RodluvanII: A medium format sensor (60x60mm) is more than 4x times larger than a 35mm sensor, or 3.7x larger in the case of a 645-sensor. Not "almost twice the physical size".
So called FF sensors are the same size as 135 frame at 36x24mm, give or take a few tenths of a millimeter. So what are you after?
Alphoid: I'm wondering how much the 0.77x crop factor does for you, relative to economies of scale and the type of engineering that goes into a modern, high-end mass-produced dSLR.
I'd love to see an actual, objective comparison to a D800 with a nice Zeiss lens, a Sigma 35mm f/1.4, or similar. 35mm lenses have come a long ways since the days when I last saw someone compare MF to FF.
I hear all about the magic of MF, but I wonder if at this point, it is still real or just psychosomatic.
Me too. Actually best 135 lenses have always been sharper than MF lenses. In the old times MF ruled, but the film sizes were 6x6 to 6x9 at that time, much bigger than 135, so the lenses needed not be as good. Now there has been a lot going on in 135 lenses (Zeiss Otus, Sigma Art series), but nothing much at the MF side.
I would not be surprised at all if D800e would produce just as good a file.
I am certain somebody will do this comparison soon.
SF Photo Gal: With 36 MP FF now available, I wonder if the need for this kind of beast really exists?
MF lenses have never been as sharp as the best 135 lenses, now even more so with Zeiss Otus and new Sigma offerings. After all the sensor in this camera is not all that much bigger than a FF sensor. Long time ago shooting 6x7 evened things out a bit more.
DR: Nikon D800 has 14 stops of dynamic range.
My educated guess would be that D800e and this new Hasselblad, both with the sharpest lenses available, would be quite equal all in all at low ISO at least. At high ISO I have no idea, but betting on Nikon.
RStyga: A new brick on the block. I can't see this DSLR having much marketing success outside the professional photographer's community.
These pro bodies are perfect size for working hands...
They sell them to the pros, and also by truckloads to newly rich hobbyists in China.
ThomasSwitzerland: I am still a loyal customer of Nikon. But this uninspiring D4s confirms my move. Step by step I get rid of those old world huge cameras. They seem to me like dinosaurs from the past.
I do not want to bash because I believe in Nikon’s excellent sensors’ computer code and ergonomics. I also had the Canon FF cameras with L-lenses. I sold them at very good prices some time ago. I questioned more and more to hike in the mountains with those “tons” of black cases with a huge backpack limiting moves and fun.
Now I still got the D5200 – pros will smile – and mirrorless; and wait for the next generation of cellphone/integrated cameras to migrate to. It’s like with the stock markets. Buy early and sell into the last waves.
In a couple of years, no one can imagine that we took photos with those huge, heavy, and strange looking cameras.
Sometimes it is decision point to liberate. Less load is more joy. More joy and dedication produce better pictures.
Think about pioneer photographers with 8x10" and even bigger glass plates, huge cameras and a DARKROOM carried by mules to prepare and develop those wet plates each time they wanted a snap a picture...
fcimbar: I wish I could afford any of the FX cameras, no matter the name and brand. Those who have : stop complaining about trivial differences and prices; and start enjoying them !
So true. D4 and D800s are by far the best general tools I have had the privilege to use in almost 50 years of photography and 35 years of professional carrier. There are almost as good ones like Canon D1x and smaller reportage tools like Fujifilm X-series, the photographer makes the difference, not the small technical differences between makes and models.
pbrandt3: AS the D4s has a new chip, it would be good to see the picture quality differences between the two 16mp D4 & D4s and the D800 @ 36mp
I have both D4 and D800e. For daily photography I prefer D4 even though it is bigger, but it has better ergonomics and vertical grip. 16 MPix are enough for practically everything, and the focus speed and high ISO performance are great.
For "artsy stuff" like studio portraits and landscape with tripod out comes the D800e. And as a backup if two bodies are needed sometimes.
I also have the new Fujifilm X-T1 which is wonderful, but it is not an action camera as the body is too small for good ergonomics and the buttons are too small. Great for stealthy reportage, hiking etc, though.
elefteriadis alexandros: -Good for Nikon keep the Megapixel down, that give breath to improve DR which remain the big problem for digital photography.-I wait for the test in that DR department and keep my breath...
I have not scanned much film, but already 12 years ago I had a 135 provia slide scanned at 60 MPix resolution and compared that to a digital file from EOS-1D, 4.7 MPix. Both were shot with the same lens and framing. Guess what, equal resolution in details...
And I did shoot film for 25 years before that, from 135 to 6x9. Never looked back after getting DSLRs.
Certainly a piece of film can be scanned to almost any number of mega- or gigapixels, but at a certain point there is no more point in it when the scan resolution has exceeded the film resolution. And that point comes much sooner than the film fanboys like to think.
Besides it is next to impossible to get more than 12-14 stops of dynamic range from either film or digital sensor, as the lens flare even in perfect conditions starts to cloud the shadows.
Funny, films must have gotten a lot better in 10 years time then. I am getting much better quality from new 16MPix DSLR than I got from 6x7 back then...
nofumble: ISO 409600 -the ISO scale is way out of date. Next ISO, million, LOL
We should switch bag to ASA. ISO 409600 is 57 ASA...
In my youth normal speeds for color were 15, 18 and 21 ASA, Tri-X was 27...
Edmond Leung: An excellent pro camera!Pro market only belongs to Nikon and Canon; others are just peanut.I am wondering why Sony doesn't enter this market. They have very strong pro cameras in the broadcasting and movie industries.Is the pro market of the still camera too small for them?
While there are relatively few pro photographers, there are loads of wealthy amateurs wanting to get "pro" gear. Just go to China and see the busloads of camera clubs on field trips. Everybody has D4 or 1Dx or two, with fastest zooms. Several of them wanted to take a picture of me with my X-Pro1 and X100s, which to them was so avant grade...
I use D4 & D800e as my daily tools, by the way. Great cameras in all respects.
I never got more than about 7 stops of DR from slides, D800 gives 14 and D4 12...
I am not complaining about lack of DR from digital cameras. The amazingly high ISOs reflect this. Magnitudes better than any film.
radissimo: f1.4 in the 4/3 terms ,sharp from wide open and small! wow
Wow! f/0.2 in smartphone terms. Quite a lens!
Philip Sm: Can someone confirm the size of a RAW file on lowest available settings is approx 33mb.If so Fuji just lost me as a buyer.Thank you.
File sizes are really not much of a concern anymore. Memory cards are so cheap that after buying a $X000 cameras system one should have few hundred bucks left to buy enough cards. On my last trips to Asia I had over 300 GB worth of card, which is a minor cost after all. Maybe some do not realize it is now 80% cheaper to use cards ONCE than shoot slide film...
New X-Trans Fujis have 14 bit RAWs, used to be 12 bit (X-Pro1). This makes the files slightly larger. About 1100 frames on 32 GB card with X-Pro1, 900 frames with X100s, for example. Apparently the same with X-T1.
Photographer Jonathan: A really nice camera, BUT, every new camera should have a touch screen, and it should be articulating so you can angle it for portraits not just landscape, and for actual photo shoots, it is a must to have a focus point that can be moved in one step, nice and fast, not two steps, and 8000 shutter would of been nice also, and a higher flash sync speed, and a popup flash, I could keep going if a wanted to, but this camera is really nice, now if Canon would make one the same, with there regular lens mount that takes my ff glass, that would be great, but I might have to buy this new fuji along with the 56 f1.2 lens, and the 35 f1.4,,,,,, I am sick of waiting for Canon, and Nikon slightly missed the boat with the DF, it should've been more like this fuji Xt1, ( real digital fusion ) with electronic view finder, focus peaking, video, touch flip screen, 4 years in the making so they could leave out all the new technology, doesn't make sense, go Fuji, kick Nikon and Canon's ass
What happens with a touch screen camera when you press the camera tightly against you cheek?
Try real cameras sometime, not just smartphones.
Shamael: this body is huge, but there are some issues one can discuss. X-trans sensor is not everyone's thing. Then, 1/4000th only, lenses that cost a fortune, and last not least a kit that is just 150$ cheaper than a A7 kit at Negri shop. For the rest, I think that Fuji made a huge job, but, let's first see the results. Unless they give the algorythm to third party sotware developpers like Adobe, Phase One, DXO and similar, the X-trans sensor is for me none of interest. As I said, let's see the results first. All in all, I am tempted by such a camera. I wait what Sony will bring as a NEX-7 replacement first as well.
I also think it funny that 1/4000 is not fast enough for some. Maybe because I earned my living with top-Pro cameras with only 1/1000 as the fastest shutter speed, and 1/60 sync, some 20-30 years ago.
X-Trans sensor is no problem anymore. Plenty of converters good and better ones. Even LightRoom is good, as you can see here (all taken with X-Trans): http://www.flickr.com/photos/112698197@N08/sets/
alireza: it is a beautiful camera but for people like me who have several lenses and invested on SLR system what advantage this camera can give us compare to Nikon D3300 for example. as I see, the size is not much smaller and price is twice.If I buy a D3300 I can use all of my lens and flashes and enjoy the small size that always was an issue with carrying big SLRs and main reason for moving to mirror-less. if mirrorless is as big as SLR I prefer to spend lees money.
Maybe the first target group is X-Pro1 owners (and other X series bodies) who already have a couple of lenses and need something which handles the longer lenses better than the faux-rangefinder models (which are great with WAs).
Havin a bunch of lenses for brand XYZ always slows down the switch to another brand, inevitable.
teohyc: This is a good camera worth considering for those thinking of using Fuji.
I've the X-Pro1 but I won't be buying this because image quality improvement isn't significant (since it's using the XE2 sensor?). Keyword: Significant. X-Pro1 still has the stellar image quality from day one.
Things I like:+ Large EVF obviously. + Less lag? I lose shots sometimes because the camera is not fast enough to shoot.+ Nice weight, slightly lighter than X-Pro1+ Uses the same battery as X-Pro1 and other X-Cameras. No amount of battery innovation will give you double the capacity as an extra battery. So until you can double capacity to a single battery, using the same battery across models is a huge plus.+ Mechanical dials are very functional. I only go into the menu for changing ISO -- waste of time.+ The ISO dials should silence those who think that Manual mode should have Auto ISO (then it won't be called Manual mode anymore)+ You can select AF points without holding the camera to the eye.
I have had the X-Pro1 from day one, but I am considering buying this to use with longer lenses which are not all that comfortable with X-Pro1 sluggish EVF. I had also the X-E1 but did not like the EVF on that either. If the viewfinder in X-T1 is as fast as promised, and AF also, this might finally be the first EVF-only camera good enough for me.
Heaven is for real: Not a full frame so not interested….
There are no full frame (4x5') digital cameras yet. They all are miniature only.