Medium format vs full frame.

[Derrel]

Since the launch of the Fuji GFX 50 44x33 camera about 30 days ago or so, there has been HUGE use of older, adapted lenses on this camera, both 35mm system lenses and older medium format lenses. MANY,many,many 35mm lenses work very nicely on this sensor size, with no vignetting, or very slight vignetting. I've seen great images made by Nikon,Canon,Zeiss,Leica lenses for 35mm. Really NICE images from a host of Mamiya 645 and 6x7 lenses. Mamiya's 80mm f/1.9 is a nice performer. Some of the Yashica/Contax 35mm lenses are nice too! The number of adapters already on the market has made this camera a very successful early launcher.

35mm tilt/shift from Nikon in the older 28 and 35mm PC series from the 70's and 80's, many 50/1.4 lenses, lots of wide-angles, fast teles like the Zeiss and Nikon 85/1.4's, Leica lenses of multiple types (wide-normal-short tele), and the Nikon 200-500 AF-S and 105mm f/1.4, you name it...the 44x33mm mirrorless from Fuji is adapting very well to 35mm system lenses!

 

[Solarflare]

You may want to look at the Fujifilm GFX 50S due to it's new sensor

Actually its exactly the same (SOny) sensors. Fujifilm demanded some slight changes but performance doesnt differ much (some say not at all).

Read this: Thinking about buying a Fujifilm GFX 50S? Read this first

That article isnt based on facts though; fujirumors has soundly disproven it. And its riddiculous how easily that was to do.

Digital "medium format" in the 44 x 33 sensor size needs to be renamed something other than medium format,

I call it "crop 645".

the article dPreview released tries to shed some light

Sorry, but it borders very dangerously to an intentional lie.

 

[Derrel]

People got reallllllllllly bent out of shape to read that the Fuji GFX50 is not the Second Coming of Light. Many were pi**ed off that the Canon 5D S R and its 50-megapixel images are so close in detail and resolution and beauty to the 50-megapixel images from the big new Fuji; many were pi**ed off to see how great the Nikon D810 does with its arguably higher-MTF Nikkor optics: many medium-format type lenses are designed with good but not superb optics, since they do not NEED the same degree of fine detail resolving ability and acuity as do smaller "negative" camera systems; the smaller the capture size, the MORE the lens must be superb in its performance. Many were unaware that there are MUCH faster lenses for 35mm system that can or may give shallower DOF than the Fuji's slower-aperture MF lenses can give.

Resolving capbility is a MIXTURE, a combination of the lens performance, and the size of the capture medium.

It's one of those things where the Kool-Aid was passed out on-line weeks ago, and once the first dispassionate look at the story hit, the ones who had been convinced this new camera was The Second Coming of Light, kind of resisted some simple basics. The Facebook group has been filled with people who seem unfamiliar with how DOF works, and how very CLOSE 50-megapixel images look to those made with 36-MP, or 42-MP, or 50-MP 24x36 sensors, or with the Fuji GFX or Pentax 645Z or Hasselblad X SONY-made 50-MP 44x33 sensors. This is mature sensor technology we've got now in 2017, by Sony, and by Canon. Cameras branded as Sony, Nikon, Hassy 44x33, Pentax 44x33, and Fuji 44x33 cameras are all using Sony-made sensors.

dPreview shot itself in the foot by at first HYPING the GFX50, then later by revising to get the facts straightened out...that irritated a lot of the Fuji faithful, for whom Fuji Corp can do no wrong.

 

[weepete]

If I could afford a MF camera I'd have one. So my vote is to go and buy one if you can get one within budget.

 

[Gary A.]

So Darrel, if you had $6000+ that could only be used on a 50mp+- camera. Would you buy a Fuji?

 

[Derrel]

So Darrel, if you had $6000+ that could only be used on a 50mp+- camera. Would you buy a Fuji?

Well Jerry, I think I'd probably buy a Canon 5D S R, for the 50-million pixels and the hellacious Canon EF lens set that backs it up...Tilt/Shift of the highest quality in 24mm,45mm,and 90mm...the L-series 135/2 which i really liked when I had it; the 70-200 f/4 L-IS-USM lens for light weight and killer optics; the 16-35mm f/4-L-IS-USM; the 300/4-IS; the 85/1.8, their 300/2.8, and so on, PLUS Canon's adaptability to seven other legacy lens systems, and the Canon-family's video capabilities.

Plus the well-refined autofocusing, and the "SMALL" size; the Fuji is so big there are hardly any bags that can carry it with the EVF attachment installed.

I do like the looks of the Fuji, but honestly, they've got a fairly substantial issue with QC on these early units (reminds me of a Nikon launch!). A number of issues with the camera not functioning right have hit a bunch of the Facebook GFX 50 group's members, and they have not shipped "that many" of these $8,000 cameras. (Just ONE example diglloyd blog: Fujifilm GFX 50s: Some Progress, and Fujifilm’s Diagnosis).

And this weird Turn The Camera Off issue that others have been hit by...distressing....diglloyd blog: Fujifilm GFX 50s: Initial Impressions and Defective Camera (?) Stuck on Continuous Shooting Mode

I dunno...I honestly think if I had to go 50-MP today, I would go with the 5D S R: the camera that has a 31-year-old EF lens system behind it, and is over a decade into its refinement from 5D to 5D-II to 5D-III to 5DS R.

Still, there is the Pentax second-generation 44x33, and Hassy's newest mirrorless 44x33, and the Fuji, and Leica's second-gen S-series.

 

[Derrel]

Here's a nice chart showing the size differences/relartive sizes of mezzo-format (44x33mm) and 24x36mm, 645 format, and 5x4 inch sheet film.

17522589_10158368819795573_6048797503565170126_n.jpg

 

[Gary A.]

The 44x33 killed it for me (just slightly larger than FF). The 5D S R makes more sense for me, as I still have a ton of Canon glass. But the adapters for the GFX are nice and a bit of a curve ball.

 

[gsgary]

Digital "medium format" in the 44 x 33 sensor size needs to be renamed something other than medium format, which has long been 6 x 6 cm (58mm x 58mm is more accurate), or 6x7 cm, or 6x8 or 6x9, or even 6x17cm in the case of a wide-format rollfilm back or camera or two here and there. Even the smallest medium format film size was 6 x 4.5 cm. Ken Rockwell's recent arrempt to rename these new "medium format" cameras as mezzo format makes sense. This is a new format size, and it is not the 135 format, and it is MUCH smaller than 645 format.

Do the area calculations of 24x36mm, 44x33mm, 58x40mm, and 58x58, and so on and you'll see that these new "medium format" digital cameras are really not that much larger than the area of a 24 x 36mm or so-called full frame format digital camera.

I read the dPreview article yesterday; reaction to it on the Fuji GFX 50 Facebook page has been swift and filled with hue and cry from the folks who've convinced themselves that it is the next best thing since sliced bread. And there is a positive side to the GFX: super-fast compatibility with multiple lens adapters that have already hit the stores and the web vendors. I have **never** seen adapters for a new camera created as rapidly as for this new Fuji. And the performance of the camera with adapted lenses from Nikon, Zeiss,Mamiya, Canon, etc. has been very,very good. A wide range of 35mm system lenses are offering full coverage with the lens. The fact that lenses designed for 24 x 36mm film cameras (the 135 format as it has been known for decades) can cover this new Fuji's sensor area is an indicator that it's not true "medium format" at all.

A typical 24 x 36mm sensor needs about a 43mm diameter image circle from the lens; an APS-C sensor requires a 29mm image circle diameter. So, there are plenty of legacy 35mm system (Nikon,Canon,Leica M and R, etc.) lenses in existence that can cover the new Fuji GFX 50's image sensor. And I think that is one factor Fuji was aware of, and planned for, and cooperated with adapter developers and makers during the run-up to the release of the GFX 50; the adpaters are already available for purchase, for multiple lens mounts: Mamiya, Leica-M, Leica-R, Hasselblad, Nikon F, Canon EF, and more!

The image quality of the Fuji GFX is very, very nice--as is the image quality of 36- and 42-, and 50-MP FX cameras from Nikon, Sony, and Canon. Make no mistake about it: this is a bigger sensor than 24x36mm, and the detail it can show is very high. But as Ysarex mentioned, the article dPreview released tries to shed some light on the Giant-killer type claims that have been floated about mezzo format digital as it relates to 24x36 format digital.

I still have my baby Rollei; one of the film cameras I had to keep for nostalgia. The format was 4x4 and used 127 film as opposed to 120. It was kind of odd out back in the film days. Remember 2x2 square slides? We can call the new Fuji a baby medium format.

Joe

Your wait for film my be over when Ferrania get going properly they will be able to make any size film ever made, you can also get 127 film from Ilford when they do special runs every year

 

[Derrel]

I often wanted the 4x4, 127-film size-using "baby Rolleiflex", but the unavailablility of 127 film kind of killed my desire for one. Yeah, Ilford's really been good about doing that special sized film run every year for the last 20-or something years--a very nice thing for them to do!

The Fuji GFX50 review just hit dPreview recently, and on Facebook, the GFX50 group is very busy, with lots of pictures being shown every day, and HUGE numbers of them coming from adapted lenses. Canon's 50/1.2 vignettes heavily, but has a nice image; Canon's 90mm T/S is simply outstanding. MANY,many,many 35mm film system lenses look really nice on the GFX50.