[photoptimist]

There may be a hundred million pixels, but it is still a 44 x 33mm sensor. Why not a full 645 sized one? I suppose even $10 000 is not enough for that.

The Fuji design is hobbled. Unlike the Pentax 645 design, the GFX could never use a true 645 sensor because the mount is too small.

Currently, Phase One, Hasselblad, and Mamiya do offer "full frame" 645 but they all cost $$,$$$.

[surfar]

So,where is the "unhobbled" Pentax?

Is it in your Dreams?

---------- Post added 05-17-20 at 01:35 PM ----------

the GFX could never use a true 645 sensor because the mount is too small.

$ony stuck a FF sensor in a crop mount,theres a bit of room around the sensor in GFX mount.Not sure if its quite large enough or Fuji will stick to what they call their SuperFullFrame?

---------- Post added 05-17-20 at 01:38 PM ----------

645 but they all cost $$,$$$.

Making the 3 Fuji bodies and accompanying modern,designed for digital,all WR lenses,reasonable value.

[Wasp]

The Fuji design is hobbled. Unlike the Pentax 645 design, the GFX could never use a true 645 sensor because the mount is too small.

The GFX is said to be quite compact for a medium format camera. Now we know how they managed that - build it around the 44x33mm sensor. That also means that lenses can be smaller and cheaper less expensive. The downside is that a new body and lens lineup will be needed for full frame 645, as you point out. Just like the crop frame APS-C versus full frame 35mm thing in the world of the non-MF riff raff.

Thanks for the lowdown.

[tljensen]

Over several days last winter I took the time to finally compare cameras and lens combinations. I have a Pentax KP 24 MP and a Nikon D750 full frame 24 MP. There is a house about 150 yards that has trees in front of it, stone work, wood siding, metal screen in the chimney, and a Dish antenna with writing on it. That house was my target as it represented real life everyday landscape shooting. For lenses I was comparing the Pentax 55-300 PLM to the hefty Nikon 200-500, hardly a fair comparison but I wanted to see how the Pentax stood up to the Nikon big guns. All shots were taken on a sturdy tripod with remote release, manual focus, shake reduction / VR off,, and using the same exposure settings. The results were surprising. The first thing I looked at was the lettering on the Dish antenna, was it clearly legible. Then the grain of the wood, the texture of the stone, and the screen material in the chimney. At first I thought I was doing something wrong because the results were not expected or consistent. Both lenses would produce tack sharp images, then one would be better than the other, then visa-versa. I took multiple shots with the same camera, lens, exposure and even then had inconsistent results. I was starting to feel really bad about my cameras and lenses. After a few days obsessing with this I finally figured what the problem was The main culprit affecting image quality was the air. The shooting conditions was clear, no wind, and snow on the ground. But there was enough thermal activity going on to distort the images, even as I watched using live view. I came to the conclusion that for long shots the atmosphere conditions will have a greater effect on the image quality than mega-pixles or expensive lenses. At some point there is diminishing return in attempting to get the perfect image. Now I seldom take the Nikon out when I expect to see animals at distance, the KP will do just as well as the atmosphere will allow it to.