[LFLee]

here is a interesting story of how Fujifilm MF GFX started...
Fujifilm GFX :: The True Story About a Secret Meeting (and Test) That Convinced Fujifilm to Go Medium Format - Fuji Rumors

"Fujifilm took a RAW file of the Medium Format Pentax 645z and processed it using their unique image X processing engine. And guess what? The image quality Fujifilm got out of the Pentax RAW file was already superior to the original Pentax image simply by applying their own image processing algorithm."

GFX pricing is coming hard on Pentax 645 series.

[eddie1960]

here is a interesting story of how Fujifilm MF GFX started...
Fujifilm GFX :: The True Story About a Secret Meeting (and Test) That Convinced Fujifilm to Go Medium Format - Fuji Rumors

"Fujifilm took a RAW file of the Medium Format Pentax 645z and processed it using their unique image X processing engine. And guess what? The image quality Fujifilm got out of the Pentax RAW file was already superior to the original Pentax image simply by applying their own image processing algorithm."

GFX pricing is coming hard on Pentax 645 series.

it looks to target Pentax definitely, but i think the bigger target is the Hassy which so far looks less than impressive , and any mamiya/phase trying to compete in that price as well. Pentax has the lens assortment advantage most definitely at the moment (though Fuji lenses are almost always stellar so serious competition for anything offered for the 645)

[davidsladek]

...from the life of Fuji marketing guys

[eddie1960]

...from the life of Fuji marketing guys

Maybe but i will give them benefit, their apsc sensors are excellent

[Rondec]

Sorry if I don't buy into the adervtising hype.

If someone has enough money to buy a 645z or Fuji gfx, I hope to goodness that they are doing their own post processing and not relying on camera jpeg engines. Seems like a waste otherwise.

[Huy]

I have several questions:

1) What is the raw file format Fujifilm took from 645z? is it DNG or PEF?
2) What is the format of the processed file coming out of image X engine?
3) If the processed image is JPEG. Does it mean a lot to raw shooters?

- Thank you.

[eddie1960]

Sorry if I don't buy into the adervtising hype.

If someone has enough money to buy a 645z or Fuji gfx, I hope to goodness that they are doing their own post processing and not relying on camera jpeg engines. Seems like a waste otherwise.

all raw have proprietary processing applied i still pp all my files but the starting point is very good with Fuji files so in many cases you can do virtually nothing and have an excellent image , the big difference though will come in making it an Xtrans sensor using their micro array with lenses designed for that sensor array. Xtrans has a very different look right out of the camera than bayer array sensors like the 645z et al

[Rondec]

all raw have proprietary processing applied i still pp all my files but the starting point is very good with Fuji files so in many cases you can do virtually nothing and have an excellent image , the big difference though will come in making it an Xtrans sensor using their micro array with lenses designed for that sensor array. Xtrans has a very different look right out of the camera than bayer array sensors like the 645z et al

Sorry, I still don't buy it. Fuji works most of their magic by overstating their iso levels, making Fuji image files seem cleaner at a given iso than competitors. By using the x trans sensor, they make certain that DXO Mark doesn't test their images to clarify the situation.

I can just imagine them looking at a 645z iso 400 file and saying "Can you imagine how our fans are going to flip at this iso 1600 image? Why, it looks as clean as Pentax's iso 400 files."

Beyond which RAW files should not have proprietary processing applied. If Fuji is applying processing that sticks with an image when you open it in Lightroom, then that is bad on their part. You should have a clean, neutral file that you can then process however you want.

[eddie1960]

Sorry, I still don't buy it. Fuji works most of their magic by overstating their iso levels, making Fuji image files seem cleaner at a given iso than competitors. By using the x trans sensor, they make certain that DXO Mark doesn't test their images to clarify the situation.

I can just imagine them looking at a 645z iso 400 file and saying "Can you imagine how our fans are going to flip at this iso 1600 image? Why, it looks as clean as Pentax's iso 400 files."

Beyond which RAW files should not have proprietary processing applied. If Fuji is applying processing that sticks with an image when you open it in Lightroom, then that is bad on their part. You should have a clean, neutral file that you can then process however you want.

the accepted level oso difference has been one stop, and the difference is in the look not just the light capability, but if you haven't tried and compared to what you use it's moot. when i changed i was open thanks to a theft, i tried the k3 the fuji and the OM series out. I seriously considered all three series, only wanted one mount so i chose a brand. it was close between Pentax and Fuji, , Fuji won out because i liked the form factor (which is what kept me using Pentax when i went digital), I didn't consider Canon, I did think about nikon but too big and heavy....
I doubt Fuji cares about DXO at all, they want to provide in part an SOOC experience similar to shooting Fuji films and have done so. Don't get me wrong I love Pentax kit (I shot it on and off for most of 40 years) ,
as for the proprietary look, there is a pull down in the develop menu to apply camera setting(at the bottom just below dehaze) , when you open lightroom what you get is the adobe setting (Adobe Camera Raw), that is a proprietary setting as well. you have the option to leave as shot (like say DNG vs PEF) it's not a permanent setting it is a raw file, it is like all raw files the start point for your edit. I actually think for my experience the Fuji XT1 is what a pentax kx/mx/lx mirrorless would be like to shoot.
what is different about the Xtrans is how it renders versus bayer array (iso difference taken in to account) I think the medium format will be a serious competitor to the 645z, I think the reality is though the other 2 will lose more to fuji than Pentax, because despite some similarities the real target is phase who own more share or hassy who have a competing mirrorless (which i think will be crushed by the Fuji) the pentax is built like a tank and has the big beautiful OVF which many will prefer, and since as you pointed out PP is still being done the files will look great either way

[Winder]

Fuji would have to hack the 645z and replace the Pentax image processing algorithm with the one made by Fuji. Then export a DNG file to work with. The in camera image processor does impact the quality of the RAW files. Pentax has always done a good job of delivering good clean RAW files. The K-1 outperforms the D810 in terms of clean RAW files. I am still amazed at the quality of the K-1 RAW files.

I like the concept of the GFX, but I will wait on the actual reviews and reports. The GFX will not have an X-Trans sensor. It will have a standard Bayer color array. The GFX is using a sensor that only has CDAF, so no on sensor PDAF to help with AF speed. Ricoh needs to take advantage of the fact its 645 platform is designed for a true 6x4.5 size sensor and bring one to market. Yes the 645 system is bigger, but its designed for a much larger sensor.

Fuji is going a lot of good stuff and its obvious that Ricoh is doing well enough in the MF market that Fuji is going after them. Ricoh needs to step up is game and get some updated glass on the market. I really like the Fuji concept and I love how they listen to their users and keep updating firmware with improved features. I have friends who have switched over to Fuji and love them. I think Ricoh needs to take notes on how Fuji markets and how quickly Fuji has brought high quality glass to market. That said, I have tested my K-3 against the Fuji X-T1 and the K-3 RAW files are still better. With DxO Prime I can apply enough noise reduction to the K-3 files exceed the results of the X-T1 and still have more detail.

[pathdoc]

Fuji would have to hack the 645z and replace the Pentax image processing algorithm with the one made by Fuji. Then export a DNG file to work with.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Then again, look what happened when Minolta "imitated" Honeywell a little too closely.

I'm not going to say this will end with Fuji lying dead in the dust and their tech wearing a Ricoh label, but still, the line between "hack" and "plagiarise" can get pretty thin if you're an IT lawyer out for blood.

[biz-engineer]

Fujifilm GFX started with... 645z file? here is a interesting story of how Fujifilm MF GFX started... Fujifilm GFX :: The True Story About a Secret Meeting (and Test) That Convinced Fujifilm to Go Medium Format - Fuji Rumors "Fujifilm took a RAW file of the Medium Format Pentax 645z and processed it using their unique image X processing engine. And guess what? The image quality Fujifilm got out of the Pentax RAW file was already superior to the original Pentax image simply by applying their own image processing algorithm." GFX pricing is coming hard on Pentax 645 series.

First of, you can compare Fiju Y engine with Pentax XYZ super turbo rocket image processor. Not in the same league. Before Fuji was even thinking of making the GFX, Pentax have put the Fuji GFX sensor in front of the Pentax image processor and the image looked ugly compared to the Pentax sensor processed by Pentax turbo reactor image processor.

[2351HD]

Marketing BS

[mikeSF]

"Fujifilm took a RAW file of the Medium Format Pentax 645z and processed it using their unique image X processing engine. And guess what? The image quality Fujifilm got out of the Pentax RAW file was already superior to the original Pentax image simply by applying their own image processing algorithm."

What am I missing here? They took an unprocessed image and processed it...it looked better?!
Sounds like a game changer.

[interested_observer]

... Ricoh needs to take advantage of the fact its 645 platform is designed for a true 6x4.5 size sensor and bring one to market. Yes the 645 system is bigger, but its designed for a much larger sensor.

In the end, it's a Sony sensor from both. Neither is FABing their own propriety sensor. If and when a true 6x4.5 size sensor becomes available, it will be available to everyone. Yes, Pentax will be able to drop it into their current body, easily - however the others will soon follow....