[Brightcolours]

Claiming that 44x33 mm sensor is "nearly just full frame" shows total misunderstanding of this format. It is 1,7 times larger than "full frame". And the IQ diference is astonishing.

The IQ difference is mostly imagined.

---

I just love how the defenders of the GFX always quite the area difference vs 35mm and say "it's 1.7 times larger". Every other system compares the length. 35mm is 1.5 times larger than APS-C if you compare the length of an edge. It's 2.25 times larger if you compare the area. 44x33 is closer to 35mm than APS-H is.

Even if you compare the shorter edges, where GFX has an advantage because it's 4:3 ratio, not 3:2, the difference is still tiny at 1.375.

And the IQ difference is not that great. Yes it's there, but it's not night and day. Again, the jump in IQ from APS-C to 35mm is greater than 35mm to 44x33.

It's just a good sensor. Leave it at that, you don't have to write poems and songs and create legends about how much better it is than 35mm digital sensors. Especially when the lens support is nowhere as close to what most 35mm systems have (even though the existing lenses are quite good).

For MFT has a 17.3x13mm image sensor size. It is a 4x3 aspect ratio format. It is said to be 2x crop compared to 135 format. The 2x crop round figure stems from the diagonal comparison. Pretty weird and quite wrong, I know, but this is just to illustrate that not "every other system compares the length".

The digital crop medium format has a crop factor of 36 / 44 = 0.82x compared to 135 format. Or, if you want to compare the diagonal like with MFT (pretty silly, I know) 0.79x.

The biggest drawback for the digital crop medium format is the lack of AA-filter, and the limited shallow DOF ability (due to the lack of large aperture options) compared to what is available for 135 format.

[Skillividden]

Nobody compares the length. Only diagonal maybe. Surface of the sensor is much mote important. 35 mm has a 2x3 ratio whereas the GFX has the 3x4 ratio. Maybe we should compare the height of the sensor instead? Why not? I say it is bullshit. Of course, the "full frame" 645 sensor is better, but hey, Phase One IQ4 costs over $40K. Just compare the size and weight of Schneider 40-80 zoom lens with the GF 32-64 and the size and weight of Phase One vs GFX 50R.

Talking about lens support, the GFX system is very young. Remember when the X system hit the market? Now it has the best lens lineup in APS-C world. And I feel that the popularity of the GFX is so high partly due to the possibility of adapting third-party lenses. Canon TS-E work very well, so do many MF lenses like Mamiya or Pentax. Focus peaking allows manual focusing so easy, that, for example, Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 makes so much more sense to me on the GFX than on Canon or Nikon.

Regarding the IQ, the difference is HUGE. I switched from Canon 1Dx (I still have it), I tried Nikon D850, Sony A7R3... GFX beats them easily in IQ. It is much slower now, but PDAF in the 100S should fix this issue. Anyway, GFX is not meant to be used in sports/action.

---

And... just remember that Hasselblad and Phase One used the "cropped" 44x33 mm MF sensor for quite a long time before switching to 53,4x40 mm. And they were still selling their cameras and backs for $30-40 000. Nobody complained it was "just a little bit more than 35 mm full frame".

Just try to shoot with GFX. I am not a Fuji ambassador, I don't work for Fuji, so I am not that biased.

---

[Brightcolours]

To claim the difference in IQ is huge between 135 format and cropped digital MF is silly. People who say that either:

• Use a lesser lens on 135 format, and claim the difference is because of sensor related things
  
• Are easily impressed by the oversharpened/false detail - fake sharpness look of the MF results due to the lack of AA-filter
  
• Don't make actual comparisons but put more thought into the MF shots because of the limitations of the gear, ending up being impressed by their own efforts instead of difference in sensor size.
  

If you do make real equivalent settings comparisons, and use good lenses for both, it is pretty difficult to distinguish the results from eachother. Besides different aspect ratios and the lack of AA-filter for the MF combo, of course.

Same as that it is pretty difficult to distinguish results from APS-C with FF, with equivalent settings.

In your case, going from 1D-X to MF, my guess is that you get taken in by the higher resolution sensor and the fake detail and oversharpenedness that you get from the lack of AA-filter, and that the size of the sensor has little to do with it.

[JJ_SO]

Don't know what is more silly: To wail about the "lack of AA filter", just because your cameras have one. And you're happy about the lack of sharpness and contrast as effect of this AA-filter which in earlier times (=current Canon sensors) had the task to avoid moiré effects. Or to complain about false/fake sharpness - are you also listening to music through a pillow to avoid fake clarity of sound?

Neither one or the other, the continuous urge for equivalencing beats both. There IS a difference between the crippled and cropped MF! Simply because of more color depth and different FL one can see more and better structured details - if the handling of the cameras involved tripod and knowledge. Sloppy pictures one can take with both systems. But in critical situations with high contrast, even the crippled MF can show more than 135 form factor cameras. And less noise also.

[Brightcolours]

It shows a lack of knowledge, your post. Not sure why you are so proudly displaying that lack.

All your digital sound sources use aliasing filters, by the way. More lack of knowledge not prohibiting you continually fight windmills as if you are Don Quichotte.

https://theproaudiofiles.com/digital-audio-aliasing/
https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/q-what-aliasing-and-what-causes-it
http://www.ni.com/white-paper/54448/en/

I have a CD (quite a lovely CD at that) with one song (the nicest song) being plagued by severe aliasing errors during the digital recording. It ruins the song quite badly on good playback equipment, you can't undo that recording aliassing.

[JJ_SO]

BC, when you're riding your equivalence horse, your brain gets slightly shaken, I guess. If you haven't seen prints from a GFX50, I understand you have to ignore the difference. The windmills are all yours, and your pointless raid gets so entirely boring that you could apply for a registration as sleeping pill.

[toni-a]

equivalence

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qKXDF5Bywkk

[Brightcolours]

BC, when you're riding your equivalence horse, your brain gets slightly shaken, I guess. If you haven't seen prints from a GFX50, I understand you have to ignore the difference. The windmills are all yours, and your pointless raid gets so entirely boring that you could apply for a registration as sleeping pill.

That is just you being sad, JoJu. You brought up the audio, which just shows your ignorance about aliasing filters. You can ignore the science and scientific theory all you want, you can keep on not understanding a thing about, or the significance of, the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem. 

You can even ignore the real reason why MF sensors always have been without AA-filter. 

But it does not make you look smart, or right. Just ignorant.

[obican]

For MFT has a 17.3x13mm image sensor size. It is a 4x3 aspect ratio format. It is said to be 2x crop compared to 135 format. The 2x crop round figure stems from the diagonal comparison. Pretty weird and quite wrong, I know, but this is just to illustrate that not "every other system compares the length".

The digital crop medium format has a crop factor of 36 / 44 = 0.82x compared to 135 format. Or, if you want to compare the diagonal like with MFT (pretty silly, I know) 0.79x.

The biggest drawback for the digital crop medium format is the lack of AA-filter, and the limited shallow DOF ability (due to the lack of large aperture options) compared to what is available for 135 format.

I don't really mind comparing 4:3 vs 3:2 in either length or the diagonal. They are not that different. Comparing 5:4 or even worse, 1:1 against the more conventional 3:2 by the diagonal however, don't really make much sense to me. Even if you compare the diagonals however, you are still comparing two lengths and not the area as some GFX boy in a previous post had done.

Most of the time when people ask about what a lens in 6x6 format is in 35mm terms, I usually try to explain them as "80/2.8 in 6x6 is like a 35/1.2 in 135 format, if it were cropped into a square.

Again, the point is that no matter how you measure it, 44x33 is only very slightly larger than 135 format.

---

Nobody compares the length. Only diagonal maybe. Surface of the sensor is much mote important. 35 mm has a 2x3 ratio whereas the GFX has the 3x4 ratio. Maybe we should compare the height of the sensor instead? Why not? I say it is bullshit. Of course, the "full frame" 645 sensor is better, but hey, Phase One IQ4 costs over $40K. Just compare the size and weight of Schneider 40-80 zoom lens with the GF 32-64 and the size and weight of Phase One vs GFX 50R.

Talking about lens support, the GFX system is very young. Remember when the X system hit the market? Now it has the best lens lineup in APS-C world. And I feel that the popularity of the GFX is so high partly due to the possibility of adapting third-party lenses. Canon TS-E work very well, so do many MF lenses like Mamiya or Pentax. Focus peaking allows manual focusing so easy, that, for example, Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 makes so much more sense to me on the GFX than on Canon or Nikon.

Regarding the IQ, the difference is HUGE. I switched from Canon 1Dx (I still have it), I tried Nikon D850, Sony A7R3... GFX beats them easily in IQ. It is much slower now, but PDAF in the 100S should fix this issue. Anyway, GFX is not meant to be used in sports/action.

---

And... just remember that Hasselblad and Phase One used the "cropped" 44x33 mm MF sensor for quite a long time before switching to 53,4x40 mm. And they were still selling their cameras and backs for $30-40 000. Nobody complained it was "just a little bit more than 35 mm full frame".

Just try to shoot with GFX. I am not a Fuji ambassador, I don't work for Fuji, so I am not that biased.

---

Oh boy...

First of all, everyone compares the length. Even the diagonal is a length. You are trying to compare the surface area when you claim GFX has a sensor 1.7 times larger than FF. By that methodology, FF is 2.25 times larger than APS-C and 4 times as large as MFT. GFX is still relatively close to FF, no matter how you compare them. Also good job bringing in the "heavy boys" of medium format digital into the mix to make the GFX even more impressive.

Yes the GFX system is very young and yes Fuji has done a marvellous job at building the X system from the ground up. We were all there. I've been using them from the early days of X-E1 and X-Pro1, so has the most people who reply to you, except for BC who just exclusively uses Nikon for whatever reason (or was it Canon? ). In my experience, focus peaking is all but useless when the DOF is as shallow as you've mentioned. It's really imprecise and misleading and it's much better to go for focus magnification.

Yes the IQ is better than all the cameras you've mentioned it's not HUGE by my standards. Especially considering the horrible AF and metering of Fuji. I'd really rather go for an A7R3 right now which has all the lenses that I want (almost all of which Fuji lacks and has no plans of releasing anytime soon) and don't care about the IQ difference at all. Really wanted to like the GFX system and I like the 50S a lot. But the reason is mostly due to ergonomics, not because the sensor is very slightly larger than 35mm.

Hassy and Phase One s ystems are not comparable to the GFX apart from the fact that they shared a sensor size once. Leaf shutters, modular build, lens support, support for film backs, tethered shooting (GFX works with Capture One now though, FINALLY), interchangable backs, lenses with movements, backs going on view cameras were the reasons why people shot medium format and paid those 5 figure prices. They were able to do what 35mm digital cameras just couldn't, and they had a much better IQ on the side. Now the IQ difference between 35mm and MF (even 645) isn't that great but most of the other advantages still stand strong.

---

Also if you shoot with GFX, you ARE already biased. Probably even more so than an official Fuji ambassador.

[Brightcolours]

I agree with that the difference between 135 format and cropped digital MF 44x33 format is not that big.

I also agree that the only way comparisons make actual sense is comparing the width. Our vision is width oriented. Not vertical, nor diagonal. 50mm is a normal prime for landscape 135 format. Width. 35mm is normal for portrait 135 format. Width. Calculating normal primes with a diagonal makes no sense, unless you want to find the best compromise (related issue).

I have no ridiculous amounts of extra money laying around, so lots of photography gear buying is not a hobby of mine. So I use only one system. And I have discovered that I am an OVF shooter. Also I am an advocate of AA-filters. And not impressed by the Fuji sensor choices (no AA-filter, silly CFA configuration). Basically no reason to get anything Fuji at this point in time, and keep using my Canon 6D (just an explanation of why I "exclusively" use Canon/Nikon or what was it?).