Full size sensor confirmed by Fuji

Well....Fuji kicked off the X line with the X100, a fixed-lens camera with a (non-X-Trans) APS-C sensor. Even Sony's first full-frame compact was a fixed lens, likely as a way to test the platform and work out the kinks without the distraction of having to develop an entire lens ecosystem around the product.

I don't know anything about digital camera production, but to a layman this approach certainly makes sense, assuming Fuji is even going to invest in developing anything FF at this point. Personally, a lens and camera roadmap such as Fuji's clearly demonstrates they have no intention of leaving APS-C anytime soon, but what comes next? I'd love an X100-like camera with a FF sensor and improved AF/general performance over previous models. It would easily become a contender for "best" in that niche.
 
For 95% of photographs the following is true.

Without any prior knowledge of the system.
If fuji handed you an xpro 1 with the 35mm f1.4 mounted. All lettering and numbers blacked out.
Lens glued on the mount so one could not look at the size of the sensor.
Told you that it was full frame FX sensor and the lens was a 50mm f1.4.
By viewing the results few would call Bull$hit and say no it's APS-C with a 35mm mounted.
Someone will argue this. Intense analysis would show DOF differences...blah blah blah.
The system does exactly what we need it to do. Why is FX so important. I don't get it?

What is the big thing that without FF Fuji is going to loose the system or their share of the Market?
 
f16sunshine said:
For 95% of photographs the following is true.

Without any prior knowledge of the system.
If fuji handed you an xpro 1 with the 35mm f1.4 mounted. All lettering and numbers blacked out.
Lens glued on the mount so one could not look at the size of the sensor.
Told you that it was full frame FX sensor and the lens was a 50mm f1.4.
By viewing the results few would call Bull$hit and say no it's APS-C with a 35mm mounted.
Someone will argue this. Intense analysis would show DOF differences...blah blah blah.
The system does exactly what we need it to do. Why is FX so important. I don't get it?

What is the big thing that without FF Fuji is going to loose the system or their share of the Market?
Click to expand...

THIS. I've filed work shot on an X-Pro to clients that "require" FF with zero complaint from them, actually they praised the color coming from the X-Pro. :cool: I guess some people (read: internet forum photographers) will always say they want FF and cite DOF or any other number of reasons for why FF "matters" so much...but you're absolutely right about the sensor size not mattering when all's said, done, and in print.

I don't agree with some of the internet's popular rumblings about Fuji "losing the market" without an FF in it's lineup. But for me personally, it would be nice to see a 16-20MP FF sensor with larger photosites, presumably even better high ISO performance, and all the same X-Trans goodness. Again this is me projecting my own needs onto what Fuji would be doing...and just because I want it doesn't make it viable to produce and sell. All I know is, in the long run, I'd love to use my legacy lenses as they were intended to be used on a full-frame Fuji sensor. Certainly anyone who sees the incredible capabilities of existing X cameras finds themselves wondering what FF would be like on that platform...and given how great the lineup has proven to be already, I can imagine adding the minor advantages of FF to the mix to create a sum that is still greater than its individual parts.

So yeah, even though I'm with f16 on APS-C vs FF not "mattering"...I still want to see it happen one day. :)
 
Here is an interesting exercise: Take any of the arguments below that Fuji must adopt a Full Frame sensor and do this simple cut and paste:

1) Cut "full frame sensor" and paste in "6x9 neg"
2) Cut any reference to "APS-C or M4/3 sensor" and paste in "35mm neg"

Read those same arguments but with the cut and paste. They would have made perfect sense some 30-40-50 years ago, do they not? They would make sense today if we did not already know the outcome. You could have even used those same arguments to contend that if Leica / Nikon / Canon would not survive if they continued with 35mm and did not make cameras that used 120 film.
 
Bob Michaels said:
Here is an interesting exercise: Take any of the arguments below that Fuji must adopt a Full Frame sensor and do this simple cut and paste:

1) Cut "full frame sensor" and paste in "6x9 neg"
2) Cut any reference to "APS-C or M4/3 sensor" and paste in "35mm neg"

Read those same arguments but with the cut and paste. They would have made perfect sense some 30-40-50 years ago, do they not? They would make sense today if we did not already know the outcome. You could have even used those same arguments to contend that if Leica / Nikon / Canon would not survive if they continued with 35mm and did not make cameras that used 120 film.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. I shoot a 6x7 & 6x9 roll back for convenience over 4x5 sheets. Likewise, I use a Fuji X because its smaller than my DSLR. I wonder why pistols are so common when a rifle has a longer range and better accuracy...
 
For my photography, FF on a n X-Pro style body would be pretty useless unless paired with state-of-the art- simulated split rangefinder (like the newer Xs, but even better, possibly within the OVF -- I can dream!). I can't get along with focus peaking.

But this is mute because X cameras are designed for the excellent X lenses, and legacy glass users have to save their pennies for a Sony or a Leica.
 
People want full frame because it's the best sweet spot between IQ and size.

the aps-c in Fuji X cameras comes pretty damn close though. If they could make a FF x-pro and keep the current system size, damn right I'd be on it. If they increased the size I'd rather they just made a gf670D and blew away all the current digital cameras IQ.
 
I see Fuji has just announced the new X30 and they have removed the optical viewfinder and only used the EVF. Now, as the X-E1/2 & the X-T1 are EVF only cameras, I get the feeling that just possibly the next X-Pro camera may just be EVF only too. As said previously, we can rule out an X-Pro2 with FF but I feel Fuji is heading down the EVF route as their EVF technology is extremely good. What do you think?
 
f16sunshine said:
For 95% of photographs the following is true.

Without any prior knowledge of the system.
If fuji handed you an xpro 1 with the 35mm f1.4 mounted. All lettering and numbers blacked out.
Lens glued on the mount so one could not look at the size of the sensor.
Told you that it was full frame FX sensor and the lens was a 50mm f1.4.
By viewing the results few would call Bull$hit and say no it's APS-C with a 35mm mounted.
Someone will argue this. Intense analysis would show DOF differences...blah blah blah.
The system does exactly what we need it to do. Why is FX so important. I don't get it?

What is the big thing that without FF Fuji is going to loose the system or their share of the Market?
Click to expand...

+1
Ming Thein has a great article where you guess what camera took the image.
http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/08/24/can-you-tell-the-difference/
 
f16sunshine said:
For 95% of photographs the following is true.

Without any prior knowledge of the system.
If fuji handed you an xpro 1 with the 35mm f1.4 mounted. All lettering and numbers blacked out.
Lens glued on the mount so one could not look at the size of the sensor.
Told you that it was full frame FX sensor and the lens was a 50mm f1.4.
By viewing the results few would call Bull$hit and say no it's APS-C with a 35mm mounted.
Someone will argue this. Intense analysis would show DOF differences...blah blah blah.
The system does exactly what we need it to do. Why is FX so important. I don't get it?

What is the big thing that without FF Fuji is going to loose the system or their share of the Market?
Click to expand...

Well you could see without even take a picture just by looking at the front of the lens and estimate the diameter.

You 're right of course that if the sensor is good and the lens is good that there is nothing to complain about. And people that know or can judge the output by themselves (even if they are not imaging specialists, just capable of making up their own mind) don't care much. But that is not how 90% of the market judges/buys camera's. You're taking a position against other marketing speak before a public that knows not better than that. So more pixels are better, a company that can make FF camera's is more serious, 1/8000 shutter is high-tech, iso of 256000 is a sign of technological knowledge, etc.

So not having a FF is a disadvantage because Fuji is not viewed as a first tier brand and neither does their lineup gives the impression as technological strong. (Samsung has the same problem, even worse) The 90% doesn't care about lens line-up and roadmap either, don't care about stability of a platform further down the line than 5 years etc (Sony has understood this best). They compare numbers and bigger is better.

For me FF has 2 advantages:
- for the same number of pixels and technology it will have less noise
- old lenses behave as intended
 
I hope not!

I hope not!

macjim said:
I see Fuji has just announced the new X30 and they have removed the optical viewfinder and only used the EVF. Now, as the X-E1/2 & the X-T1 are EVF only cameras, I get the feeling that just possibly the next X-Pro camera may just be EVF only too. As said previously, we can rule out an X-Pro2 with FF but I feel Fuji is heading down the EVF route as their EVF technology is extremely good. What do you think?
Click to expand...

I have the A7r and the X Pro-1 and for street photography, and in daylight, the optical viewfinder is much easier to see through, close to Leica M. Sometimes I do not want to be distracted by looking through a lens and rather see directly to the subject. The X Pro is superior for this and I really hope they do not do away with the hybrid finder. Why offer more of the same aka Olympus, Sony, etc,, Why limit us to only Leica which many cannot afford if we like optical viewfinders? What would make sense is an oversize clip on viewfinder like the M240 but much better and an oversize optical viewfinder with a large eyepiece for great eye relief and quick framing for street photos.
 
Things always get muddy when people start speaking on behalf of the majority as if it's all obvious. 90%? 90% of what demographic? In what country? It's pointless to talk about "the market" without grounded statistics and well defined parameters, especially when talking about a market which has so much segmentation.
 
I have to admit that I like the X-Pro1 the most of all Fujis... yes, even more than the X-T1. However, I rarely use the OVF anymore...and the X-Pro1's EVF is not even that great. That said, I like having the option. Without the OVF, I have a feeling the X-Pro2 will not sell very well because people will just buy the cheaper models. I think Fuji will keep the X100 and X-Pro models with OVFs.
 
gavinlg said:
People want full frame because it's the best sweet spot between IQ and size.
.
Click to expand...

Full frame USED TO BE the best sweet spot between IQ, size, & capacity (number of shots), especially in film. With the results we've been seeing, it's pretty clear that APS-C is the new "sweet spot". Maybe in 10 years time 4/3rds, with technology advances, could be the sweet spot. Doubtful I think, because the body size with an APS-C is right about perfect for the vast majority of people, so no need to go smaller.

Now, a lot of people want full frame so they can use their full frame glass without a crop. With the advent of great fuji lenses, this is largely no longer an issue.

In the end, it seems people just want to argue about full frame because they think an APS-C is still "not good enough" for their work. If APS-C is truly not good enough for someone's work, they shouldnt be thinking about a "full frame" sensor....they need to be thinking about MF or bigger.
 
I use APS-C and FF the same way...they are very close these days. I don't stress that. However, smaller than APS-C is a compromise in many ways (while others not so much...). 1" is the smallest that I would use for a small P&S... it's ok, but nowhere close to APSC.
 
Overall iq wise, w/ the right situations they (1 inch to ff) are going to produce great results (ymmv), just my opinion. It is a matter of deciding how to take advantage of their strengths and minimize their weakness.

In general (the way I looked at it), the bigger the sensor, the better the dynamic range, high iso capability, and better dof effects. Analogous, the bigger the sensor, the bigger and/or heavier the lens.

I tend to use m43 when I want need tele work (2x crop). I prefer apsc for everything else. The only reason I have a Sony a7 is for my legacy lenses (Nex platform has always been my universal platform).

Apsc is the sweet spot in terms price, performance, lens size, dynamic range and high iso. The difference in dof effect is there, but to me the difference is not enough for me to worry about and my photography does not call for the use of dof effect very much if at all.

Personally, as a gear head, I would buy a ff Fuji camera (on premise that the xt1 focus assist was there). It would replace the Sony a7 as the legacy universal back. If it meant I needed to buy new Fuji lenses to make full use of the ff... I would just use my old lenses in crop mode...

On the otherhand, does not matter if it is ff or apsc or m43, if Fuji were to announce a new camera body that had either the organic or a monochrome or a foveon like sensor, I would have my pre-order sent off in a heart beat.

If Fuji never did a ff, I really don't care. I am happy w/ apsc.

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