’re shooting in a kinetic environment where you are stationary and need the framing flexibility of a zoom (and f/2.8 isn’t fast enough).
“What specific situations can you think of that 1 stop benefit really matters so much you couldn’t solve that with good glass?”
> Well, that is precisely the issue isn’t it? Why should I solve it with glass, which is big and expensive? I’d rather solve it with the camera for my type of usage. Interesting how that one stop never makes a different between sensors, but is always a huge deal for lenses.
The latest APSC sensor’s low light capabilities come very close to FF’s. It’s negligible. Also, having thin DOF is not the end all be all. The lower aperture is useful for low light situations. Most pros shoot 2.8 or higher because they actually want things in focus.
“…some of those zooms are really huge…”
Another fallacy. Huge for APS-C? Perhaps.
Huge by full frame standards? Decidedly not. The 50-140mm f/2.8 is about the same size as most DSLR manufacturer’s 70-200 f/4.
If the future of Fuji really is the organic sensor and if it performs as promised/hinted, there will be no point in arguments over light gathering capability and noise of this and that sensor size…
Lenses aside, Fuji could develop a FF system cheaply.
Take the 16 MP D4 sensor (old sensor tech i.e. cheap) + x-trans filter + license IBIS + fuji design (dials/layout) = competitively priced, high margin, differentiated FF product.
MF? – high sensor cost, need to develop/upscale most things from scratch, need to push more data etc
I couldn’t see a fuji MF hitting the market for < $5k USD. Don't think there would be too many people willing to spend the $$$ on that.
Yeah, but people will complain Fuji is not using the latest and greatest 50mp sensor from sony or whatever.
“…Lenses aside, Fuji could develop a FF system cheaply.”
Except that the fallacy in that statement is that you CAN’T set the lenses aside. And that’s where the cost would be born, ultimately.
“Except that the fallacy in that statement is that you CAN’T set the lenses aside. And that’s where the cost would be born, ultimately.”
Lenses aside b/c if you develop any new system, you will have to develop new lenses
Which is one of the reasons you don’t develop a new system.
depends on the target market and the type of differentiated product. A product targeting low light performance/street shooting as a priority (hence 16MP D4s type sensor) provides something that is marketable.
Personally I’d be happy if fuji put in a 12MP BSI FF sensor with IBIS – can’t see enough people accepting 12MP though
Revive the X-Pan and take my money!
Does not matter… the only “Fuji Future” for me is Fuji with smaller lenses (I am dissapointed that Fuji lenses get bigger and bigger), without X-Trans (can’t accept it in last generation of Fuji cams with its artifical colours) and I started to believe Fuji will always be 2-3 years after its competitors like Sony, Olympus and Panasionic (probably soon also after Nikon and Canon) with tech and features offering. In 2015 Fuji still can’t offer more than 1EV exposure bracketing (it’s unbeliveble) in its cams, no Custom Modes!, poor – compared to others – camera customization and programing, only 1 direct Fn button, no NR Off, poor flash, no RGB histogram, poor video, and a few more including AF performance that after 3 years reached everage level. Fuji brings best styled body with handling, but rest are so so and poor. Hope X-Pro2 will change it.
X-Trans is here to stay.
It seems, you are not 😉
We will see soon, and you umad may be very happy – you and only “Wow” here! 🙂
And still you are looking at Fujirumors to see what ‘crap’ Fujifilm has in the pipeline. For you its better to sell off your camera and move on to a full frame system.
Just to find out that your system will weight around 6 kilograms instead of 3 kilograms. That your lenses will cost you about twice as much compared to what you are paying now and that your pictures won’t look any better then they did before. This whole ‘FF is better thing’ is just in your mindset.
In real life picture taking there is not much difference you will gain.
No, I’m staying with APS-C, but not sure yet if with X-Pro2 or Sony A7000, let’s see what they bring.
Hahaha. Good luck with those ‘quality’ Sony APS-C primes and zooms.
All your post are the same, nothing new, no matter what the subject is. If you feel that strongly about how inferior the X system is then buy one of the many cameras you say are so much better. Why put yourself through so much frustration? If photography is really your thing then you should probably pick a camera that suits your photography needs and not one that you just think looks cool.
FF sensor for me, bigger pixels have a wider dynamic
range and natural light gathering. And to keep the system small a few selected FF
Primes (plus M Glass) and APSC for zooms. Best of both worlds. Oh and a X200FF.
Bigger is not necessarily better. Building a system with high quality optics for FF would not be trivial.
Medium format might not make financial sense, but then entering FF with someone else’s sensor probably doesn’t either. APS-C is perfectly fine. Motion picture super-35 sensors are the same size. Compactness is a Fuji strength. I shoot a bit of MF film. I use it not for the resolution of the image but the perspective involved with MF geometry. An 80mm lens on 6×6 just makes a great portrait that doesn’t look like the technically wonderful but artistically trite 5DMkIII portraits we see today. I would love to see a digital Fuji 6×9. Technically challenging now, but probably not in a few years. Look at the Pentax 645z – leaps ahead of the other MF cameras in the field and a fraction of the price. This trend will only continue.
Why no X200 FF to test the market? I would buy it!
It would be my second dream camera..
Skip full frame and off a medium format camera with OVF/EVF.
Medium format will have its advantages over full frame. It’s not always about large file sizes either. It’s about an inherent look that you get with different formats. The look you get from 6×7 will not be the same as 35mm or 645 or 4×5. Each has it’s place. Any of you with various film formats will know this. Cameras don’t end at a FF sensor.
a digital medium format, if fuji releases it, would be a 645 like what the pentax and phase use now. It won’t give much of that that medium format look.
Ha! I’m gonna have to disagree with that statement.
The high megapixel full frame DSLRs are already eating into the medium frame market. What look can the medium format give over those? Remember, the current digital MF sensor is “only” 645 format.
“Huge sensor provides great opportunity for isolating subjects with depth-of-field blur”
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-645z/pentax-645z-conclusion.htm
pentax 645z has a 90mm f/2.8 lens. That’s equivalent to about 55mm f/1.8. FF cameras have lenses that have even thinner depth of field like Canon’s 50mm f/1.2 or Leica’s noctilux.
😉
I do think FF will be fine for MOST though. I still want to see a MFD.
Best bang for the buck for ultimate overall IQ and usability remains a Nikon D810 with a Zeiss Otus attached. Medium format may look different from this, but at these levels I’m not sure it’s “better”.
Coming from FF I am glad with the lower weight my Fujifilm gives me.
The small disadvantages of APS-C compared to FF are neglectable.
An image is about a story or emotion telling. Not about pixel peeping and 1 stop more light gathering or the little less DOF a FF camera can give me.
At least I can use my Fujinon lenses full open and have tack sharp images instead of having to stop down my Canon FF or loose sharpness wide open.
People are lurked into FF by marketing of CaNikoSon.
finally someone that understands it’s not all about FF.
I currently shoot both Nikon FX (for the resolution) and Fuji X (for the size and fun of it). I would love a full-frame Fuji X-T1-like camera, so I could throw my big heavy Nikon away! But I’m not sure how feasibly small and light you could make a new “full-frame” system.
At one point, I got excited to jump on to the Sony A7r-ii bandwagon, but the Sony FE lenses aren’t inspiring me; the primes are really big (not any smaller than good old SLR primes) and the zooms all have blurry corners. So where is the advantage of this?
Fuji-X currently has a wonderful niche of size and quality of lenses. I’d simply be happy to get that higher-resolution X camera (24mp or so) in 2016 because the lenses for this system are all top-notch.
If Fuji makes a full frame camera, it won’t be any smaller or lighter than the Nikon. In fact, if fuji makes 1.4 lenses for their full frame cameras, I’m hoping the camera be a bit heavier and bigger to balance the huge lens. The only way they’ll keep the size/weight down is if they only release slower lenses, like what sony did when they released their lens lineup for their A7.
please bring uncompressed raw please fujifilm =-)
??? Fujifilms RAWs are already uncompressed.
FOR THE new xpro-2 or medium or even if ff. just incase.=)
As someone that just picked up a medium format film camera, I would love it if someone made a Fuji medium format camera but I’m afraid it wouldn’t be affordable and we would basically have to purchase all new lenses and equipment. If I’m going to do that, I might as well buy into Hasselblad or Mamiya or whatever because they already do a great job for a huge (although understandably so) price. Fuji would be unproven in digital medium format so unless they make it extremely well priced, it would be hard to justify buying a Fuji medium format camera over another digital MF that is already used and trusted by professionals.
On the other hand, a full-frame camera would make sense if the rumor is true and Fuji APS-C lenses are large enough and resolve enough detail to cover a FF sensor. I remember reading something here on FR about that. However, if you have to buy all new lenses, I would sort of prefer that Fuji stick to APS-C and continue to improve upon what they have. I came from a Canon 5D3 and enjoy shooting with the X-T1 so much more. I haven’t noticed a difference in image quality. In fact, I find the X-T1 is more detailed and has a wider dynamic range.
Maybe just stick to APS-C and push the limits on how far it can go. I don’t know what the technical limitations are but if there’s still room to grow, it might be the best for all of us. Give us better ISO performance and continue to improve the focusing system and I’d be quite happy.
“…if the rumor is true and Fuji APS-C lenses are large enough and resolve enough detail to cover a FF sensor.”
It’s already been well-demonstrated that the exit pupil on XF lenses is insufficient to cover a full frame sensor. I don’t know why this old trope keeps getting flogged.
—
“Maybe just stick to APS-C and push the limits on how far it can go.”
Yes, fully agree on this one. And I’d say there’s still plenty of IQ room left to exploit in APS-C.
A medium format fixed lens would be what they should do. Could offer the WCL and TCL and call it a day, while continuing the APS-C line. I think they could price a fixed lens medium format camera around $4k.
No they could not. A medium format digital sensor is worth about $4K just by itself. Yields on larger sensors are far less due to increased imperfection issues. A lot of wafers get tossed.
Can we just have the xpro2 and worry about the rest another day 🙂
fixed lens MF sounds great, i just don’t like the idea of putting resources in a completely new lens lineup
I agree with others here. Fixed lens FF or MF would be great. Though if you have a such a expansive sensor on your body, wouldn’t you want to be able to change lenses on it.
If they can stick a FF sensor on the X-T1 or X-E2 and keep the body only $2k or less, then yes let them do it. The problem is the lenses for their current line-up are already expensive, so FF lenses would be ridiculously expensive while keeping the same quality. $3k or less for X-T1 or X-E2 style MF.
You guys really have dreamy price ideas. A medium Format Rangefinder/Mirrorless Fuji would cost at least 7k I guess. Plus ~2k per lens.
The difference between apsc and ff is not so big as some people claim. So there, id say press apsc to the limit. If fuji wants to step out of apsc, then do it properly. But that will be costly.
Either the MF or the FF or even APS-H, I would love it 🙂 Please – interchangeable lenses, mirrorless, classic look, IBIS, USB charging, silver/black version, EVF or HVF, flip screen.
I would make little financial sense for Fujifilm to introduce a 35mm sensor size camera system in a shrinking market crowed with other long-established players.
It might actually make MORE sense to introduce an advanced, mirrorless medium format system and bypass so “full frame” altogether. A medium format system wouldn’t necessitate the development of nearly as many lenses, either, since the average MF shooter typically doesn’t use more than three focal lengths. Also, you probably wouldn’t develop more than one or two bodies in total, either.
So I would say MF makes more sense. In fact they’ve already done the feasibility study for this. For the moment there are no plans to introduce it, however.
Unless of course Fuji introduces a brand new, state-of-the-art 24mp APS-C sensor that blows away every other APS-C sensor ever made thus far.
Oops, did I just let the cat out of the bag? 😉
Like the blew everything away with the 16MP? 🙂
Almost complete line of lenses? Still a ways to go, IMHO.
I think Fuji should stick with what it does best. It clearly doesn’t have resources to quickly develop lenses for a new system. Doing so for a new system (FF or MF) might be a asking too much for a company that has yet to produce a decent long telephoto for its APS C system or a macro with IS/WR.
Don’t forget Fujifilm has a long MF format lens production’s tradition from film days and was (is?) the manufacturer of Hasselblad’s H system lenses.
‘It clearly does not have the resources’ : Fuji when from 0 to a may be not complete but pretty serious line of lenses in how many years ? No competitors did that ….
No competitors had to, with the exception of Sony maybe. And they still aren’t able to fill the gaps in their line-up or upgrade the XPro-1 within 4 years?. WTH – three 35mm range lenses and their longest prime is 200mm? And not a lens over 300mm? And an anemic macro offering?
Yes, many of their XF lenses are really awesome. I just don’t see them getting anything full frame our medium format out the door fast enough (let alone affordable) to support such a system.
Sony is indeed a notable exception, that said Nikon does not have a convincing APSC set of lenses (and the recent patents for mirrorless filed by Nikon are for 3.5-5.6 kit lenses! – not really competition) – don’t know about Canon… What I am trying to say is that in a few years Fuji has demonstrated dedication and ability to come up with a fairly comprehensive lineup. They are only lacking specialised lenses now T/S, macro (but the 120mm is coming) and long telephoto.
FF would not make sense imho not enough to deferentiate from APSC.
If they decided to go MF they would not need the same number of lenses to get to market of it.
MF – if the price is right – might make sense. Lens wise they have the knowledge (aren’t they making some hasselblad’s MF lenses ?), and they sure know how to make bodies
At the end of the day you’re right – would the existing market allow to support such a system is the real question May be if they tried to do the X100 venture again, in MF. That would be a first and could attract a lot of people. That said I am not sure how “pocketable” or small that could be …
I’m not sure what you mean by Nikon not having convincing APSC lenses. Their mirrorless are not APSC (using a smaller sensor), and their DX dslrs can use FX lenses with no real problems. (In fact, I mostly use FX lenses on my D90/D7000s). Being a Nikon DSLR guy, the reason I didn’t buy into the Nikon 1 mirrorless system is because the cameras themselves weren’t terribly serious – the lenses were yet (and continue to be) pretty crappy. Then again, Nikon isn’t betting the farm on their mirrorless systems, like Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, and Fujifilm. They are only playing lip service to it.
I was not clear – the APSC lens line up is far from being convincing. They started with some lens in the DX line but gave up pretty quick. Too bad they were decent lenses, at a decent price (compared to the FX equivalents)
Their current mirrorless is not worth calling home (I have the V1 which is gathering dust.)
It looks, looking at the patents that they are preparing a new mirrorless line up, but considering what the patents describe, it won’t be much more than a weak attempt
I eagerly await this XPRO2 but with that said- medium format would get my vote.
ff lens will be bigger so no
even some of aps-c lens are already too big for my liking
There is no camera that is perfect for everyone. Not APS-C or FF or MF. Buy the camera that is perfect for you and quit whining about how Fuji, Canikon, Sony, PanOlympus isn’t making the exact camera the whole world needs. Buy what you need and go take pictures!
Who exactly is whining? The reason for this discussion is that perhaps some of our ideas of a perfect system doesn’t yet exist. I’d love for a full-frame mirrorless system like Sony’s A7r, but with Fuji’s high-quality lenses. I do go take pictures (it’s my job), but sometimes it’s fun to fantasize.
I can see you missed my point. If you don’t see any whining on this or every other Rumors site I can see why. The fact is there will never be a universally perfect camera, there will only be a perfect camera for you. It may not be made by the company you prefer, but I’m sure there is one out there that comes pretty damn close. No need to fantasize. Just find it, buy it and go shoot. If you make a living as a photographer the camera will pay for itself and it doesn’t matter what brand it is.
I would really like a medium format x100 style camera, or, like their film medium format zooms ‘Fuji GW690iii’ or such.
Fuji going FF would have no sense. The competition and FF market is already saturated. In APSC they have their niche. In MF it’d be hard to compete with P1 and Ricoh/Pentax.
The FF-market saturated? And the APS/C-market not? I think you need to revisit a few market reports. The APS/C market is the killing field due to hyper-competition now. The CSC FF market has just started and will become thé premium reference in the coming years. Fuji could have had 5 years advance versus all major brands by packing a FF-sensor in the very first X-series – but they unfortunately didn’t which has been a missed opportunity – the XF-flange doesn’t even seem to be FF-capable at all, so, where is that bright future? I’m skeptical. I’d like to think difference since I liked Fuji, but I’m getting by the day more skeptical that a revamped A7000 sensor is what we’ve been waiting for. It isn’t. This is just the Mini-Cooper edition of the BMW 7.
Yes, you’re right – if Fuji started mirrorless with larger sensor it would have sense. But going there now is splitting resources, and starting from scratch – whole new set of lens designs… Personally I’d love to see affordable HQ MF someday, but, well, dreams…
This is interesting, actually from mutiple sources and rumours all over the place which I poked around, all three formats are REAL but sadly….
For me I am sticking APS-C and reason is because I am going for hobby and range, APS-C has it advantages and honestly it is more forgiving. The small form factor is what keeps mirrorless great.
FF – Good to have but not for all, if I am not wrong, the true really FULL FRAME is the new LEICA SL. I am pretty sure based on the design of the Lens Fuji popping out are FF ready (Else they are WAY TOO BIG for a APS-C Design). The sad part is all the focal length ranges will be a bit super old school or weird…….
MF – This to be is more for a indoor device, I dunno who wants to bring MF beast out where light….
To be very FRANK, a lot of good pictures might not be taken from big formats and most of the time we cannot tell, unless the person upload the details with the shoot,
Of these 3 choices it has to be “Fuji should stick with APS-C and do NOT offer a FF or MF system”. I don’t think they have the resources to do justice to 2 different systems.
However, individual fixed lens cameras are another matter. They could perhaps offer extra models in either bigger format. They have a history of such “off the beaten track” models going back 20 years or more.