[JJ_SO]

The test images on dpreview already show that the 5DSR does fine resolution wise, compared to the Pentax for instance.

Actually, the Canon looks better in this test scene at low ISO. To me the Pentax also suffers from a lens which appears to be weaker than the Canon lens. At first. At second, I saw in the top right corner aberrations from Pentax and none from canon, but the smaller structures were finer at the Pentax. In front of the Canon was a "normal" 85/1.8 @f/5.6, whereas the Pentax had a 90/2.8 macro lens mounted @f/8

 

At ISO 3200 things look different, however.

 

The test scene is only resolutionwise a challenge for the cameras - no comparison of real life pictures. No challenge of dynamic range or colordepth. Okay, with lower DR one can take two shots, if possible. Just not on a windy day or with moving persons. And also the visual depth and more the gradient of the bokeh is not visible in the test scene. When I moved from 135 to 120 film and sometimes to even larger format I realized it was much easier to compose better pictures, have a wider range of greyscales and so on - but mostly because I didn't fiddle around with low ASA, I used in both HP5 plus, so there was an easy bonus for MF. But even when I used low ASA, the density of MF was stronger - and I think, this is what makes MF surviving these days .

 

Elegance, weight and simplicty of the GFX 50 are tempting. Question is how good Fuji can prepare the sensor with the microlenses to catch up with a 2.6 × shorter flange distance?

[JJ_SO]

Not sure why they do not compare it to the size of a Sony A7r II, though.

Available here

[Brightcolours]

Available here

Thanks, that comparison makes a lot more sense!

 

The guy in the video talks a lot of rubbish though: Fuji designed sensor (it is a Sony designed sensor), Focal plane shutter for lower shutter shock... So what kind of shutter provides more shutter shock? 1.7x bigger sensor than FF? I don't think so.

[JJ_SO]

I haven't watched it.

 

Fuji changed the design of the microlenses to be able to reduce the usual flange distance down to 40%. So, a bit of Fuji brain is in, but it's a Bayer pattern made by Sony.

 

shutter shock and mirror slap are for some people the same... but anyway, it has also a full electronic shutter. The shutter makes the lenses cheaper per se than the Hasselblad ones, but when Hasselblad tells that within ten days the got orders they were expecting to get for one year, it certainly is a need and demand. Is it then ProSumer or PoshSumer?  :lol:

 

1.7× bigger is correct:

24×36 = 864 mm²

33×44 = 1452 mm²

 

1452 ÷ 864 = 1.68

 

Was the battery empty in your equivanlenculator?  B) 

[Brightcolours]

I haven't watched it.

 

Fuji changed the design of the microlenses to be able to reduce the usual flange distance down to 40%. So, a bit of Fuji brain is in, but it's a Bayer pattern made by Sony.

 

shutter shock and mirror slap are for some people the same... but anyway, it has also a full electronic shutter. The shutter makes the lenses cheaper per se than the Hasselblad ones, but when Hasselblad tells that within ten days the got orders they were expecting to get for one year, it certainly is a need and demand. Is it then ProSumer or PoshSumer?  :lol:

 

1.7× bigger is correct:

24×36 = 864 mm²

33×44 = 1452 mm²

 

1452 ÷ 864 = 1.68

 

Was the battery empty in your equivanlenculator?  B) 

Usually we only count the difference in diagonal (thats why we call MFT 2x crop and Fuji APS-C 1.5x crop).  ^_^

But thanks for the calculus,

[Guest]

Well it is a sony sensor modified by fuji. Supposedly (if you believe fuji pr) it will perform 'better' than hass version (I think better refers to dr).

 

Thanks, that comparison makes a lot more sense!

 

The guy in the video talks a lot of rubbish though: Fuji designed sensor (it is a Sony designed sensor), Focal plane shutter for lower shutter shock... So what kind of shutter provides more shutter shock? 1.7x bigger sensor than FF? I don't think so.

[toni-a]

Here's a size comparo of different sensor sizes and yes there are several medium formal sensor sizes 

 

[southerncross]

The closer to a squere the aspect ratio gets the easier it is to compose, for me, at least. The 4:3 aspect ratio makes more sense actually for portrait orientation than 3:2. So for studio work "43.8 × 32.9 mm" can be a lot more usefull than a equivalent  portion of a FF sensor of 32x24mm for a 4:3 aspect ratio (and a whole stop of difference). For landscape orientation some may prefer wider aspect ratios like 16:9 the difference it will be in favor of FF sensors from a buck for bang perspective.

 

If someone goes into a total cost of ownership scenarios the results may be suprising, but the Fuji GFX (or Pentax 645Z) seems more sensible to me than Zeiss manual focus uber-lenses for Canon and Nikon FF systems, which are close in price and perfomance. 

[Klaus]

So we can conclude - "Full format" is dead. 

APS-C is for amateurs, MF for professionals. That is the new order of things - just as it was always meant to be.

Just kidding (but I enjoyed it) ... although honestly it makes sense. Who needs full format for sports for instance ? Sports photos end on websites or in tabloids - virtually no need for 30+mp anyway. Wildlife ? What's the effective resolution after air diffusion ? Certainly not 50mp on FF. Portraits and studio ? Better with MF. 

Regarding the high entry price tag of a A7R II/ S II, D5, 5DsR, 1D xII in conjunction with hefty price hikes for their pro lenses, they are out of reach for most non-pros anyway now and many (true) pros will not scream about the price tag of the GFX. If pro DSLRs are dead on the mid-term anyway, why go Sony if you can have a GFX now?

 

It would be so funny if it ended like that ... 

[JJ_SO]

So far, hand-held and non tethered MF bodies had to rely to indirect AF as well, it was just a better situation because the lenses are less fast. Faster lenses and altogether smaller parts result in tighter tolerances which not every manufacturer is up to, apparently.

 

It's a bit sad to see the FF era going to a possible end once one "MF" sensor (which will remain a FF-H or FF plus to me, because MF to me is more than just 80% more surface than FF) gets popular and comparatively affordable. But for a while the FF machines will remain as they are versatile enough for the people owning one. That was a reason for 135 film and is remaining for FF as well, as long as mirrors are connected to the prejudice of higher quality.

 

Not so quick with calling it "dead", please.