Reading mode: Light Dark

Fujifilm: Future of GFX / Medium Format

Go to last post
I kept a spreadsheet of the kit as I sold it off to private purchasers

b5d768bf659d489ab105a51284288a81.jpg

As I said, 20+ years of Canon. I'd been a Pro Canon EF user since the EOS 5 days, and went EOS1n, EOS1D, EOS1D MKII, then EOS 5DII.

I still have all 3 EOS1 bodies, because they are basically worthless!

I bought the GFX, 63mm, 120mm and 32-64mm initially, as well as the grip, and tilt EVF unit, and two extra batteries.

Since then I have bought the 23mm, 45mm and 110mm primes.

Starting from scratch, lens choice will depend on your subjects and usual style. The primes are all amazing, but the zoom is also the best zoom I have ever owned, more like a prime quality wise.

Canon will kill the EF lens line once they go all-in mirrorless - adapted lenses are very second rate compared to building new dedicated mirrorless ones. The AF requirements are different, flange distances etc - and modern cameras have greater demands which old glass is simply not up to meeting.

That's why Canon have taken so long to move - they can't afford to kill their cash cow EF series, but they know they have to to move on. They will make that move within a year.

Canon (and Nikon) need working pro mirrorless systems in place for the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo.

New glass, like the GFX lenses, are next level compared to any L lens - check out Jim Kasson's excellent testing of the GFX to see what I'm talking about.

--
Your time is limited, so don't waste it arguing about camera features - go out and capture memories
 
Last edited:
Chris Dodkin said:
Big investment by Fuji - started in Jan 2014 to build and develop the GFX system from scratch.

Long film legacy in MF, so they have been in, and want to be in, the MF market.

Current 50MP models are likely the lower price point entry models, GFX50S and the soon to be announced GFX50R. These will directly compete with high end FF DSLRs.

Future 100MP models will be the 'pro range', with a significantly higher price point, but using the same lens system. These will compete with current high end studio MF systems (PhaseOne, Hasselblad)

All lenses are being designed for 100MP bodies, so all body sales drive the same lens system sales.

Fuji are betting on two things:
  • Existing high priced MF system users will be attracted to Fuji's lower priced mirrorless system
  • Existing DSLR (FF) shooters will want to take the step up to the next level, and will buy into MF as the existing FF DSLR systems reach end of life
Based on the response over the last year, I'd say they are on to something.
Click to expand...
 
I can't speak for the future of the camera, but my local camera retailer has a couple bodies and an assortment of lenses in stock. The also carry the Hasselblad X1D, as well as have the ability to order the H series. They were previously a phase one dealer. Chatting with them recently, they dropped Phase One at the beginning of the year because they only sold a single unit in 2017. They wouldn't give exact numbers but they've said on more than one occasion that the GFX is outselling the the X1D by a large margin. Not really a ton of information there but I know 6 people who've converted to the GFX in the last 12 months, I myself have tested it and would happily purchase one but it doesn't make a ton of sense at the moment for me. I'd guess the GFX is selling better than most think and Fuji will continue support for it for a few more years at least...hopefully
 
Manzur Fahim said:
henrikbengtsson said:
Does anyone know if Fujifilm will continue down the Medium format road? Also, does anyone know how it's selling?

Reason for asking is that I am thinking about going in. But since we are talking about some serious money and also getting rid of my trusy Canon system, it would be good to know if there's a solid future

After seeing those files and playing with samples, it's really REALLY hard to resist.
Click to expand...
I've been in the same situation as you, confused if I should switch to MF or not. Also after taking some samples and playing with them as you did, it was not just to make myself suffer more so I went in :)

https://www.mf-photography.com/Blog/I-switched-from-Nikon-to-Fuji

I switched from Nikon to Fuji, and didn't regret it. I did some research, and it made total sense. Have a read, you might find a reason or two too :)

And just get it already :) you can read it later :)

--
http://www.mf-photography.com
Click to expand...
Hi,

Something I would suggest that you got wrong is that large pixels are beneficial. But, that is not really the case.

What matters is total full well capacity, but it only matters as long as you can utilize it, that is have enough light to expose the sensor near saturation.

Having a larger sensor area is beneficial. The image below is a good illustration:



The A7rIII and the GFX has almost the same DR base ISO. At 640 ISO the A7rIII catches with the GFX due to dual gain pixel technology on the A7rIII.
The A7rIII and the GFX has almost the same DR base ISO. At 640 ISO the A7rIII catches with the GFX due to dual gain pixel technology on the A7rIII.



DR is slightly affected by pixel size, but sensor noise is essentially independent of pixel size, assuming that similar technology is used.

The advantages of larger pixels are:
  • Marginal improvement in DR at the image level.
The advantages of smaller pixels are:
  • Higher resolution
  • Interpolates and sharpens better
  • Higher MTF
  • Less aliasing artefacts
Phase One used to have hardware pixel binning. So it could bin four pixels into one at high ISOs, while throwing away 75% of the information.



Pixel binning gives significant benefits when pixel peeping.
Pixel binning gives significant benefits when pixel peeping.



But, seeing the whole picture the effect is much smaller.
But, seeing the whole picture the effect is much smaller.



And if we look at noise levels seeing the full picture, the effect of throwing away 75% of the information is barely visible at all.
And if we look at noise levels seeing the full picture, the effect of throwing away 75% of the information is barely visible at all.

So, to sum it up. Having a larger sensor has some benefits, but having larger pixels have very little benefits.

The main advantage of the GFX is probably that it has a very good line of lenses, paired with a focusing system that is pretty accurate.

Best regards

Erik

--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles
 
Erik Kaffehr said:
Manzur Fahim said:
henrikbengtsson said:
Does anyone know if Fujifilm will continue down the Medium format road? Also, does anyone know how it's selling?

Reason for asking is that I am thinking about going in. But since we are talking about some serious money and also getting rid of my trusy Canon system, it would be good to know if there's a solid future

After seeing those files and playing with samples, it's really REALLY hard to resist.
Click to expand...
I've been in the same situation as you, confused if I should switch to MF or not. Also after taking some samples and playing with them as you did, it was not just to make myself suffer more so I went in :)

https://www.mf-photography.com/Blog/I-switched-from-Nikon-to-Fuji

I switched from Nikon to Fuji, and didn't regret it. I did some research, and it made total sense. Have a read, you might find a reason or two too :)

And just get it already :) you can read it later :)

--
http://www.mf-photography.com
Click to expand...
Hi,

Something I would suggest that you got wrong is that large pixels are beneficial. But, that is not really the case.

What matters is total full well capacity, but it only matters as long as you can utilize it, that is have enough light to expose the sensor near saturation.

Having a larger sensor area is beneficial. The image below is a good illustration:

The A7rIII and the GFX has almost the same DR base ISO. At 640 ISO the A7rIII catches with the GFX due to dual gain pixel technology on the A7rIII.
The A7rIII and the GFX has almost the same DR base ISO. At 640 ISO the A7rIII catches with the GFX due to dual gain pixel technology on the A7rIII.

DR is slightly affected by pixel size, but sensor noise is essentially independent of pixel size, assuming that similar technology is used.

The advantages of larger pixels are:
  • Marginal improvement in DR at the image level.
The advantages of smaller pixels are:
  • Higher resolution
  • Interpolates and sharpens better
  • Higher MTF
  • Less aliasing artefacts
Phase One used to have hardware pixel binning. So it could bin four pixels into one at high ISOs, while throwing away 75% of the information.

Pixel binning gives significant benefits when pixel peeping.
Pixel binning gives significant benefits when pixel peeping.

But, seeing the whole picture the effect is much smaller.
But, seeing the whole picture the effect is much smaller.

And if we look at noise levels seeing the full picture, the effect of throwing away 75% of the information is barely visible at all.
And if we look at noise levels seeing the full picture, the effect of throwing away 75% of the information is barely visible at all.

So, to sum it up. Having a larger sensor has some benefits, but having larger pixels have very little benefits.
Click to expand...
What are the benefits of a larger sensor?

1. Larger sensors generally provide higher resolution.

2. Larger sensors result in improved low-light performance.

3. Dynamic range will likely be increased with larger image sensors,

4. A larger sensor lets you create more background blur.

5. A larger sensor can mean less diffraction.

6. Larger sensors reduce the crop factor.

6. Larger sensors reduce the crop factor

Article
Erik Kaffehr said:
The main advantage of the GFX is probably that it has a very good line of lenses, paired with a focusing system that is pretty accurate.
Click to expand...
Plus it has the larger sensor you and the list above were saying was beneficial, and has more pixels than any FF/APS-C sensor save one. And, it has larger pixels, which you admit, provide an increase in DR.

Fuji is about to make your case for smaller pixels this year hopefully.
Erik Kaffehr said:
Best regards

Erik

--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles
Click to expand...
--
Once you've done fifty, anything less is iffy.
 
Rick Knepper said:
Erik Kaffehr said:
Manzur Fahim said:
henrikbengtsson said:
Does anyone know if Fujifilm will continue down the Medium format road? Also, does anyone know how it's selling?

Reason for asking is that I am thinking about going in. But since we are talking about some serious money and also getting rid of my trusy Canon system, it would be good to know if there's a solid future

After seeing those files and playing with samples, it's really REALLY hard to resist.
Click to expand...
I've been in the same situation as you, confused if I should switch to MF or not. Also after taking some samples and playing with them as you did, it was not just to make myself suffer more so I went in :)

https://www.mf-photography.com/Blog/I-switched-from-Nikon-to-Fuji

I switched from Nikon to Fuji, and didn't regret it. I did some research, and it made total sense. Have a read, you might find a reason or two too :)

And just get it already :) you can read it later :)

--
http://www.mf-photography.com
Click to expand...
Hi,

Something I would suggest that you got wrong is that large pixels are beneficial. But, that is not really the case.

What matters is total full well capacity, but it only matters as long as you can utilize it, that is have enough light to expose the sensor near saturation.

Having a larger sensor area is beneficial. The image below is a good illustration:

The A7rIII and the GFX has almost the same DR base ISO. At 640 ISO the A7rIII catches with the GFX due to dual gain pixel technology on the A7rIII.
The A7rIII and the GFX has almost the same DR base ISO. At 640 ISO the A7rIII catches with the GFX due to dual gain pixel technology on the A7rIII.

DR is slightly affected by pixel size, but sensor noise is essentially independent of pixel size, assuming that similar technology is used.

The advantages of larger pixels are:
  • Marginal improvement in DR at the image level.
The advantages of smaller pixels are:
  • Higher resolution
  • Interpolates and sharpens better
  • Higher MTF
  • Less aliasing artefacts
Phase One used to have hardware pixel binning. So it could bin four pixels into one at high ISOs, while throwing away 75% of the information.

Pixel binning gives significant benefits when pixel peeping.
Pixel binning gives significant benefits when pixel peeping.

But, seeing the whole picture the effect is much smaller.
But, seeing the whole picture the effect is much smaller.

And if we look at noise levels seeing the full picture, the effect of throwing away 75% of the information is barely visible at all.
And if we look at noise levels seeing the full picture, the effect of throwing away 75% of the information is barely visible at all.

So, to sum it up. Having a larger sensor has some benefits, but having larger pixels have very little benefits.
Click to expand...
What are the benefits of a larger sensor?

1. Larger sensors generally provide higher resolution.

2. Larger sensors result in improved low-light performance.

3. Dynamic range will likely be increased with larger image sensors,

4. A larger sensor lets you create more background blur.

5. A larger sensor can mean less diffraction.

6. Larger sensors reduce the crop factor.

6. Larger sensors reduce the crop factor

Article
Rick Knepper said:
The main advantage of the GFX is probably that it has a very good line of lenses, paired with a focusing system that is pretty accurate.
Click to expand...
Plus it has the larger sensor you and the list above were saying was beneficial, and has more pixels than any FF/APS-C sensor save one. And, it has larger pixels, which you admit, provide an increase in DR.

Fuji is about to make your case for smaller pixels this year hopefully.
Rick Knepper said:
Best regards

Erik

--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles
Click to expand...
--
Once you've done fifty, anything less is iffy.
Click to expand...
Hi Rick,

My comment was about the size of the pixels. Mr Fahim states that larger pixels would be beneficial.

Just as an example, the sensor used in the GFX has a larger sibling, used in the Phase Oone IQ3100MP and the Hasselblad H6D100c. That sensor is 50% larger than the GFX sensor at around 54x40 mm but it has twice the number of pixels. So the pixels on the IQ3100 MP are smaller than the GFX pixels. But, there is more of them.



53785ef233a445a1a7d031eafac16f9a.jpg.png

Having more but smaller pixels would yield a better image. The picture below illustrates it to some extent:



IQ3100MP has 4.6 micron pitch, GFX and X1D have 5.4 micron pitch and the D850 has 4.3 microns.
IQ3100MP has 4.6 micron pitch, GFX and X1D have 5.4 micron pitch and the D850 has 4.3 microns.

The sensor used in the IQ3100 MP is not only larger, but it is also a newer design. So, it is possible that pixel design compensates for the smaller pixels with a pixel design that has higher full well capacity.

I don't exactly know why the IQ3100MP in the image above has so little moiré. It could be that it almost resolves the subject, or that the lens does not deliver much contrast at the pixel level.

There is little doubt that a physically larger sensor is mostly advantageous, but even a larger sensor benefits from smaller pixels.

Best regards

Erik









--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles
 
Rick Knepper said:
What are the benefits of a larger sensor?

1. Larger sensors generally provide higher resolution.
Click to expand...
True.
Rick Knepper said:
2. Larger sensors result in improved low-light performance.
Click to expand...
Also true. And high-light performance, too.
Rick Knepper said:
3. Dynamic range will likely be increased with larger image sensors,
Click to expand...
The flip side of 2.
Rick Knepper said:
4. A larger sensor lets you create more background blur.
Click to expand...
At equivalent apertures, the blur is the same. But there are more focal lengths with FF f/1.4 lenses available than there are with 33x44 f/2 lenses available.
Rick Knepper said:
5. A larger sensor can mean less diffraction.
Click to expand...
At equivalent apertures, diffraction is the same.
Rick Knepper said:
6. Larger sensors reduce the crop factor.
Click to expand...
Not a benefit in and of itself.
Rick Knepper said:
6. Larger sensors reduce the crop factor
Click to expand...
There's an echo in here.

You left two out:

In general, lenses available for larger sensors provide higher resolution in cycles/picture height than lenses for smaller sensors.

At equivalent apertures, lenses for larger formats offer better off-axis performance because of numerically larger f-stops.

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com
 
Last edited:
henrikbengtsson said:
Does anyone know if Fujifilm will continue down the Medium format road? Also, does anyone know how it's selling?

Reason for asking is that I am thinking about going in. But since we are talking about some serious money and also getting rid of my trusy Canon system, it would be good to know if there's a solid future

After seeing those files and playing with samples, it's really REALLY hard to resist.
Click to expand...
Hi,

Developing a new system with new lenses is a huge effort. Fuji would not do if they have not intended to have a solid future.

Best regards

Erik
 
Hi.
JimKasson said:
You left two out:

In general, lenses available for larger sensors provide higher resolution in cycles/picture height than lenses for smaller sensors.
Click to expand...
It seems to be the case with the Fuji GFX and the Hasselblad X1D compared to good quality 24x36 mm lenses. But I am not sure that it would apply to Hasselblad's H-series lenses compared to the GFX-lenses.

Would be interesting to see how 100 MP on 44x33 mm will perform compared to 100 MP on "full frame" 54x40 mm.
JimKasson said:
At equivalent apertures, lenses for larger formats offer better off-axis performance because of numerically larger f-stops.
Click to expand...
Well, yes if we look at large apertures for limited DoF. But many lenses peak in performance at f/4, stopping down beyond that I would not be sure smaller apertures are beneficial.

To some extent, larger is better, but I think the greatest benefit of the GFX that it is a well designed system with what seems to be excellent lenses, at least according to my trusted source, over at The Last Word.

An interesting point in Mr. Fahim's article is that he could not achieve correct focus with the Nikon D850. It seems, again according to my trusted source, that the D850 has issues focusing lenses with considerable focus shift, while the GFX keeps focus shift related issues at bay.

As far as I can recall, Lloyd Chambers has reported a lot of issues with focus shift on early samples of the GFX and lenses, I never found out how those issues have been resolved.

Anyway, Mr. Fahim's article makes the point that you can have very fine lenses but it doesn't help if you cannot achieve accurate focus. The failure of the D850 to achieve that was the main reason Mr. Fahim started looking at the GFX:

https://www.mf-photography.com/Blog/I-switched-from-Nikon-to-Fuji

Best regards

Erik

--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles
 
Last edited:
Erik Kaffehr said:
Rick Knepper said:
Erik Kaffehr said:
Manzur Fahim said:
henrikbengtsson said:
Does anyone know if Fujifilm will continue down the Medium format road? Also, does anyone know how it's selling?

Reason for asking is that I am thinking about going in. But since we are talking about some serious money and also getting rid of my trusy Canon system, it would be good to know if there's a solid future

After seeing those files and playing with samples, it's really REALLY hard to resist.
Click to expand...
I've been in the same situation as you, confused if I should switch to MF or not. Also after taking some samples and playing with them as you did, it was not just to make myself suffer more so I went in :)

https://www.mf-photography.com/Blog/I-switched-from-Nikon-to-Fuji

I switched from Nikon to Fuji, and didn't regret it. I did some research, and it made total sense. Have a read, you might find a reason or two too :)

And just get it already :) you can read it later :)

--
http://www.mf-photography.com
Click to expand...
Hi,

Something I would suggest that you got wrong is that large pixels are beneficial. But, that is not really the case.

What matters is total full well capacity, but it only matters as long as you can utilize it, that is have enough light to expose the sensor near saturation.

Having a larger sensor area is beneficial. The image below is a good illustration:

The A7rIII and the GFX has almost the same DR base ISO. At 640 ISO the A7rIII catches with the GFX due to dual gain pixel technology on the A7rIII.
The A7rIII and the GFX has almost the same DR base ISO. At 640 ISO the A7rIII catches with the GFX due to dual gain pixel technology on the A7rIII.

DR is slightly affected by pixel size, but sensor noise is essentially independent of pixel size, assuming that similar technology is used.

The advantages of larger pixels are:
  • Marginal improvement in DR at the image level.
The advantages of smaller pixels are:
  • Higher resolution
  • Interpolates and sharpens better
  • Higher MTF
  • Less aliasing artefacts
Phase One used to have hardware pixel binning. So it could bin four pixels into one at high ISOs, while throwing away 75% of the information.

Pixel binning gives significant benefits when pixel peeping.
Pixel binning gives significant benefits when pixel peeping.

But, seeing the whole picture the effect is much smaller.
But, seeing the whole picture the effect is much smaller.

And if we look at noise levels seeing the full picture, the effect of throwing away 75% of the information is barely visible at all.
And if we look at noise levels seeing the full picture, the effect of throwing away 75% of the information is barely visible at all.

So, to sum it up. Having a larger sensor has some benefits, but having larger pixels have very little benefits.
Click to expand...
What are the benefits of a larger sensor?

1. Larger sensors generally provide higher resolution.

2. Larger sensors result in improved low-light performance.

3. Dynamic range will likely be increased with larger image sensors,

4. A larger sensor lets you create more background blur.

5. A larger sensor can mean less diffraction.

6. Larger sensors reduce the crop factor.

6. Larger sensors reduce the crop factor

Article
Erik Kaffehr said:
The main advantage of the GFX is probably that it has a very good line of lenses, paired with a focusing system that is pretty accurate.
Click to expand...
Plus it has the larger sensor you and the list above were saying was beneficial, and has more pixels than any FF/APS-C sensor save one. And, it has larger pixels, which you admit, provide an increase in DR.

Fuji is about to make your case for smaller pixels this year hopefully.
Erik Kaffehr said:
Best regards

Erik

--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles
Click to expand...
--
Once you've done fifty, anything less is iffy.
Click to expand...
Hi Rick,

My comment was about the size of the pixels. Mr Fahim states that larger pixels would be beneficial.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand that. But, you did not paint the entire picture for others who might look in on the conversation. I'm filling in the gaps. For most of us, the pixel vs. sensor issue seems more like a distinction without a difference (not that it is). The main thing being that there's a benefit to the GFX sensor over smaller sensors within a given generation.
Erik Kaffehr said:
Just as an example, the sensor used in the GFX has a larger sibling, used in the Phase Oone IQ3100MP and the Hasselblad H6D100c. That sensor is 50% larger than the GFX sensor at around 54x40 mm but it has twice the number of pixels. So the pixels on the IQ3100 MP are smaller than the GFX pixels. But, there is more of them.

53785ef233a445a1a7d031eafac16f9a.jpg.png

Having more but smaller pixels would yield a better image. The picture below illustrates it to some extent:

IQ3100MP has 4.6 micron pitch, GFX and X1D have 5.4 micron pitch and the D850 has 4.3 microns.
IQ3100MP has 4.6 micron pitch, GFX and X1D have 5.4 micron pitch and the D850 has 4.3 microns.

The sensor used in the IQ3100 MP is not only larger, but it is also a newer design. So, it is possible that pixel design compensates for the smaller pixels with a pixel design that has higher full well capacity.

I don't exactly know why the IQ3100MP in the image above has so little moiré. It could be that it almost resolves the subject, or that the lens does not deliver much contrast at the pixel level.

There is little doubt that a physically larger sensor is mostly advantageous, but even a larger sensor benefits from smaller pixels.

Best regards

Erik

--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles
Click to expand...
--
Once you've done fifty, anything less is iffy.
 
Last edited:
JimKasson said:
Rick Knepper said:
What are the benefits of a larger sensor?

1. Larger sensors generally provide higher resolution.
Click to expand...
True.
JimKasson said:
2. Larger sensors result in improved low-light performance.
Click to expand...
Also true. And high-light performance, too.
JimKasson said:
3. Dynamic range will likely be increased with larger image sensors,
Click to expand...
The flip side of 2.
JimKasson said:
4. A larger sensor lets you create more background blur.
Click to expand...
At equivalent apertures, the blur is the same. But there are more focal lengths with FF f/1.4 lenses available than there are with 33x44 f/2 lenses available.
Click to expand...
Are you forgetting about the Mitakon Zhongyi Speedmaster 85mm f/1.2?
JimKasson said:
JimKasson said:
5. A larger sensor can mean less diffraction.
Click to expand...
At equivalent apertures, diffraction is the same.
JimKasson said:
6. Larger sensors reduce the crop factor.
Click to expand...
Not a benefit in and of itself.
JimKasson said:
6. Larger sensors reduce the crop factor
Click to expand...
There's an echo in here.

You left two out:

In general, lenses available for larger sensors provide higher resolution in cycles/picture height than lenses for smaller sensors.

At equivalent apertures, lenses for larger formats offer better off-axis performance because of numerically larger f-stops.

Jim
Click to expand...
 
Rick Knepper said:
JimKasson said:
Rick Knepper said:
What are the benefits of a larger sensor?

1. Larger sensors generally provide higher resolution.
Click to expand...
True.
Rick Knepper said:
2. Larger sensors result in improved low-light performance.
Click to expand...
Also true. And high-light performance, too.
Rick Knepper said:
3. Dynamic range will likely be increased with larger image sensors,
Click to expand...
The flip side of 2.
Rick Knepper said:
4. A larger sensor lets you create more background blur.
Click to expand...
At equivalent apertures, the blur is the same. But there are more focal lengths with FF f/1.4 lenses available than there are with 33x44 f/2 lenses available.
Click to expand...
Are you forgetting about the Mitakon Zhongyi Speedmaster 85mm f/1.2?
Click to expand...
Not forgetting, but discounting. I own the Mitakon Zhongyi Speedmaster 50mm f/0.95 in E-mount. By any objective measures, it's a pretty crappy lens. It does have some weird and potentially-wonderful qualities wide open, where all of its many flaws are on full display. I expect the G-mount 85 will be similar. I think a Petzval lens, Waterhouse stops and all, is more generally useful. Ditto for a Lensbaby.

If you've got a D850, you can choose from at least 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 105mm f/1.4 native lenses.

If you've got a GFX, you've got one 1 f/2 lens that's native, and maybe a couple more if you want to adapt an MF lens.

If you've got a 54x42mm sensor camera, how many f/2.5 lenses are available to you?

Jim
 
JimKasson said:
Rick Knepper said:
JimKasson said:
Rick Knepper said:
What are the benefits of a larger sensor?

1. Larger sensors generally provide higher resolution.
Click to expand...
True.
JimKasson said:
2. Larger sensors result in improved low-light performance.
Click to expand...
Also true. And high-light performance, too.
JimKasson said:
3. Dynamic range will likely be increased with larger image sensors,
Click to expand...
The flip side of 2.
JimKasson said:
4. A larger sensor lets you create more background blur.
Click to expand...
At equivalent apertures, the blur is the same. But there are more focal lengths with FF f/1.4 lenses available than there are with 33x44 f/2 lenses available.
Click to expand...
Are you forgetting about the Mitakon Zhongyi Speedmaster 85mm f/1.2?
Click to expand...
Not forgetting, but discounting. I own the Mitakon Zhongyi Speedmaster 50mm f/0.95 in E-mount. By any objective measures, it's a pretty crappy lens. It does have some weird and potentially-wonderful qualities wide open, where all of its many flaws are on full display. I expect the G-mount 85 will be similar. I think a Petzval lens, Waterhouse stops and all, is more generally useful. Ditto for a Lensbaby.

If you've got a D850, you can choose from at least 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 105mm f/1.4 native lenses.

If you've got a GFX, you've got one 1 f/2 lens that's native, and maybe a couple more if you want to adapt an MF lens.

If you've got a 54x42mm sensor camera, how many f/2.5 lenses are available to you?

Jim
Click to expand...
 
Rick Knepper said:
JimKasson said:
Rick Knepper said:
JimKasson said:
Rick Knepper said:
What are the benefits of a larger sensor?

1. Larger sensors generally provide higher resolution.
Click to expand...
True.
Rick Knepper said:
2. Larger sensors result in improved low-light performance.
Click to expand...
Also true. And high-light performance, too.
Rick Knepper said:
3. Dynamic range will likely be increased with larger image sensors,
Click to expand...
The flip side of 2.
Rick Knepper said:
4. A larger sensor lets you create more background blur.
Click to expand...
At equivalent apertures, the blur is the same. But there are more focal lengths with FF f/1.4 lenses available than there are with 33x44 f/2 lenses available.
Click to expand...
Are you forgetting about the Mitakon Zhongyi Speedmaster 85mm f/1.2?
Click to expand...
Not forgetting, but discounting. I own the Mitakon Zhongyi Speedmaster 50mm f/0.95 in E-mount. By any objective measures, it's a pretty crappy lens. It does have some weird and potentially-wonderful qualities wide open, where all of its many flaws are on full display. I expect the G-mount 85 will be similar. I think a Petzval lens, Waterhouse stops and all, is more generally useful. Ditto for a Lensbaby.

If you've got a D850, you can choose from at least 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 105mm f/1.4 native lenses.

If you've got a GFX, you've got one 1 f/2 lens that's native, and maybe a couple more if you want to adapt an MF lens.

If you've got a 54x42mm sensor camera, how many f/2.5 lenses are available to you?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Rick Knepper said:
Two benefits of wide apertures. More light or less DoF. Since we’ve been talking about larger sensors collecting more light, do you think manufacturers take this into account when making the decision to forego wide apertures for the former (not to mention the huge size and weight)?
Click to expand...
Absolutely!

Jim
 
Erik Kaffehr said:
Hi,

Something I would suggest that you got wrong is that large pixels are beneficial. But, that is not really the case.

What matters is total full well capacity, but it only matters as long as you can utilize it, that is have enough light to expose the sensor near saturation.

Having a larger sensor area is beneficial. The image below is a good illustration:

The A7rIII and the GFX has almost the same DR base ISO. At 640 ISO the A7rIII catches with the GFX due to dual gain pixel technology on the A7rIII.
The A7rIII and the GFX has almost the same DR base ISO. At 640 ISO the A7rIII catches with the GFX due to dual gain pixel technology on the A7rIII.

DR is slightly affected by pixel size, but sensor noise is essentially independent of pixel size, assuming that similar technology is used.

The advantages of larger pixels are:
  • Marginal improvement in DR at the image level.
The advantages of smaller pixels are:
  • Higher resolution
  • Interpolates and sharpens better
  • Higher MTF
  • Less aliasing artefacts
Click to expand...
If you plan to compare effects of pixel size, do it at pixel level, not with normalized measurement. That comparison is not very good in the first place as the sensors are of different technology.

Here is more relevant comparison of three different cameras with quite the same technology. One with 51mpix (5.3um), one with 36mpix (4.87um) and one with 12mpix (8.32um). We can clearly observe that bigger pixels are better at the pixel level:

X1D, A7S II, A7R
X1D, A7S II, A7R

Granted, normalized is way more useful comparison for everyday use. As long as you do not crop.

So lets normalize these same sensors:

X1D, A7S II A7R
X1D, A7S II A7R

So at base ISO, 50mpix and 5.3um is the best, and it holds it status all the way up to ISO1600. The worst at base ISO is the 12mpix and 8.32um, but it manages to catch the smallest pixel size 4.87um and 36mpix quite quickly at ISO200 already, and from there on manages to beat it and after ISO1600 even manages to beat the 50mpix 5.3um sensor!

So the mileage will vary, how much oversampling will benefit over bigger pixels. There is no definite thruth or fact that bigger pixels or more smaller pixels is better.

The best compromise is always there somewhere in between. Probably the best example is Canon 5Ds that cramping just more pixels does not solve everything.

From what I have seen from post processing files of GFX, A7r3 and D850, I must say these newest FFs are knocking the extremes in pixel size already and in general produce worse mallable RAWs than GFX, even if they seem to match GFX on measurements. GFX has more room for crop and more room for pushing before the noise becomes distracting looking.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top