Full frame?

[daveleo]

8x10" prints? Every camera these days does that well. The Sony RX1 has showed us that it doesn't need to be large. Cost is the current bottleneck I would think. Outside of that, I'm not opposed to FF.

Of course . . . same size, same weight, same price as the (APS) X100 & I'm in too. !

 

[pieter]

They should talk or hint less about it, and either just release it... Or not...

 

[froyd]

Seems to me that most of the talk is speculation rather than actual official FF announcements from Fuji

 

[semilog]

Shallow DoF with a 35mm efov lens is so freaking overrated.

I say that as a 35 Summilux ASPH shooter. It's just silly. If you want shallow DoF that much, use a longer lens. Human subjects will look better and the background is easier to control — the main reason for shallow DoF in the first place.

The main reason to use a fast 35 is so that you can hold a short shutter speed in low light.

 

[shadowfox]

A 24X36 sensored X100 ? . . . why?

Bigger, heavier, more expensive, same 8X10 prints.

Maybe, even though better DoF control appeals to me personally.
But regardless, it's digital.
Eventually the price will tank, and then we'll get the perfect replica of Hexar AF in a digital package.

Yes, I (and I'm sure a lot of us) can wait. 🙂

 

[Pablito]

The main reason to use a fast 35 is so that you can hold a short shutter speed in low light.

Well, in low light, you'd generally be using a long shutter speed, not a short one...

And the reasons for any individual photographer using any particular lens will vary....

 

[semilog]

^--- my point was that the reason to have an ultra-fast 35 is to keep shutter speeds short (fast) in low light. Motion blur is the problem that a lens like the 35 'lux ASPH is made to deal with, not subject isolation. That's what longer lenses are for.

 

[magicaxeman]

Are the fuji x-pro lenses FF-capable?

That is an interesting question and one I had early on so, i tested it. you folks with Live view capable FF digital cameras can do the same.

i tried holding my Fuji 35mm f1.4 against the flange of a 5Dii while in live view.
This only works in a macro range and the fuji lens is wide open with no aperture control.

Illumination looks like the lens does cover the Canon FF sensor. It was only sharp in the very center of the field.
From this crude method of testing, I don't think the 35mm would effectively cover a full frame sensor effectively.

Illumination aside, I cant see it being possible for the XP/EX range, the current X mount wouldn't allow a full frame sensor to be fitted, there's just not enough room.

From what I've heard and read Fuji are committed to wringing the most out of the APS-C sensor.
To my mind if they intended to explore full frame they would have created a mount system that would fit both APS-C and full frame, but as said above there looks to be no way a FF sensor would fit within the current X mount.

If an X-Pro2 comes out I would imagine it would be with the latest version of the X-trans sensor currently being fitted in the X-100s, though it wont necessarily improve on the already spectacular iQ it would give split screen manual focusing, focus peaking and lightning fast auto focus amongst other things.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

• Less d.o.f. for more creative control
  

Less DOF for pictures with less DOF, not more creative control, sometimes/someone wants less someone wants more DOF, it depends what you like.

GLF