« $200 Off Today Only | Main | Two 'In Development' Announcements »

Monday, 19 September 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"...but it will provide formidable competition to Sony, Nikon and Canon's full frame offerings."

Looks like you better include Leica and Hasselblad in that list. It will be interesting to see what price point this introduction comes in at.

Biggest new camera day in quite a while.... GH5, Fuji G-Mount, new Alpha 99 II (surprised some people), EM1 II with some impressive features and even a larger battery finally. Good to see all the interesting progress.

When I read the bit about the aspect ratios I almost cheered. This is a feature that should be much more prevalent, especially on mirrorless cameras. I hope this trickles down to Fuji's APS-C cameras as well.

Regarding complimentary, I find a lot of truth in that. Except I've been thinking how well a medium format camera would compliment my Olympus E-M5:

One has a huge sensor, with all that entails, and the other has image stabilization and a relatively deep depth of field, which is great when you want to shoot still scenes hand-held in bad light.

There's more to it, but I'm already boring anybody reading this.

When I said image stabilization above, I was thinking with fastish prime lenses. So, compact, bright and image stabilized.

Interesting, no mention that I've seen of whether theCFA will be Bayer or X-Trans.

Goodness! An object, for me, of likely immense desire but one I cannot afford or even justify.

There's just no quarter given by camera and lens makers is there? Even with a declining market they keep putting out these enticing products.

So Mike, (or someone) do the math for me: where does this fall in the range of MF film cameras that I owned over the years: 6x4.5; 6x6; 6x7; 6x9?

One of the things that impressed me about the new MF Fuji is that it appears quite compact for a MF ILC camera. Look at it compared to an X-T2, which on the right: It's smaller in height that the X-T2 with power grip. Hmmm.....

On a more important photographic note, Fuji will be releasing Instax film in the square format! :-)

See: http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n160920_01.html

I just called my banker. Looks like I will be sticking the X Pro 2 and X100T for the foreseeable future...sigh...

I did buy one of these two weeks ago off Ebay:


It's sort of the same thing just a few thousand dollars less. :-)

Some links and videos folks might find of interest:





As someone who has been in the biotech scientific instrumentation industry my entire professional life, I am very impressed with Fujifilm. In the Six Sigma/Design for Sigma profession/discipline, we have a simple saying about the folks we work with regarding the transformation efforts we drive into our respective companies to ensure maximal innovation, value and quality for customers. And that is whether someone "gets it".

Man! Do these guys get it.


I thought the formula for determining equivalent focal length for medium format was to, divide the marked focal length by two, and then add 10% of the marked focal length. In doing the this, the equivalent focal length of the 63 would be closer to a 35 than a 50. Have I been lead astray?

[It's usually expressed as a factor, usually (if incorrectly) called the "crop factor." The factor for the 33x44 Fuji sensor is .79X, so just multiply any of the actual focal lengths by .79 to get the 35mm/FF equivalent. 63 x .79 is 49.77, which rounds to 50. --Mike]

Not sure I understand why MF mirrorless? Wouldn't a reflex lens system make more sense. I mean either way this is a big hunk of metal. Definitely like the decision to skip full frame. Pentax MF seems downright affordable, looking forward to seeing where Fuji prices out.

"Medium format" is a film term. Any digital camera bigger than full-frame is simply a large sensor camera. It's not like we're going to see 4x5 or 8x10 sensors!

I can sense your enthusiasm and the camera and lenses seem nice, but it's competitiveness to full frame depends in my mind largely on price and AF performance (and I'm not even talking video).

I wonder how far my Fuji GF670 would go as a trade in? Seriously though, I think this must be giving some concern to the folks in Stockholm. Apart from the fairly complete lens line already announced, the camera includes a shutter, so other lenses could be mounted via adaptor.

Perhaps the best news about the GFX (for my purposes, anyway) is the flange-to-sensor distance is a very short 26.7mm. This, combined with its focal plane shutter, means that it should be very easy to adapt it to use non-Fuji lenses ... provided, of course, that Fuji has configured the firmware to allow the shutter to fire without a Fuji lens attached.

As coincidence would have it, I'm already in the process of redesigning the rear standard of my Frankencamera to accommodate camera bodies with deep grips, so if the GFX proves to be a competent performer when it comes to the low ISO, long exposure, nighttime photos I typically take, I can see it replacing the Sony A7R I'm presently using. Oh, happy day! 8^)

The coming Fuji square Instax has a real MF sensor - 6.2 x 6.2 cm , maybe it'll be a waist-level reflex camera :-)

That's all lovely and exciting but what's with all these manufacturers announcing they have cameras in development? I'm old enough to remember when they would announce finished, ready-for-market products at Photokina.

The detachable finder and rotating adapter got my attention. Fuji has a good record for cameras that are optimized for vertical. Still I'd rather have a square format.

I hope the sensor is not one of the X-Trans variety. I don't see much sense in building a medium format system and be confined to shooting JPEG.

In other news, Hasselblad presented this cracking little concept system:


To answer Charlie H, Fuji states in their marketing stuff that the absence of a moving mirror increases the sharpness of the GFX by 15% or more.

Aside, it would be really nice if Fuji (or someone else) launched an RF model that would take Mamiya 6/7 lenses with an adapter.

Those lenses are superb, but have leaf shutters, so they probably won't natively play well with non-RF Live View cameras.

Back-in-the-day Fuji medium format rangefinders were referred to as Texas Leicas. Will we be calling this a Texas XT? :-)

A good move bypassing Full Frame!!

Here's the brochure for the Instax Square http://instax.com/square/

The image is 62x62 mm (2.4x2.4 inch). It's due in early '17. Maybe I'll get one to go along with my iPhone 7+ and my GoPro Hero5 https://gopro.com The combined weight should be lighter than a Canon xxD :-)

Jon Porter, I was just thinking the same thing this afternoon.

"Medium" compared to what?

(I mean I know, I get it, but it does seem a little silly to still be using that term).

(Sillier even than "full frame")

My problem with this camera is that it does not seem to really be medium format. Today the sensor Fuji is using is the biggest available but in a few years there will be true medium format sensors around.

At that point I think most buyers for this kind of camera will prefer true medium format.

If Fuji designed the mount and the lenses to handle 2 1/4 but had their first release be a crop version that would be great but it does not seem that is what they did.

I've been looking forward to this announcement, but I am left wondering if Fuji has missed the mark a bit by not offering leaf shutter versions of their lenses. It seems to me that much of the market for medium format is built on the high sync speeds that leaf shutters offer, and I think the relatively weak market performance (for the technology and value offered) of the Pentax cameras is in large part a result of this.

Time will tell. And I suppose leaf shutters may in fact be a part of the plan and they've just not announced that yet.

I keep hearing people complain about two things: focal plane shutter, and calling the sensor medium format.
By having a FP shutter, the lenses will be less expensive and lighter. They also allow the photographer to use other MF lenses. If it was a leaf shutter system, you couldn't use other lenses.
And as far as the sensor, forget the label of medium format and just consider that it is twice as large as a FF sensor. This is a great compromise because it allows for a small, easily hand-held camera.

Mirrorless actually makes more sense in "medium" format than in "FF" and smaller sizes. The mirror box is that much larger, and removing that mostly empty space could easily save an inch or more from an MF camera body. Combine that with the shorter lens registration distance and you're three inches thinner, right?

Too bad I can't abide EVFs. And I can't abide such expensive cameras. I choose to be happy with my new Pentax K-1, at 1/5 the price, even if it's so last month....

Peter Wright said:

Seriously though, I think this must be giving some concern to the folks in Stockholm.


There, I fixed it for you :)

(It's hard to not feel like that guy when posting pedantic corrections online.)

@ Jon Porter. Yes ‘medium format’ seems silly, but besides counting the scores in English sports there isn’t anything more absurd than labeling in photography. Think of all the inch-specifications of the sensors or ‘DSLR.’ That’s to distinguish it from a Digital Twin Lens Reflex?
The English probably had a few gin tonics too many. Modern photography has its marketeers. The most recent trend is (see the illustration above) that some try to rename full-frame into 35mm. The width of a film size. Sounds as if it has a perforated sensor.

I've been less than excited about all these new "alleged" medium format cameras that aren't. The long side of this chip is about the same size as the short side of 645 film, not to mention no where near 6X6 or 6X7. There have been CCD sensors in the past that were bigger than this and closer to 645.

Yeah, yeah, I get all the reasons about the expense of chip size, getting the info off the chip the larger it gets, yada, yada; but it ain't medium format, and it's probably the same difference to FF as APS-C vs. FF; i.e. "not that much", and probably not worth the money.

As far as I'm concerned, the big differentiation between what looks like film out of digital and what doesn't, is how many bits the color channels are. There are some of these tiny "fake" medium format CMOS chips that have gone backward from the 16 bit color the older CCD sensors had, to 14 bit color. Mistake.

You could give me a FF 35mm format based sensor with 24 bit color (24 megapixels or better), and I can go back to sleep until they come out with a real 6X7 sensor!

These incremental sensor changes are about marketing and getting you to dump your old stuff, rather than global and stunning improvements!

John Porter and PaddyC: it is indeed strange that "medium format" is now larger than "full frame".

I would call this and it's Hasselblad cousin, macro 4/3 cameras.

Camera manufacturers love to quote how much larger their sensor AREA is compared to other sensor sizes. Fuji says the area is 1.7 times the AREA area of "full frame" which I take to mean 24x36mm. Much more relevant to me is how much larger the short and the long side of the new sensor are compared to full frame. The figures are 137% and 122%. These are more meaningful figures if you want to compare "equal quality" print sizes.

It is interesting that the sensor aspect ratio is 1.33:1 (or 2.66:2 if you want to compare easily with full frame) which is the default aspect ratio (4:3). All other aspect ratios will use less than the 51.4 MP on the sensor.

The selectable aspect ratio maybe a good thing if you need it. I shoot with a Sony A7 full frame camera which has an aspect ratio of 3:2. To simplify life I almost always print in the A paper size ratio which is square root of 2 to 1, or 1.414:1 (or 2.828:2). When shooting I therefore always keep in mind that a bit of the left and /or right part of the picture will not be printed.

For $10k I could buy a Hasselblad 500 CM ($1500) and $8500 worth of film and scanning...

Nice camera, but why get this over a Canon 5DSr or Sony A7IIr? Pretty well all you get is a bigger, more expensive body and a choice of fewer lenses. I realize I am not in the market for these so-called "medium format" cameras. It has a 1.7X larger sensor than 35mm - doesn't strike me as an essential purchase for most pros these days: even if they are studio based. I guess you'll know if you need it.

Very pleased it's mirrorless; releasing a new format DSLR at this point would be rather foolhardy.

In addition to my former reaction @ Jon Porter about ‘medium format:’

To throw us even more in confusion the sensor of the Phase One digital backs is named ‘Full Frame 645.’ The original 6 x 4,5mm film was 56 x 42mm. The Phase One sensor measures 53,7 x 40,4mm. That’s 8% cheating, but one and a half times as much as the sensor of the new Fujifilm and Hasselblad.
‘Full Frame 35mm’ measures 36 x 24mm, about 60% of Fuji's sensor size. Could this in-between position be the reason why it is called ‘medium?’

Anyway, ‘full-frame 35mm’ is bonkers. The whole naming of sensors is a loony bin. Why can’t we have a something like joule, watt or kelvin? I wished we used such a standard as a reference for the 36 x 24mm ‘Kleinbild’ size. I'd give the honors to Oskar Barnack, and 1B for barnack being 864mm².
In that case 1-inch = 0.14B, Micro 43 = 0.26B, APS-C = 0.51B, full-frame = 1.0B, Fuji & Hassel medium format = 1.7B, Phase One full-frame 645 = 2.5B.

Not a ghost of a chance of course. Not as long as they give cameras names like GFX 50s or OM-D E-M1 II.

This is well into "sell a kidney" territory for me, but it's still fun to follow along. If the third-party adapters show up for other lens mounts this will still be lust worthy once it's superseded and starts showing up on the used market. I still, on occasion, catch myself trolling keh.com for a used Pentax 645D.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007