Full frame?

  • Slightly larger body
  • Less d.o.f. for more creative control
  • Greater dynamic range
  • Larger files for bigger prints
 
Rogier said:
  • Slightly larger body
  • Less d.o.f. for more creative control
  • Greater dynamic range
  • Larger files for bigger prints
Click to expand...

I could go along with the larger body aspect too. The dynamic range was pretty good with the regular X100, but more could always be nice. I printed 20x30" prints with it too, so I'm thinking the next version (X100s) will provide more to work with. It's always nice to have more, but when I compared the sensor in the X-Pro1 to the sensor in the Canon 5d MKII, I preferred the X-Pro1. That made me rethink full frame vs. APS-C.
 
I'd love a full frame X100...so long as it was about the same size as the current one :)

The lens on the RX1 is just too big to be pocketable...the one on the X100 is perfect.
 
Look at it this way, a full framed X100s would be better than the Sony RX1 as it would have a built-in viewfinder. No holding the camera out arms length to take your photos and no mega expensive EVF's.
 
I've come to appreciate the added dof at a given aperture with the x100. A Full frame would be cool but tge current model has some advantages as it is.
 
except for film...i have not shot with a full frame camera and that is what i find appealing about the idea of a ff x100 or even the rx1...i would like to try full frame and experience it.
 
Apsc is still going to be the sweet spot and most likely their volume leader. When and if they come out w/ their version of a apsc offering, I hope they do the same sort of thing Nikon has done w/ their dslr bodies to support dx/fx lenses ( if I remember correctly, someone at Fuji already said that current lenses will not handle ff).

In that article, they are --> not going to sell their sensors tech to anyone else and that have capability to do a full frame, but are not planning to do so now... Which tells me the product managers have asked the engineers and have at least gotten the high level idea of what it takes to make it happen.. The way the guy said it leads me to believe that they have not committed engineering teams to anything outside of a prototype design on paper yet. Only time will tell the real story.

For me, I am not interested in ff xp1 equiv. dof, dynamic range, and better iso.. Plus using ff lenses at their intended focal lenses while nice, I am already happy enough w/ what I have in apsc from the xp1 that I will probably stay w/ it or the xp1 next gen for now. I am not a dof separation type, the 1.4 is good enough for me and if I need portrait work, I can use a canon rf 50f1.2. Iso performance of current xp1 is more than what my current needs are. So the only thing would be better dynamic range, which a next gen xp1 could accomplish.

A ff x100s, actually may Interest me more as an eventual replacement for my x100 when it finally gives up the ghost.

Cheers
Gary
 
tom.w.bn said:
Are the fuji x-pro lenses FF-capable?
Click to expand...


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.
 
A X100 with an APS-C sensor and a 23/1.7 lens would have essentially identical DOF selectivity and IQ as a 24x36 mm X100 type body with a 35/2 lens.

The half-stop increase in aperture compensates for the reduced sensor area to achieve both signal to noise ratio and DOF selectivity equivalence. The corner performance of a 23/1.8 might not be as good as a 35/1.4 though.

http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/

But a 35/1.4 on the larger sensor X100 would require the APS-C version to have 23/1.2 for equivalent performance. The size of a 23/1.2 would likely ruin the compactness of the X100.

The X100 has a microlense array that uses different microlenses for the corners of the frame in order to maximize performance. It would be interesting to know if modifying the microlenses for compatibility with the larger image area of a 24x36 mm sensor is technically possible.
 
I'm interested in an E x1, aps-c sensor because of HQ and body size. Will a FF body be larger ? No interest in my case. Of course, it is just my opinion.
robert
 
daveleo said:
A 24X36 sensored X100 ? . . . why?

Bigger, heavier, more expensive, same 8X10 prints.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jsrockit said:
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.
Click to expand...

+1. Sony has shown that u can pack a lot into a small body w/ the rx1.

Gary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom