Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-26-2016, 12:13 AM   #106
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 8,523
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Yes, exactly what I was thinking, although I'm not knowledgeable about lens design. I think it is marketing BS from Fiji.
They're masters at marketing BS.

For instance, https://photographylife.com/does-fuji-cheat-with-its-sensors

09-26-2016, 12:27 AM   #107
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,248
Masters at marketing BS? Isnʻt all marketing to some extent exaggeration and hyperbole?

I do know what you mean, in that my first two DSLRs were a Fujifilm Finepix S1 and S2 Pro that used the Foveon CCD chip that boasted twice the MP using interpolation. However, I appreciated them because they had a Nikon mount and cost a fraction of what Kodak, Nikon, and Canon were selling in 2000 and 2002.

My Fujifilm S1 and S2 died a LONG time ago, whereas my Nikon D100 from 2002 still works and has never been repaired. I know Fujifilm has produced some excellent and respectable mirrorless over the years, but because of my personal experience with the brand, I have serious concerns over durability and long term reliability.
09-26-2016, 12:59 AM   #108
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,108
What's all the excitement about?

According to Winder the GFX's mount size limits the format size to the current sensor size. This 43.8mm x 32.9mm format, however, is only a (crop-) factor of 1.3 away from the standard FF, 36x24mm format.

That's not a huge improvement.

As Zack Arias (one of Fuji's campaigners) all "educated" us, even a 1.5 (crop-) factor (from APS-C to FF) is "insignificant" and only people with problems care about such minute differences. Now a factor of 1.3 is supposed to have everyone not consider the well-cared for FF market for a slightly bigger sensor built into a camera that has no future to grow the sensor size? That does not make sense, does it?

Given their previous "no one needs FF, the IQ of APS-C is more than sufficient" advertising, doesn't Fuji have same back-pedalling to do if they want to convince people that their GFX has any IQ advantage over an A7RII, say (just to name another mirrorless)?

I believe it is just a matter of time until sensors larger than 43.8x32.8 will become commonplace, just like it took only time for 36x24 sensors to be pretty much commonplace (and the latter evolution from APS-C to FF as the norm for advanced enthusiast cameras is not over yet). The GFX might be seen as featuring a "giant" sensor now, but as soon as Pentax releases a digital 645 that does not have a crop sensor anymore then Fuji will be lagging behind; with no capacity to catch up due to their mount size.

I think Fuji has unnecessarily limited the potential of their camera by using a "small" mount. If weight and size of lenses are somehow priorities, they could have started with crop lenses (much like you can use APS-C lenses on a "135 format camera" with an APS-C sensor). Having a bigger mount that you don't exploit does not significantly add to the weight and size of a lens. BTW, size and weight of many lens designs are largely determined by how "fast" it is, not so much by the image circle size it supports.

I might be underestimating how big the mount of the GFX would have to be, if it were future-proof for a grown-up MF format like 6045. It may have unduly up-sized the camera.

Fuji might be selling a lot of GFX initially, but I feel that they closed themselves a door for selling a lot of these camera in the more distant future. I think the GFX format is an unfortunate format that does not give a big boost over FF -- the latter being well-established with a lot of alternatives to choose from -- and has a lot of support in terms of lenses and professional service networks. I think the GFX format will receive pressure from both FF (there will no doubt be advances) and real MF (bigger sensors which will become more affordable). The GFX format may look good now, but won't it be a "pocket MF" product in the future (i.e., a bit of an oxymoron)?

One never knows, however, how much Fuji's "retro"-theme will override any other issues the GFX may have. People are not rational...

QuoteOriginally posted by copland35 Quote
The Fujifilm mirrorless body and its lenses places the rear element of each lens very close to the sensor. This creates a resolution advantage with light rays striking the sensor almost perpendicular right across the sensor.
Well, if the rays are not perpendicular to the sensor to begin with (they aren't naturally with wide-angle lenses) then the shorter the registration distance, the more oblique they will have to become to still cover the edges of the sensor. With very wide angle lenses, manufacturers like Sony and Leica struggled to avoid colour shifts due to the extreme oblique angles involved.

Perhaps that is an issue for old wide-angle lenses only and newer designs can be made telecentric at the image side. AFAIK, however, a short registration distance only helps up to a point in order to avoid using retrofocus designs, but once lenses get wider the "mirrorless = compact"-advantage (<- largely a myth, AFAIC) has to be eaten into by using a (comparatively) longer lens.

QuoteOriginally posted by texandrews Quote
So, like the Sony FF E-mount series, once adapters hit the street there will be a wide variety of lenses available to use with the camera.
I'm not supporting anyone who states that "old lenses aren't good enough" but there can be a number of issues with adapters:
  • They introduce more tolerances. At the IQ level the GFX aspires to, this matters.
  • They can make AF a challenge. For instance, the metabones adapter on a A7RII sounds like a good idea but I know of one prominent user who said he will have to sell all his Canon glass because it simply does not work well with the adapter.
  • They often take some functionality away.
  • If you use lenses from different system, you need multiple adapters and mounting and unmounting becomes more of a challenge than it is with a single-mount system.
  • Adapters take up space in a camera bag and you have to make sure you've got them with you.

Last edited by Class A; 09-26-2016 at 01:04 AM.
09-26-2016, 01:18 AM   #109
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,779
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
BS from Fiji.
Are there bulls in Fiji?

09-26-2016, 01:21 AM   #110
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Poole
Posts: 1,682
QuoteOriginally posted by surfar Quote
Are there bulls in Fiji?
he-he - well spotted ;D
09-26-2016, 01:24 AM   #111
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,779
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
1.3 away
Is your maths accurate?

---------- Post added 09-26-16 at 07:26 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by ffking Quote
he-he - well spotted ;D
Bula Bula Bula!
09-26-2016, 01:43 AM   #112
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Switzerland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,294
I had the chance of taking the Fuji GFX 50S in the hands at photokina.

I have to say, it fits pretty well in the hands. The grip is of course smaller and not as comfortable as a 645z, but then, the camera is just 800g and even smaller than a D810 (see the photo below showing D810 with AFS 24-70/2.8 vs Fuji GFX50S with 63/2.8). The camera is almost like an oversized XT2, with pretty much the same menu. The shutter is pretty quiet and can even be switched to electronic shutter to turn it totally silent.



What surprised me most, the much shorter flange distance allows especially smaller wide angle lenses, the Fuji 23/4 is much smaller and lighter than the D(F)A645 25/4, while the 120/4 macro is almost similar regardless if Pentax or Fuji.

For me, this Fuji addresses the main "pain point" I am having with the 645z. The 645z delivers amazing quality, but due to weight and size, I leave it too often at home. The much smaller and lighter Fuji might change this, but do I really want to change the large and bright optical viewfinder for an EVF?
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
IPhone 6  Photo 
09-26-2016, 02:08 AM   #113
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,108
QuoteOriginally posted by surfar Quote
Is your maths accurate?
Why wouldn't it be? What did you expect?

You can alternatively state that the GFX's sensor is 67% (or 66% if Winder's 1,437mm^2 figure is correct) larger than a standard FF (36x24) sensor.

Using this (area-based) metric, an FF sensor is 125% bigger than an APS-C sensor (from Sony, Pentax, but not Canon which have a 1.6 crop factor rather than 1.5).

In another thread I used reciprocal crop factors (that tell you how much you have to "shrink" from large to small) to illustrate the difference: From FF to APS-C its 0.67 and from GFX-format to APS-C it is 0.52. Not thaaat dramatic a difference, is it?

AFAIC the GFX-format is at most a "baby MF" format and should be rather referred to as "FF+" (*).

(*) Using "FF" in the commonly used sense of referring to the 36mmx24mm format.

09-26-2016, 03:57 AM   #114
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,238
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
That's not a huge improvement. As Zack Arias (one of Fuji's campaigners) all "educated" us, even a 1.5 (crop-) factor (from APS-C to FF) is "insignificant"
Yes, I remember that. There was a full video from Zack Arias demonstrating why no one needs full frame, because the 1,5x difference with apsc was NE-GLI-GI-BLE. Oh well, the x1.3 difference vs FF is even more NE-GLI-GI-BLE because as IQ increases it become even harder for the eye to perceive any difference, not even mentioning if the MF lens is f3.5 and the FF lense is a f2.8 ....
09-26-2016, 04:05 AM - 1 Like   #115
Veteran Member
Kolor-Pikker's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 341
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
They're masters at marketing BS.
As compared to every MFD camera maker ever that stated they offered "16-bits" of color depth?

Photography as a whole arguably has the least BS attached compared to literally any other art or craft, because you don't have to take anyone's word for it, everything can be measured empirically and inspected visually.

In any case, what I *think* they meant to say was that they had to ensure that light stayed perpendicular, not that the short flange distance enabled it, but given the bad english all throughout the presentation and interviews, I'll chalk it up to as lost in translation.

QuoteOriginally posted by tcom Quote
What surprised me most, the much shorter flange distance allows especially smaller wide angle lenses, the Fuji 23/4 is much smaller and lighter than the D(F)A645 25/4, while the 120/4 macro is almost similar regardless if Pentax or Fuji.
Because 120mm is already equally feasible to manufacture using the same methods regardless of flange distance. Even with 70mm of empty space behind it, you've still got free space until you reach the nodal point, whereas with any lens shorter than that, this point would end up inside of the mirror box, unless you used a retrofocus design to project the IC far enough to clear the mirror.

A short flange distance is almost always of primary benefit to lenses wider than whatever's considered "normal" for the format. However, you still have to contend with the issue of symmetric lens designs being inappropriate for digital sensors, and not having very fast apertures, so some level of retrofocal projection has to be kept intact regardless.
09-26-2016, 06:33 AM - 1 Like   #116
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,142
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
@Copland35:

"The Fujifilm mirrorless body and its lenses places the rear element of each lens very close to the sensor. This creates a resolution advantage with light rays striking the sensor almost perpendicular right across the sensor. The resolution is very high and the artefacts caused by the optics will be greatly reduced."

Other way around.

When rear elements are distant, the light is perpendicular across the frame.

When they are close, they are perpendicular only at the centre. Big problems at the edges.
For simple lens designs, you are right about the relationship between lens element distances and angles. But telecentric lenses are not simple lenses:

The rear element of these kinds of lenses will be larger than the sensor diagonal by an amount related to some percentage of the aperture of the lens.

Sony botched the design of their E-mount with respect to designing these kinds of lenses -- the throat is far too narrow with a full frame sensor to accommodate the kinds of large rear lens elements needed for this design.

P.S. I don't know if Fuji's lens will be true telecentric but their mount diameter is large enough to accommodate something close to it. At the very least, they will be able to design lenses with large rear elements that reduce the sharpness of the angle for off-axis light coming to the sensor.
09-26-2016, 07:32 AM   #117
Veteran Member
Kolor-Pikker's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 341
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
For simple lens designs, you are right about the relationship between lens element distances and angles. But telecentric lenses are not simple lenses:

The rear element of these kinds of lenses will be larger than the sensor diagonal by an amount related to some percentage of the aperture of the lens.

Sony botched the design of their E-mount with respect to designing these kinds of lenses -- the throat is far too narrow with a full frame sensor to accommodate the kinds of large rear lens elements needed for this design.

P.S. I don't know if Fuji's lens will be true telecentric but their mount diameter is large enough to accommodate something close to it. At the very least, they will be able to design lenses with large rear elements that reduce the sharpness of the angle for off-axis light coming to the sensor.
This makes sense, it would also explain why the mount looks so large compared to the sensor, and ties into the things they mentioned about allowing the lens to protrude into the body even further than the mount distance.

Sony's issue is that they utilized the same mount as their APS-C NEX cameras, to have compatibility across the whole mirrorless line, but the reason the NEX mount was so large in the first place was for this extra leeway.
09-27-2016, 03:07 AM   #118
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 119
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
@Copland35:

"The Fujifilm mirrorless body and its lenses places the rear element of each lens very close to the sensor. This creates a resolution advantage with light rays striking the sensor almost perpendicular right across the sensor. The resolution is very high and the artefacts caused by the optics will be greatly reduced."

Other way around.

When rear elements are distant, the light is perpendicular across the frame.

When they are close, they are perpendicular only at the centre. Big problems at the edges.

This begs the question: If Fugi is building a system from the ground up, why not build the system to prevent this, or rather optimize it? Was adapting lenses on their mind when they made this decision? Does this shorter registration distance make it cheaper to make? Is it a function of the camera being mirrorless? Someone suggested that this allows for lighter weight wide angle lenses.
09-27-2016, 03:11 AM   #119
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 119
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Yes, I remember that. There was a full video from Zack Arias demonstrating why no one needs full frame, because the 1,5x difference with apsc was NE-GLI-GI-BLE. Oh well, the x1.3 difference vs FF is even more NE-GLI-GI-BLE because as IQ increases it become even harder for the eye to perceive any difference, not even mentioning if the MF lens is f3.5 and the FF lense is a f2.8 ....

Just listened to a short DPR video interview with Toshihisa Iida, Fujifilm's General Manager of the Sales and Marketing Group, and he says Fugi felt like the gap between APS-C and FF is too narrow. They wanted to go after the "top, top resolution" [with the GFX] .
09-27-2016, 03:13 AM   #120
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,542
QuoteOriginally posted by rfkiii Quote
This begs the question: If Fugi is building a system from the ground up, why not build the system to prevent this, or rather optimize it? Was adapting lenses on their mind when they made this decision? Does this shorter registration distance make it cheaper to make? Is it a function of the camera being mirrorless? Someone suggested that this allows for lighter weight wide angle lenses.
I think the whole point of mirrorless is to try to create thinner cameras. They aren't necessarily smaller with regard to height and width, but they aren't as thick. That and I suppose the whole EVF thing, which some folks love and some hate.

As to lens design, lenses will be smallest when their focal length is close to the registration distance. With the k mount, this allows for a fairly tiny 40mm lens like the DA 40 (or the 40 XS). So Fuji should be able to have relatively small wide angles with this. At the same time, longer lenses will end up being a little longer on a camera with a shorter registration distance than on one with a longer registration distance.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
645d, 645z, camera, dslr, evf, filters, focus, frame, fuji, fuji mirrorless medium, issues, japan, landscapes, lens, lenses, medium format, mirror, pentax, photography, plane, quality, sensor, shot, shutter, tests, tiltable
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fuji GFX Medium Format Announced. Winder Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 58 01-09-2017 05:33 AM
Fuji Medium Format Camera to be announced on September 19 interested_observer Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 35 09-14-2016 05:29 AM
Phase One Mirrorless Medium Format interested_observer Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 5 11-14-2014 02:24 PM
Interesting - Phase One releasing mirrorless Medium Format Cameras itshimitis Pentax Medium Format 4 11-14-2014 09:57 AM
Pentax medium format mirrorless camera Big Dave Pentax Medium Format 6 07-04-2014 11:19 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:32 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top