[Tony Belding]

Personally, I think it looks perfect. Every design decision seems to have come right out of my wish list. It definitely looks like a more serious tool than the Hasselblad. Will I buy one? No. It just doesn't fit into my personal photographic roadmap, and I don't feel compelled to own everything that I admire.

As for all the hype. . . "gamer changer!" "revolutionary!" Yeah, yeah, I've heard all that before. There was similar talk when the Sony Alpha A7 series debuted. It was a revolutionary game-changer, and all the other companies would have to scramble to get their own mirrorless full-frame cameras on the market. Except somehow that didn't happen. And I think the A7 series is doing OK, but even with a full court press by Sony's marketing, it hasn't really set the world on fire the way some imagined it would.

[Pentikonian]

Anyone wondering about the actual size of the new Fuji, DPR has their first hands-on look posted from the booth. Looks to be about the size of a 135FF DSLR, maybe slightly larger. They quickly noticed and commented on the weight (light for a DMF).

[itshimitis]

Your'e a working pro, sure capital expenditure and client results may mean something to you, but not everybody. I hate to be blunt but I am a well healed amateur who doesn't drink, smoke, do drugs nor expensive hookers and have cash to burn on making my weekend hobby as enjoyable as possible. I bet most users of the Pentax/Fuji MF cameras are the same and only 25% are working pros.

You only use the cheap hookers then? Make sure you use protection!

[Apet-Sure]

When you add an extension tube between camera and lens, you 'lose' light, right? So if you move a lens closer to the sensor by removing the mirror box, does that mean you 'gain' light? Is it like the equivalent of having a faster lens without the need of a wider aperture?

[whwang]

The 23mm and 110mm lenses will be very attractive to astrophotographers. Now I can't recommend my peers to consider 645z for astrophotography. Sad.....

[photoptimist]

1. It's likely an artificial limit, the Leica S 007 goes to 12,500 and doesn't look any worse than the the 645Z, which I wouldn't shoot any higher as from that point on it looks too bad to be worth it. The sensor is ISO invariant anyway, so it's better to push in post than risk losing highlights that you can't bring back.

2. The dials all have automatic positions, which means their functionality can be handed off to the front/back dials, and set arbitrarily. The lack of immediate control for all three settings shouldn't be missed as most people often just shoot at one relevant ISO or have auto-ISO active and only set the aperture and shutter speed. You can just see on the photos that the dial setup is the same as on the Z.

3. Distance scales on modern AF lenses with short focus throw lack the accuracy on high-resolution sensors that's needed for them to be relevant, as you say, it's a much better plan to do what Phase have on the XF and embed distance/DoF data into the top panel based on which lens you have attached, it's a far more elegant and modern solution.

1. Personally, I'd rather decide where the upper ISO limit resides (having grown up with high ISO film, I'm a lot more tolerant of grain than kids these days). Although it may be true about the highlight issue, some kinds of low-light photography have flat lighting

2. The dial setup seems very different from the 645Z (the 645Z lacks labeled dedicated dials for ISO and shutter speed) while Fuji seems to lack a mode dial (presumably, it's on the back some place). What would frustrate me is having to use the labeled control dials one way for some parts of the shutter & ISO range but then use different dials for extended parts of the shutter and ISO range. Does the Fuji have back dial(s)?

3. Yes, one of the design limits of many AF lenses is the short focus throw. Presumably, the Fuji lenses have a fly-by-wire system for manual focus so one has better fine control. But on hikes, I tend to mount a new lens and prefocus it a likely working distance with the camera off.

---------- Post added 09-20-16 at 08:30 AM ----------

When you add an extension tube between camera and lens, you 'lose' light, right? So if you move a lens closer to the sensor by removing the mirror box, does that mean you 'gain' light? Is it like the equivalent of having a faster lens without the need of a wider aperture?

Yes and no.

If you add an extension tube, pushing the lens beyond it's usual distance, the image circle grows larger and the light per unit area drops. But it's possible to design lenses that have a lot of air between the last element and the sensor that don't lose light.

That said, the ability to have a lens with elements that are near the sensor (with a big enough mount diameter) provides lens designers with more freedom to create a compact lens, correct aberrations, and to direct the light on to the sensor. It mostly helps with the design of shorter focal length lenses.

[Bob L]

The 23mm and 110mm lenses will be very attractive to astrophotographers.

I suspect that we won't know until they've been released and tried....lenses can excel in some environments whilst looking dismal in others.

..... Now I can't recommend my peers to consider 645z for astrophotography. Sad.....

A little like standing on the platform at the station and not getting on the train because they're building a faster one next year.

[Kolor-Pikker]

2. The dial setup seems very different from the 645Z (the 645Z lacks labeled dedicated dials for ISO and shutter speed) while Fuji seems to lack a mode dial (presumably, it's on the back some place). What would frustrate me is having to use the labeled control dials one way for some parts of the shutter & ISO range but then use different dials for extended parts of the shutter and ISO range. Does the Fuji have back dial(s)?

The only real difference is that the mode dial is traded for a pair of dials dictating shutter speed and ISO. Presumably, if you wanted to go from full manual to Av, you'd simply set the shutter to A instead of having to change the mode. Your "mode" is based on which dials have been set to auto or manual. Otherwise, you still have a thumb and fore-finger dial in the usual places that can likely be configured to control any of the above.

[Digitalis]

Presumably, the Fuji lenses have a fly-by-wire system for manual focus so one has better fine control. But on hikes, I tend to mount a new lens and prefocus it a likely working distance with the camera off.

Pre-focusing like this is common technique used among street photographers with rangefinders, by wire focusing completely nixes any attempt at this: it requires power to operate and there are no hard stops in the focusing ring for infinity or MFD. So there is no tactile sense for where you are in the focus range.

---------- Post added 2016-09-21 at 01:24 AM ----------

Now I can't recommend my peers to consider 645z for astrophotography.

It can still do it, if you can't get good results out of it you aren't trying hard enough or lack the required equipment or technique. I have seen astro-photographers use custom peltier/liquid cooled MFDB sensors bolted to telescopes for their work, no fancy EVF, VR/IS lenses or extended ISOs and they produce excellent work, what is holding you back? The difference in FOV of the 25mm and 23mm isn't as big as you would think. So for astro purposes you might get a few extra seconds you can keep the shutter open before the stars start to streak, but you are still limited as both pentax and Fuji UWA lenses are f/4. If Pentax does go for full format 645 sensor they have a winning lens as the 25mm has a significantly broader FOV on full 645 format. Also the clean High ISO of full format 645 CMOS sensors and the f/4 aperture of the 25mm lens make it a superb choice for astro/landscape imaging.

Fuji has laid their cards on the table, pentax/ricoh still has time to come up with something interesting.

[whwang]

I suspect that we won't know until they've been released and tried....lenses can excel in some environments whilst looking dismal in others.

Right, of course. We will need to wait and see how they actually play out. A big problem here is that it's not easy to find thorough test reports on MF lenses. For FF and APSC, we can check the reports on DxO or lenstip, but there are very few (or none?) similar resources for MF.

A little like standing on the platform at the station and not getting on the train because they're building a faster one next year.

That's OK. Most astrophotographers don't jump on a train right away. It took them 2 years to believe Nikon D800 can be excellent for astrophotography, and now there are many adapters of D810A. It will take even longer for them to move to the MF. A few of my friends are interested in 645z. One of them had actually pulled the trigger, and it will take the rests of them months (if not years) to actually make up their mind. So waiting for a year and see how things go with the Fuji mirrorless is not a big deal. Just don't buy 645z right now. The kind of astrophotography I can do with my 645z at this moment is limited by the lenses. I don't want my friends to face similar problems.

---------- Post added 09-20-16 at 08:08 AM ----------

It can still do it, if you can't get good results out of it you aren't trying hard enough. The difference in FOV of the 25mm and 23mm isn't as big as you would think. So for astro purposes you might get a few extra seconds you can keep the shutter open before the stars start to streak, but you are still limited as both pentax and Fuji UWA lenses are f/4. If Pentax does go for full format 645 sensor they have a winning lens as the 25mm has a significantly broader FOV on full 645 format. Also the clean High ISO of full format 645 CMOS sensors and the f/4 aperture of the 25mm lens make it a superb choice for astro/landscape imaging.

Fuji has laid their cards on the table, pentax/ricoh still has time to come up with something interesting.

Do you mean the discontinued 25mm? I don't have one, unfortunately. I will have a chance to borrow one from my friend for a trip to South America in November, so I will see how it works. However, given that it is discontinued, I can't recommend 645z to people based on this lens. On real 645, isn't the old fisheye 25mm or 24mm? Which means 25mm wide-angle is too wide, probably. 23mm or 24mm on the current cropped 645 format is probably about right.

[Digitalis]

we can check the reports on DxO or lenstip

DxO can't test lenses in any meaningful way, their tests of camera sensors are already questionable: you would do well to ignore them. Lenstip at least keep things on the level, and are prepared to own up to their shortcomings regarding lens tests.

Photozone is an excellent resource, but sadly lacking in MF lens tests at this point.

---------- Post added 2016-09-21 at 01:48 AM ----------

Do you mean the discontinued 25mm?

AFAIK It is still available in the Japan market*, to acquire a copy you have to buy it from japan.

I can't recommend 645z to people based on this lens

A lens you have no experience with? any endorsement you could offer in support of the 645Z is evidently based upon nebulous opinion rather than empirical data and therefore is suspect.

* The full 645 Format version of this lens, I am unaware of whether the DA optimized version with the reduced image circle is still in production.

[redrockcoulee]

Kudos to Fujifilm and their new GFX 50S mirrorless MF system. It promises to be another new tool for photographers to up their images. However, I am one that simply prefers an OVF over EVF despite the tradeoffs.

If there is one thing I dislike about photography, itʻs experiencing the world from behind a camera. Being in the moment is different than recording the moment and when I decide to shoot, sometimes I wish I was just there, both eyes open and interacting not just capturing as an observer. With an optical finder, I feel more present while the electronic viewfinder is just one more level that removes me from being present.

I guess it comes down to philosophy, ergonomics, and the experience of the process and each individual photographerʻs preferences. And if the competition helps to make the 645Z more affordable, Iʻll join Fujifilm lovers in their joy.

A bit off topic: I am not a historian of Fujica cameras, Fuji Photo, or Fujifilm, but am I correct in thinking that with the start of the Fujifilm DS-300 digital camera in 1997 did they start using that moniker? Even the Fujifilm Instax does not use film. I remember the old Fujica FSLR cameras but was confused when Fuji Photo changed to Fujifilm when the company essentially went digital. I know they had some medium format film cameras....but for me itʻs like 20th Century Fox. Shouldnʻt they change the name already?

Not until they cease making Acros 100 in 120 size! ☺

[Pablo Villegas]

it seems like a great camera! but still, it will be very expensive. Out of most people range.

i just bought a Pentax 645D with 3 lenses, for less than $2000 USD, that I can afford, not the new Hasselblad or this new Fuji. And they wont offer that big of an improvement for $8,000 USD more! and being Fuji, it wont have high speed sync, and most likely wont have leaf shutter lenses. i still think the new Hasselblad is better because of that.

[whwang]

AFAIK It is still available in the Japan market*, to acquire a copy you have to buy it from japan.
A lens you have no experience with? any endorsement you could offer in support of the 645Z is evidently based upon nebulous opinion rather than empirical data and therefore is suspect.
* The full 645 Format version of this lens, I am unaware of whether the DA optimized version with the reduced image circle is still in production.

Thank you for pointing me to the Japanese market. I do go to Japan every once a while and shop for photo equipments. Unfortunately I checked the websites of Bic Camera and Map Camera and cannot find this lens. Yodobashi still lists this lens, but also says it is discontinued. I think it is fair to say that even if it still exists in Japan, it is hard to get. I can't recommend this lens to my astrophoto friends not because I don't know the performance of this lens, but because it is hard to get.

[desertscape]

If you add an extension tube, pushing the lens beyond it's usual distance, the image circle grows larger and the light per unit area drops. But it's possible to design lenses that have a lot of air between the last element and the sensor that don't lose light.

The use of an extension tube causes light loss because you have increased the focal length of the lens without changing the diaphragm, so the focal ratio changes. The focal length is increased because the rays entering the lens at macro distances are not parallel but diverging. This divergence causes the focus to be pushed further back, requiring the use of a tube. The light loss has nothing to do with image circle.