Fuji GFX50S medium format is here.

[TXForester]

What constitutes medium format these days? The sensor doens't even come close to 6x4.5. I whipped up this little diagram to illustrate.

What is medium format? Your own diagram points out we could not make up our minds with film. 😀

I wish camera companies would not dangle these photographic carrots. I'm going to have to start buying lotto tickets again.

 

[unixrevolution]

What is the need for a tilt/shift lens when that functionality can be handled by post processing software?

I sure hope this is sarcasm.

I didnt want to play favourites, otherwise I'd have to include the fuji 6x8 people too!

I'm also a P67 user

More than just the Pentax uses the "Ideal format" 6x7 dimensions. There's the Bronica GS-1, Mamiya RB and RZ 67, Mamiya 7, Plaubel Makina, the 6x7 backs on the Century Graphic and Mamiya Press, and the Fuji 6x7 rangefinder as well.

You win the internet. Everything is a crop of 8x10. Except 8x10 is just a crop of 11x14. Which is a crop of 12x20. Which is a crop of....

 

[michaelwj]

What is medium format? Your own diagram points out we could not make up our minds with film. 😀

I wish camera companies would not dangle these photographic carrots. I'm going to have to start buying lotto tickets again.

MF film uses 120 film, with some sort of crop, so it is 6 x something.
The diagram could have shown it clearer if the 6 x 4.5 frame was rotated.

 

[HHPhoto]

I think this system will dominate medium format sales - essentially obsoleting the blad and Leica S systems.

Stephen

Hm, I am not fully convinced. But more for economic than technical reasons.
The camera looks good by data / tech sheet. No question.
But will it become an economic success?
I don't think so.
Because I well remember an interview with the Hasselblad CEO concerning the size of the global digital medium format market. He said that the whole global market is only about 5,000 sold units p.a.. And it is significantly declining, too. As the whole digital camera market.
That market size is extremely tiny. A niche in the niche in the niche market.

And now we have lots of (too much) competitors in the market: Hasselblad, Phase One, Leica, Pentax and now Fujifilm.
And we have increasing competition from FF / 35mm sensor cameras with 42-50 MP sensors, which cost much less.

Don't forget: The price of "less than 10,000$" is only for the camera with standard lens. To fully exploit / using this system you need more lenses. And then you will be in the 15,000 - 20,000 $ price range. You can buy a new car for that amount of money. Or significantly decrease your house debt.
Only a tiny fraction of photographers is so rich that they could afford that. And now 5 companies are fighting against each other in that market......extremely difficult for any of them to be profitable.

If you've looked at Fujifilm's financial data over the years you see that their X-system has not been very profitable.
Meanwhile Fujifilm is making more money again with their silver-halide products compared to their digital products.

Cheers, Jan

 

[sevo]

. And it is significantly declining, too. As the whole digital camera market.
That market size is extremely tiny. A niche in the niche in the niche market.

And now we have lots of (too much) competitors in the market: Hasselblad, Phase One, Leica, Pentax and now Fujifilm.
And we have increasing competition from FF / 35mm sensor cameras with 42-50 MP sensors, which cost much less.

It is obvious that the Fuji/Hasselblad cooperation has reached its end, which obsoletes and might eventually kill the H system. Indeed its death might happen much sooner than expected, Hasselblad themselves are already attacking it from both ends, teasing a possible digital V system revival in addition to the X1D, which does not sound as if they will make any effort to extend its life. With one of the merely two major players in the segment about to vanish, there is a niche open, which both Fuji and Hasselblad (must) scramble for - Fuji has a large MF division that it does not seem to be inclined to give up, and Hasselblad has already failed to diversify to smaller formats, for them it is all or nothing...

And what with FF slowly growing into the household format for amateurs upward of smartphone photography, the makers may have hopes that more professionals may soon feel the need to differentiate by operating cameras upward of FF.

 

[willie_901]

We are a truly horrible lot. Fuji has its crop sensor in the XT/XE series and we whine.
Why can't they make a FF sensor, we complain?
Then they bring out this bigger than FF sensor, and we whine.

...

I agree.

The GFX signal-to-noise ratio (and resulting analog dynamic range) will be superior to every 35 X 24 mm digital camera. The ability to produce rather large prints (even square prints) will be awesome (including square crops) due to the 5.3 micron pixel pitch.

I the size comparison charts are irrelevant because they conflate film and digital media or compare a format costing under $10K to one that costs at least 4 times more.

 

[mod2001]

I don't understand your kind of comment since these are just the FIRST six lenses of a new camera system. Many more will likely follow.
Stephen

Sorry Stephen, was written before my first coffee in the morning and probably a not appropriate reaction. So lets hope Fuji has success with their (APSC 😀)MF cameras and don't forget the landscape photographers.

Yogi

 

[SaveKodak]

Hm, I am not fully convinced. But more for economic than technical reasons.
The camera looks good by data / tech sheet. No question.
But will it become an economic success?
I don't think so.
Because I well remember an interview with the Hasselblad CEO concerning the size of the global digital medium format market. He said that the whole global market is only about 5,000 sold units p.a.. And it is significantly declining, too. As the whole digital camera market.
That market size is extremely tiny. A niche in the niche in the niche market.

He said this before anyone was even CLOSE to offering medium format digital for less than $10,000. In the 1980s how big do you think the market for 120 cameras was really? Hasselblads were pretty dang expensive and used by pretty much only the most dedicated or well heeled photographers. If Fuji can capture that market they'll be fine. They don't need a GFX in every home, but if they can get these things in the hands of high end wedding pros, that's a win by any margin. I think many studio people will stick with Phase or Hasselblad because of the rental market. To me the GFX looks like a field ready camera and I'm sure that's where we'll see it most. At launch they have every lens a wedding photographer would want to use, minus something in the 70-200 ~e range (which as a wedding shooter I could care less about b/c I almost never use zooms). Frankly I shoot everything with a 58 and the 35/1.4. The 63 and 45 would be fine, though I think they should come out with a 65/2 asap.

 

[jsrockit]

What constitutes medium format these days? The sensor doens't even come close to 6x4.5. I whipped up this little diagram to illustrate.

I don't think sensors and film react the same way when it comes to enlarging though...

 

[brennanphotoguy]

He said this before anyone was even CLOSE to offering medium format digital for less than $10,000. In the 1980s how big do you think the market for 120 cameras was really? Hasselblads were pretty dang expensive and used by pretty much only the most dedicated or well heeled photographers. If Fuji can capture that market they'll be fine. They don't need a GFX in every home, but if they can get these things in the hands of high end wedding pros, that's a win by any margin. I think many studio people will stick with Phase or Hasselblad because of the rental market. To me the GFX looks like a field ready camera and I'm sure that's where we'll see it most. At launch they have every lens a wedding photographer would want to use, minus something in the 70-200 ~e range (which as a wedding shooter I could care less about b/c I almost never use zooms). Frankly I shoot everything with a 58 and the 35/1.4. The 63 and 45 would be fine, though I think they should come out with a 65/2 asap.

Agreed. I don't think this is a camera that needs to have a long zoom for the wedding market anyways for the type of shots this would be used for. I see a lot of wedding people grabbing one of these for their kits.

 

[______]

I the size comparison charts are irrelevant because they conflate film and digital media or compare a format costing under $10K to one that costs at least 4 times more.

The conflation occurred because the manufacturers and their advertising departments are marketing these cameras as "medium format" inviting the comparison to film for which they are being called out. In its advertising material Fuji is even seen physically putting the new camera on the shelf beside its medium format (6x6-6x9) film cameras.

 

[jsrockit]

The conflation occurred because the manufacturers and their advertising departments are marketing these cameras as "medium format" inviting the comparison to film for which they are being called out.

It's larger than 35mm though... and you'll be able to print larger from this sensor than you will be able to from a 645 negative.

 

[SaveKodak]

It's larger than 35mm though... and you'll be able to print larger from this sensor than you will be able to from a 645 negative.

Yeah it's pretty pointless to go on and on about what can be and cannot be called medium format. There is digital medium format, and film medium format, and for better or for worse there are different choices in each medium, with different realities. I'm fairly confident that up to a certain point the 44x33mp format will put out higher resolution images than those from a piece of 6x6 film, and certainly those made at ISO 400 and above. I'm not going to sit here and complain about a new, larger than 35mm system, just because I'm tied to a 120 film format. Guess what! I'm going to keep shooting 6x6 in my Rollei, and 6x7 in my Pentax. If I'm lucky, maybe someday I'll pick up a GFX and shoot 44x33. I'm going to call it medium format no matter what people in forums say it should be called.

If ANYTHING 44x33 is very appropriately called medium format because, aside from some extremely specialized options that come with some pretty huge logistical problems, there is no large format digital. By default then, the current 100mp backs are our digital large format, and 44x33, being between 35mm and 645 FF, is a 'medium' format. Deal with it.

 

[kuzano]

What is the need for a tilt/shift lens when that functionality can be handled by post processing software?

Exactly!!!

And, I agree that this is likely to be a dominant player in Medium Format.

 

[HHPhoto]

He said this before anyone was even CLOSE to offering medium format digital for less than $10,000.

No, that is not correct.

In the 1980s how big do you think the market for 120 cameras was really?

We don't need to think about, the data is there. In the 80ies and 90ies the medium format market was in the 60,000 - 100,000 units p.a. range.
So it was much much bigger than the current digital medium format market is.

Cheers, Jan

 

[SaveKodak]

No, that is not correct.



We don't need to think about, the data is there. In the 80ies and 90ies the medium format market was in the 60,000 - 100,000 units p.a. range.
So it was much much bigger than the current digital medium format market is.

Cheers, Jan

Yes, that is correct.

You really think that there is no difference between the potential market for the Fuji GFX and a Hasselblad H6D-100 or Phase One XF? Cause I can think of more than a few big practical, economical, and logistical differences that will open up the marketplace to a much larger audience. You must understand that past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Just because the market is small for medium format NOW, doesn't mean it ALWAYS MUST BE SO. There was once a time when the market for 35mm FF digital was small. Nikon even used to say they would never make a FF camera. Then they made the D3.

 

[mod2001]

Exactly!!!

Did I miss here something, since when is tilt possible afterwards in post processing? I'm not taking about this boring miniature look, I'm talking about increasing the depth of field. And even in first case, selective focus via camera settings look always better than in post. No comparison.

And shift, yes, its possible to some extend in post, but I can show you many examples where its not really working.

Yogi

 

[sevo]

Did I miss here something, since when is tilt possible afterwards in post processing? I'm not taking about this boring miniature look, I'm talking about increasing the depth of field.

Well, focus stacking can do wonders - and has indeed replaced many former applications of tilt in studio photography. But it is hardly universally applicable, as it takes lots of time and a very static subject and camera.

 

[______]

Is 25x37 medium format? is 45x34 large format? I've got a call into Zeno to see what he has to say.

 

[SaveKodak]

Did I miss here something, since when is tilt possible afterwards in post processing? I'm not taking about this boring miniature look, I'm talking about increasing the depth of field. And even in first case, selective focus via camera settings look always better than in post. No comparison.

And shift, yes, its possible to some extend in post, but I can show you many examples where its not really working.

Yogi

Chill man. The camera was announced yesterday. A T/S option will come either in the form of an adapter (a la Hasselblad) or a specific lens or set of lenses. Also you will easily be able to adapt the Canon TSE primes.