THE INTERVIEW
Back at Photokina 2014, imaging-resource had a talk with Matt Schmitt and five Fujifilm engineers (but published it just recently). Of course the hot topics at that time were the 56mmAPD, the 5-stop IS in the 50-140, OLED EVFs with 5-millisecond lag and more. So it is mostly an interesting talk about the tech behind the new products. I’ll pick out just one aspect:
THE X-TRANS SENSOR & VIDEO QUALITY
As you all know, the unique CFA of the X-Trans sensor has the huge advantage to mitigate moiree in stills… an advantage that doesn’t apply to video, though.
Q: No moiré, yeah. But it also puts a lot of demands on processing, and our impression has been that the X-Trans works very well for still shots, but not so good for video. I’m assuming that’s because there’s so much processing to figure out the pixel pattern. Is that something that can improve as processors get faster? You know, if you have more processing power, is it then possible to get a better video image?
A: Video quality improvement: “In the future, our LSI will become faster and capable of more calculations, and maybe our movie image quality will also be able to improve. But it depends on not only this, but also on CMOS sensor reading speed.
FULL FRAME or MEDIUM FORMAT
Towards the end of the interview, imaging-resource could not resist to make the Full Frame question, and Fujifilm’s answer is:
We don’t need to go to full-frame size […] Huge prints are no problem for resolution and dynamic range or sensitivity, and at this moment we have no plans to go to full-frame. But of course we investigate the ability of full-frame or medium-format. Of course, we know. But at this moment, Fujifilm is concentrating on enhancing our X-mount APS-C lineup.
It sounds a bit like a standardized answer. But it’s interesting that, although IR just asked about Full Frame, the Fuji engineers mentioned also that they investigate the ability of a Medium Format system. A Freudian Slip?
I’d love to hear what you guys think about. So the question is, what should Fuji offer in future? Should they invest in a bigger sensor camera system or stick with APS-C (and invest in new APS-C sensor technology)?
[poll id=”72″]
103 Responses
OK, now let’s put some gas on the already burning fire!
I totally dig Zack’s approach: shoot majority of your work on APS-C, and when you absolutely have to create the ultimate IQ, resort to MF. Going from APS-C X-Trans to FF has very little (if any) IQ advantage. Going MF makes a visible difference.
Totally agree with you.
I couldn’t agree more, I’ll consider a MF Fuji immediately. I don’t get the FF fetishism most photographers seem to have. APS-C is more than 95% of photographers realistically need. Better glass is way more important.
APS-C is about halfsize vs a full blown 36mm sensor (as most are). Any (yes, any!) of the current FF sensors on the market has better specs than the current 16MP Fuji X-trans APS/C sensor – in terms of resolution, detail/resolving power, S/N ratios, ISO-behavior – who doesn’t want to admit it just doesn’t know or has never experienced it (or is somehow commercially linked to Fuji like our famous Zack). But Fuji’s competence doesn’t measure in sensor size only. This just a different kind of tool for a different photography-purpose and I know exactly in which kind of mission I’ll choose the smaller and more incognito Fuji X over a full-frame DSLR, or not. It would be a major step in competitive and technical value of the whole X-series project to develop a bigger sensor and higher resolution solution too based on the same methodologies as Fuji implemented now. I’d be curious to experience what a +50MP FF X-trans could deliver – a lot of the present RAW conversion-discussions would likely belong to the past. I’m also convinced that medium format isn’t as sexy anymore as it once was… as the very best FF-sensors are performing with the right glass close to MF (see how many potential MF-users ended up with a D800E and there will soon be a very identical phenomenon for Canon with their new 5D’s). 35mm still make sense and that won’t change soon, MF is far too expensive for what it really brings more – this really belongs to the Karl Lagerfeld kind of fashion-world.
If only specs made photographs instead of photographers. Yes, the current full frame sensors are excellent but in reality (not vanity) most of us don’t need that much. I’m mostly referring to enthusiasts and similar. But when nearly all pictures are displayed online the sensor size becomes less relevant.
On most prints (A4,A3) you don’t see the difference either.
I’m not saying FF sensors are not better, they clearly are. But for almost all amateur and even pro uses, APS-C gives you a large enough print size already. Current APS-C sensors are better than previous generations’ FF sensors, and I don’t know about you, but I don’t see larger prints in newspapers and magazines than 20 years ago. Usable ISO range at 6400, film shooters could only dream of such a thing. Unless you shoot for large print purposes, APS-C will do fine. And the rest is pixel peeping and has nothing to do with photography. Sensor size is not an issue anymore, dynamic range however still is. And that’s where APS-C should be going next.
And how large is large 😉 Few years ago the 12 MP Canon 5D was top of the bill and used by many pro’s.
Precisely. More doesn’t automatically mean better.
The APS-C vs FF debate is primarily a gearhead discussion. The difference in size between those sensors is not as big as often claimed. The difference in size between a FF and MF is much bigger. In the end a FF will handle iso a little bit better than APS-C and it will probably have other small advantages like bit better dynamic range. But difference is smaller than suggested. I have been using FF since the first 5D. It is nice to work with. But since a few months I sold my 5D MKII and now I’m using Fuji only. I never had a moment I thought I missed good shots because I had an APS-C with me.
I think a lot of hobbyists want a FF to show off. Or because they think they will make better shots. Or it gives them a Pro feeling. They use technical specs to justify their purchase.
Exactly.
The biggest reason that all of the current FF sensors are better than X sensors is simply that they are a lot newer.
Having switched from using D700s to XT1s for a living, I can tell you that the D700 has no image quality advantage over the Fuji. At lower ISO speeds the slightly higher resolution and more importantly the lack of an AA filter actually give the Fuji the advantage. If and when Fuji bring the X sensor up to date, the image quality lead of the current sensors will be nothing like what it is today.
But putting all those pixels together on the same surface…leads very quickly to limitations for APS/C sizes chips. While the X-series Sony APS/C 16MP & Sony FF 36.3MP have about the same pixel density – likely a lot is even similar in the chip design… the A7 & D8X0 deliver you a resolution that is 2,3x higher and still & DR, ISO behavior is without discussion better (could be due to the more recent concept, but I’m not sure). I don’t see anyone (at this moment) releasing a 40MP APS/C sensor (…technically impossible, this was the whole idea for which we required the organic technology). A lot of APS/C advantage has gone in the wave of decreasing prices of FF sensors. I’m afraid Fujifilm has to release a credible, cutting edge FF line with higher resolutions to stay in business. They increased the technical competences of APS/C by adding magnificent glass, well let them do the same for FF & higher resolutions. Even with a more elevated weight, a lot of people will be very interested in a premium/specialized X-series range vs the more mass-consumer Sony-approach.
Ummmm, FF sensors are NOT decreasing in price; those wafers are as costly to produce as ever due to the relatively high rejection rate. Cameras like the D610 are cheaper because the bodies are cobbled together using consumer and prosumer off the shelf parts; costs are thus already largely amortized.
And Fuji absolutely does not have to go to FF to stay in business. The future is not bigger sensors in smaller cameras [as Sony might think], the future is better sensors in smaller cameras.
“the D700 has no image quality advantage over the Fuji.”
Well said. Although, in fairness, the D3s will still have about a stop- and-a-half better performance at high ISO than the X-Trans sensor.
In the near future, sensor size will not be the determining factor for IQ, sensor technology will, as more and more folks come to appreciate the benefits of shedding size and weight when packing a system around.
Fuji is on the right track. Oh, and Zack is right, btw.
I agree if you could afford it….and zack can easily afford MF….so you need at least 15000 us bucks for the cheapest mf digital pentax 645 z with som elenses….let alone p1 or hassy…
So for the majority of users…solely one system meaning ff with small lenses (e,g nikons 1.8 series) or sony a 7 with 28 2 , 55 1.8 and…(if you can live with 11+7 bit raw files) is much cheaper than two or even one mf digital….resolutiion wise we are already in mf territory see canon 50 mpix despite having DR of the 5D III of course which is a shame….better have 36 mpix Sony cmos sensor with better DR than just canon 50 mp resolut
ion and less DR…
If you don’t get the most recent tech, you can get a 30 megapixel medium format back (or camera) for 3500€ used if you are lucky. If you shoot in a studio with low ISO, there is no real need to go for the latest generation.
No one can “easily afford MF”. Prices gonna hurt even if you’re an oil tycoon.
However, there’s a thing that’s been around for quite some time now… Maybe you’ve heard of it, it’s called rent. If you’re a pro with occasional need of MF, rent it. If renting MF feels expensive for the project at hand, you’re not charging enough. As simple as that.
Oh, and if you’re an amateur who craves MF for some artsy shoot (or that trip of a lifetime) – by all means, rent it. Renting a Pentax 645 at Lensrentals costs about the same as renting a Canikon kit.
Price would have to be under 5000 or so. 30 mp would cover most needs I would think.
I wouldn’t say he can easily afford it. It’s like saying a car repair shop can easily afford all the expensive power tools. Yes, in the long run, but easily, no. Even if you make thousands per event, how many events can you do a month? He only has 24 hours a day, which kind of limits how many jobs he can do, and he needs to rent a studio, buy his own health insurance, pay his own social security (salaried employees only pay half), and he can never be exactly 100% busy, he either has too little work, or too much. In fact he sells everything that he doesn’t use regularly. Many hobbyists can afford better gear than some pros. In fact, if you only use something once a year, it’s better to rent it, as a business. But as a hobbyist, you might want to own it, because it’s so cool to hold it in your hand every once in a while.
Zack can’t “easily” afford anything. Talented as he is, he’s a down-to-earth, regular joe photographer like many working pros … only achieving notoriety because of a successful internet presence.
MF can be what we need, Everyone makes FF if they do something make it big but price has to be right. 3 primes lenses would cover it short term and a zoom?
But why? Why not shoot FF 35mm and then go to MF when you want better IQ. There’s just no reason to use anything smaller than FF now. The cost is no longer prohibitive, the only reason is brand loyalty – if you really want to stay on Fuji.
I’m tired of people that can’t see the difference between APS-C and FF. You’re trying to sound authoritative but it’s bullshit. The same used to be said of half frame and then everyone woke up one morning and all just coughed a little embarrassed cough and moved on.
Well said. FF beats APS-C 6 ways to sunday in IQ. Anyone who can’t see that is heavily biased.
Oh dear… There are plenty of well established FF offerings on the market. Some of them are even relatively cheap. So why won’t you get something that’s already there, go out and shoot some photos instead of whining that Fuji should go FF?
Making something that likely won’t sell well as in a FUJI FF the market is full and would be hard to get a foothold. MF if priced right and Fujifilm would sell well for MF if priced well.
“I’m tired of people that can’t see the difference between APS-C and FF.”
This made my day. So you’re tired of people in general I guess 😀 Fact is, most people don’t even know what APS-C is.
Oh, and you will sound much more authoritative when you finally show us what you got (ie link to YOUR portfolio or images online) 😉
“There’s just no reason to use anything smaller than FF now.”
Plenty of reasons, size and weight being two of the biggest.
“I’m tired of people that can’t see the difference between APS-C and FF.”
And we’re all tired of fauxtographers who don’t know what they’re talking about.
APS-C+MF would do just fine… 🙂
At some point Fuji has to replace the GF670 (and GF670W) Professional with a digital successor. Thus I believe that Fuji goes medium format.
Yeah, I think APS-C vs. FF is minimal. Skip FF and go MF, but do it quick.
They don’t, they never had anything to do with the GF670 in the first place.
Fuji is obviously aware of what the competition is now offering (Canon 5DS, Sony Alpha 7II, etc) so Fuji needs to step up their game this year, especially when it comes to sensors. Next generation APS-C will likely have as good of IQ as current FF and assuming that going FF means the size and weight camera would increase there are a lot of Fuji shooters out there that would rather go with a lighter/smaller APS-C camera.
I’d love to see APS-C Sensors as good as last gens (D810, A7r etc) FF. But I don’t think they can get there. But they could at least get closer (better SNR, higher DR)
Ohhh, they’ll get there. Fuji and Panasonic are still hard at work on the organic sensor tech. If they can iron everything out, it will be a quantum leap forward and there will be little need for FF sensors anymore for most practical purposes.
Personally, I’m more interested in whether they develop the x-trans sensor further than sensor area.
exactly
D800 level of dynamic range would be very nice.
It would be nice but there are other things I personally would prefer come first.
What do you mean by”further than sensor area”? I am not being an ass, I am just curious…
I mean other concepts. Maybe backside illumination, different color filter array, maybe a 1:1 type sensor, lower read noise on the sensor, better autofocus options on sensor, etc.
It’s not about what Fuji can do. I’m sure they can technically do almost whatever they choose. It’s about what they can sell. The Fuji board is not going to authorise the production of a camera to sell 7 units a year. So that probably rules out MF. The decision will be dictated by Sony’s disruption of the FF market. So that rules in FF if Fuji want to maintain their precarious position in a volatile market. I don’t buy the standard line that it would mean existing users having to throw away their current ASP-C lenses. A Metabones type of adapter would allow existing lenses to cover the FF image circle.
If Fuji releases a GF670-like medium format with 80mm fixed lens attached to it (nothing wider–just sell conversion adapters), I would buy it in a heartbeat.
Wouldn’t you want to have option to change lenses? I would.
Ideally, it would be nice. But fixed lens reduces cost and most definitely will have leaf shutter.
Compared to the cost of MF back, the price of pretty much any lens in the world is negligible.
But we’re not talking about MF backs. wer’re talking about something sized and prized like the GF670 which is ~$1800 – $2200 depending whether you get the one labeled Voigtlander or Fuji (both are the same camera made by Cosina)
In the $2k price range that’s roughly the price of most pro lenses. So putting a fixed price Fujinon 80mm would be substantially less expensive than requiring the buyer to buy additional lenses at that price point. Not negligible at all. Those MF PhaseOne backs you’re thinking of are artificially priced, we’ll see those drop with the new 50MP Canon.
Lessay that we take GF670 (approx. $2,000) and drop in a brand spankin’ new MF sensor. Just a sensor – no brains, no CFA, nothing. Oh, and the labor is free, of course. That will cost you (at the very least) extra $2,000. So we’re facing $4,000 a pop already.
Now, let’s add a CPU, CFA and all that jazz… Keep in mind that they have to be developed, so add R&D cost too. And labor. And keep in mind that this is not a mass market product, so markup will be larger than, say, with iPhones.
My most optimistic calculations yield at least $7,000 extra per each camera body, so we’re looking at $11,000 fixed lens camera.
Oh wait, let’s get back to that GF670. This camera shoots 60×70 millimeters. The sensor we added to our calculations at the beginning is 33x44mm. If we want to use 40.4×53.9 sensor, we’ll have to triple its cost.
And we’ll have to redesign that camera body from scratch (along with the lens) to accommodate the smaller imaging area.
How would you like a $20,000 fixed lens camera?
How much would you pay for it?
$7499
Yep, medium format X100-like would be great!
But imagine a mirrorless MF… That would be a breakthrough, no?
I don’t think it exists.
Soon: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9012734727/phase-one-to-introduce-a-series-mirrorless-medium-format-camera-system
http://www.designboom.com/technology/phase-one-a-series-compact-mirrorless-camera-system-80-megapixels-12-23-2014/
Nothing new there – it’s digital back on a tech camera.
What would be needed is mirrorless MF digital can with AF, EVF (or hybrid)
JFYI: AF on all MF cameras are even worse than it used to be on the X100 when it was first released. Don’t set your expectations too high.
Pentax 645Z has very good AF, although only in the center of the frame, but it’s fast and accurate
You see, I’ve shot with 645Z. It’s fast indeed – by MF standards. But I won’t compare it to D4 or 1Dx. Heck, I won’t even compare it to the X-T1 🙂
of course it’s not, the D4 is designed for sports and it has appropriately sized motors for throwing around the glass. Nobody uses medium format for sports photography – the AF is designed on MF cameras for studio conditions and simple physics explains why the motors are slower, the gear ratio is set for precision and moving the larger glass would not be practical at the D4 speeds.
It’s amazing anyone ever managed to take photos before the D4. All those decades were just one big manual focus wasteland of useless images.
Your comment shows very deep understanding of the topic and totally justifies sarcasm. You proved me wrong.
…Oh wait, there was no content in your comment but sarcasm and ignorance.
“…the D4 is designed for sports and it has appropriately sized motors for throwing around the glass.”
Well, unless you’re using very old Nikkors, the coreless motor in the D4 is probably not being used to “throw around the glass” at all. Not with SWM lenses, anyway.
How comes ? I should imagine that the technology is more or less the same, no ?
I honestly don’t know for sure. Perhaps MF is rather unpopular choice among sports shooters, so no one ever put a decent motor in the MF lens… but that’s just a speculation. Fact is, MF AF is as rudimentary as it gets.
Fuji’s APS-C cameras are already pretty excellent. So it would seem that full frame poses a risk of cannibalizing their APS-C market, for possibly marginal benefit to the typical Fuji X series customer. However, Fuji’s specialty seems to be in quality, niche equipment. (Read: poor man’s Leica.) So maybe a medium format rangefinder like the film ones they already make/made would be the way to go–trying something new (basically revolutionary) and mixing up the market again like they did with the original X100.
Full frame and APS-C would compete within their own range (e.g. Nikon seems to be either/or), but APS-C and medium format could sit well together within the Fuji portfolio – that would be my vote, but you don’t give a multiple option in the poll
We will not buy APSC, we are waiting for full frame. No full frame no deal. Medium format is great, however Fuji is going to charge accordingly, that is going to scare away many potential buyers. We just want a full frame that we can afford. APS-C being a step stone, we are not interested.
We will buy Pentax full frame, Sony or Olympus if fuji has no Full frame.
Would love to see both: improved APS-C sensor with 24MP and true 6400iso (not cheated) and MF mirrorless EVF with interchangeble lenses – no AF needed to reduce the size.
I have a GF670 (and way too many other large and medium format film cameras, but I have a home darkroom). Great camera and as much as I love shooting film, even a die hard like me has to admit those days are rapidly drawing to a close. If they went fixed lens, I would prefer something in a 6 X 6 format with a 60mm lens. A fixed lens might interesting if the price was low enough. I do think that would be difficult given the sensor size. If they go MF, they probably are more likely they go with an interchangeable system. They have the know how to make the lenses for MF which really is the critical piece. I seriously doubt they will go Full Frame. I sold off all my Nikon Full Frame gear. There really isn’t that much difference between ASPC and Full Frame. The advantages of FF are negligible unless the camera has a feature set someone needs or you are printing extremely large. Most people don’t, even they like to think they will. The big difference is most APSC cameras are just not as rugged. I print a lot and I never once have needed the extra bump the D800 had. Nice camera though, but I really have not missed it. I might also add that your clients will ultimately hang the picture on their wall and really won’t care what camera you used. That said, I am a bit anachronistic and still do a lot of my B/W portrait work on an 8 X 10. It just has a look you cannot get with digital. PITA to use though.
LOL @ film days drawing to a close. Get out much??
Wonder if the Pentax FF announcement is putting any pressure on Fuji? They’ve now got APSC through to MF. Not direct competition, but still…
Not really, Pentax isn’t going mirrorless, so it’s a very different market, if a lot of people buy Fuji because it has a nice lens eco system, nice IQ, etc. in a smaller package, people doing that wouldn’t simply buy a big FF DSLR from Pentax.
I think as long as canon keeps the bad job with EOS M and Sony doesn’t speed up releasing lens. No pressure on Fuji.
The problem with video is not so much about processing alone. The lineskipping and binning to make a 16MP into a 2MP (1080p) is the issue here.
If Fuji can make a full readout of the sensor like others manufacturers are doing, moiré and ailasing can be greatly diminished. Full readout depends on the speed of the sensor so that the rolling shutter doesn’t become too severe, but other than that it’s just the processor turning each full read into video, which is much better than the processor trying to figure things out and then encoding.
It’s the same process of the electronic shutter pictures, which Fuji already has, but the output is a video and if Panasonic, Sony and others can easily do it, so can Fuji. Samsung does that with their 28MP sensor, it shouldn’t be hard for Fuji to make it with a 16MP or even a 24MP – in the future.
Please don’t use “We” when expressing an opinion which is only yours. My opinion is very much the opposite, I love the smaller size of the Fuji system which is made possible by the use of the APS-C sensor.
We agree with you 🙂
+1
“There really isn’t that much difference between ASPC and Full Frame.” – that’s exactly why Fuji are doing the right thing. The people that buy these cameras are quite happy and can’t tell the difference.
The GF670 is made by Cosina, not Fuji, despite what the top plate says.
Yeah and my Apple MacBook Pro is made by Foxconn. Your point?
Honestly, I haven’t missed the D800 a bit except for the money I lost on it. 🙂 I just bought an Bessa R3A, not that I needed it but I do like shooting film…so I guess I like Cosina too.
I am old timer with an MFA in photography. I teach photography and do gallery shows. I did in the past do a lot of magazine/newspaper work. No weddings for me. Anyway, this whole FF vs APSC debate is really silly. Most of the people going on about it don’t know diddle about photography. The camera is just a tool. I guarantee you if you gave William Eggleston a Holga and virtually everyone on an internet gear forum a Phase One, who do you think would sell their work first? Actually some of my best student work is done on Holgas.
I am a wedding photographer w/a BA in photography and I shoot jobs with a Rolleifex 2.8E, Pentax 67II, Nikon F100, various super 8 cameras, and of course a digital body for low light or micro-budget clients. When I think about my peers, even the most successful ones I can think of (Jose Villia, Elizabeth Messina, Jon Canlas), they’re all film shooters too. It’s really just the forum folks who give a hoot about gear-gear-gear. Out in the world you have to have this thing called vision, and none of the major manufactures sell it, nor can it be rated by DxO. Ditto on the Holgas. Love them for b&w.
Making a happy purchase has nothing to do with knowing about photography. I feel happier with a Fuji FF. That’s psychological need. There are many people who are merely into gears. There’s nothing wrong.
For a given fixed size and weight (which will be large in either case), is it easier to make an APS F1.0 or a FF F1.4 lens? If FF 1.4 is significantly easier for a certain size and weight, then FF makes sense. Otherwise it doesn’t… just fill the same void (in DOF/noise terms) with F1.0 and focus on class-leading APS sensors. So I wish the poll mentioned faster lenses as well, on the APS option.
There are plenty of Full Frame options. Pentax is not going to make Full Frame camera. Their users have been wanting one for years. They do have a Medium Format camera. I would just buy a Canon or Nikon. They actually have the lenses for Full Frame. Sony has some interesting lenses but not anywhere near the number that Canon/Nikon have. Olympus only makes Micro Four thirds and is heavily committed to that format. OMD is a very nice camera.
Pentax IS now making a full frame. They announced it sorta recently. Specs are forthcoming, but they’re making it. Check out pentax forums for the info. Pentax makes fantastic products but they did limit themselves by only serving the prosumer market via APS-C.
I thought there were a couple of other interesting points in the interview. There was a nice discussion about the new 56; and there was a discussion about EVFs that finally confirmed that the X-Trans sensor in X-T1 requires about 1/54 of a second for a complete readout. I’ve been wanting to know that since Fuji announced the electronic shutter upgrade.
Medium format rangefinders like in the age of film
That would be awesome…
APS-C is a good decision.
The fact that they are “investivating” in FF and MF does not mean much. They told me about 7-8 years ago (in the times of the S5pro) that they were observing the market and look at different formats. So far this didn’t mean much 🙂
Sad about the low support on FF.
I voted improve the APS-C.
Yes I would like a FF…but FF as a Leica knockoff for $2500. For APS-C make it 28mp organic Fuji X.
The little Fuji has a fantastic sensor at 16mp. Where Fuji stinks is the controls and low light AF…TERRIBLE and USLESS!!!
(nsfw)
http://sextooools.tumblr.com/
(All shot with the X-E1)
If Fuji made a FF Leica knockoff they could put a big dent in Leica. I had 5, now 4 Leica’s so it is not jealousy on my part. I love the controls on the Leica and the fit and finish… but that is it. The sensor is second rate on the Leica M240.
Leica’s are made for camera fondlers plain and simple.
Here is one of the reasons the fondler can’t produce…from the Fuji forum that threw me out for calling a spade a spade….CAMERA FONDLERS!
http://www.fujix-forum.com/index.php/topic/25463-which-soft-release-button/?p=269961
The fondler spends too much time thinking about what to buy next and too much time fondling and not enough time pressing the button. This guy spends more time changing buttons and making holders for them than pressing the button. Now, I have a dozen buttons myself. but they are all little, itsy bitty, black ones Loctited in a dozen Leica and Fuji cams.
The fondler needs to stop fantasizing and fixating on higher and higher MP for their snapshots and worry more about what to shoot next than what to buy next.
I kinda worry that not a lot of lens are ready for high pixel density. Organic sensors are very welcomed.
A X-Pro1 style body based on the classic Fuji GW67II with a 43.8 x 32.8mm sensor sounds awfully sexy. Couple that with a medium-wide, regular and portrait set of prime lenses would make a lot of still photographers hot & bothered. The hell with high megapixels, video and other bells & whistles, it’s all about dynamic range and medium format DOF.
Yes, that would be fantastic; and, it makes a lot of sense. If they can do it for around $4000 – $5000, it will sell well.
That might be a stretch but then again, Pentax 645z is around $8500 and has a lot more tech built in it than most still photographers would need, so who knows. A lot of portrait and editorial photographers alone would pick this system up as a digital version of their beloved Mamiya 6/7. Hopefully Fuji’s engineers can work some more of their magic.
So Fuji should ask half the price of the current cheapest, “entry” level medium format camera (pentax). In an extremely low volume niche market. Dream on!
While I would be interested in a full frame X-Pro 2, as the larger the sensor the better the dynamic range, depth of field control, tones, etc, I must admit, I don’t see much of a difference when viewing people’s photos on Flickr.
So, I think I am more interested in Fuji providing a much improved APS-C sized sensor ~ perhaps the organic sensor.
I have been shooting with both the X-Pro 1 and my DP Merrills lately. And, while the DP Merrills have exceptional image quality at lower ISO settings (better than any full frame camera out today), I am always drawn back to the X-Pro 1, as I love shooting with it. So, I am looking forward to the X-Pro 2 with improved image quality, a brighter, larger viewfinder (OVF/EVF), and 1/8000 sec shutter speed.
Yeah? Prove it, sunshine.
Think big improvement to sensor tech … not making the sensor bigger. That will be Fuji’s answer to Sony.
Remember that back in 2011 Fuji publicly stated that it was their intention to become one of the top three camera manufacturers in the world. This means dethroning Sony. Certainly the Fujifilm X cameras are superior to the Sonys in terms of lens quality, lens selection, camera ergonomics, jpeg output, etc., etc.
So lemmie get this straight: if Fuji doesn’t go full frame, you won’t buy Fuji, because APS-C is too small and you want full frame. But you’ll happy buy Olympus with a sensor that is SMALLER than APS-C.
Oh-kay, then.
Improve APS-C, just bring it up to level of the current best-of-breed. X-Trans or not I don’t really care. The current sensor is a generation behind. Or maybe half a generation. Basically, I’m getting the same quality I had with the Nikon d7000. Not too bad, perfectly capable of serious amateur or professional work, but things have improved out there 😉
FF – makes no sense. 1 stop improvement for low light, that’s what it does, but with Fuji’s fast primes, that’s mitigated to some extent. I definitely don’t want the bigger lenses that come with FF (and the bigger accessories like tripod, bag, etc.) or FF + F4 lenses (SONY) to keep size in check – what’s the point? Not to mention the bigger price 😉
I’m coming from full frame (d800) by the way. I see a lot of people saying “go FF or else…” seeing that +1 stop improvement as their photographic holy grail. As if that 1 stop would help you take better pictures. Looking at all the work I’ve done with the d800, I could have done 90% of it with my old d7000 with the proper lenses. Unlike Nikon, Fuji got those lenses. And the X-system still needs other improvements (flash, AF, finalize ergonomics/handling, etc.)
Moving up to MF will need bigger lenses. Telephoto shooters will be at a disadvantage. Only landscape, architecture, and other wide-angle shooters will benefit. This is limited market, but could open up new markets for studio type of use. A risk…
I can see one possibility. IF Fuji can make MF cameras similar to their GX617 or GW690 film versions, having controls similar to X-T# line, with one wide-angle and one standard primes, there will be buyers for it. I doubt that the market will justify the costs of developing a new system but some APSC shooters will buy that camera as a collectors’ item, for special purposes, and just for the excitement!
A FF system can be an extension to APSC if the mount and lenses can be shared, but we start losing the advantage that made Fuji successful in recent years.
IMO, Fuji’s recent success can be attributed mostly to features that ‘engage’ the photographer, small form-factor and good lenses… they did not give any hopes of upgrade to FF.
It is not just the end result (that can also come from a sophisticated P&S or smartphone without knowing one bit of how it happened). Fuji’s X-E# or X-T# bodies engage the photographer with controls that are easy to use/understand. Users feel the satisfaction of using the camera and therefore enjoy the result more.
These cameras have small form-factor. Fuji has somewhat benefited by lack of focus in this segment from Nikon and Canon. Solidify this market before Canon/Nikon wake up. They are huge and IMO, if they get into this market full-hearted other brands would lose significantly. Samsung can also be a game-changer.
Quality is a given, and a basic need, but without the above factors even quality cameras can fail to sell. Both Canon and Nikon have not provided lighter/cheaper APSC lens line-up, or mirrorless, due to vested interest in FF DSLR systems. Both have made half-a** attempts and are using their results to justify sticking to their DSLR systems. They have some basic lenses but then force us to go to FF lenses. Both Fuji and Pentax have more APSC lenses.
Keep developing good lenses… APSC/FF but get them lighter and cheaper. That will compel DSLR users to jump in sooner (don’t mind the professionals). APSC is a volume segment and doesn’t require as many accessories as professionals need in FF system.
Keep the small form-factor, which means the current mount can probably be used up to FF, but not MF. This will be the bread-n-butter line. Don’t confuse this and don’t try to provide an ‘upgrade’. Most buyers don’t need it.
I may be the only one thinking this, but couldn’t they do a square format with their current lenses? (Expand the sensor vertically.)
Just look at the dominance of instagram (or even our profile pictures next to each of these comments) to see why that would be a good idea. Especially for a camera that’s already not concerned with video.
One other thing I’ve been thinking: Flange depth is constantly used to explain why FF 35mm won’t work with the current lenses, but the new organic sensor is supposed to be able to accept much more oblique angles for incoming light. Wouldn’t it be possible (with the help of a microlens array) to go FF with the current lens lineup then? (Or maybe it’s an alternate focusing mode built into some of the latest lenses, if some rumors are to be believed.)