Photokina 2016: Talking medium format mirrorless with Fujifilm

It is not just about shallow DOF. It is many things which is why some people buy into MF systems. They chose not to participate of the FF market because of the existing competition such as Canon, and as you pointed out, Sony.
I'm not sure Sony's agreement with these mirrorless MF manufacturers but I feel Sony will not participate in the MF system for now.
Fujifilm's strategy seems clear enough, which is to price it lower than the Hasselblad.

Massive quantities of dumb pilled into your post. Here is my favorite brown nugget:

"Canon has showed that with their new sensors, they will be back in the sensor competition again."

So your solution is to wait 5 or 6 years for Canon to catch up to fujifilm and Sony (who makes this mf sensor) before Canon has something similar? By then the mk2 version will likely be out.

Professionals don't think like that. They are professional because they work and use tools for a living.

Doing nothing as your post suggests accomplishes just that.... Nothing.

IQ should be much nicer than on the A7RII if the Fuji behaves even close to the 645Z, Phase One IQ350 and the H6D-50 which all share the same sensor. Also I would guess that the New Fuji lenses are also superb. Will the Fuji be worth the extra $ to you? Well that is only a question each individual can answer. It is great to have more options though!

MikeF4Black, I got it, it's the smooth transitions in the bokeh, the smoothness of the falloff and the lack of CA you are talking about regarding MF. Plus the colors! I wonder how's that possible in a sensor only 1.7x the area of FF? And why am I not able to comprehend the difference? FF was 2.25 (2.64) x the size of crop and with good lens on crop (Sigma Art 30 f/1.4) on D7100, I wasn't able to notice a visible difference to the FF D800 with 50 f/1.8. Why then the MF is so special?

The actual difference is in no way defined by your inability to see it.

And somehow you cannot be staying with your excellent gear while not bashing a different tool and its obvious advantages? This is silly and even kind of sad :(
FF is good enough for me and its price is reasonable, unlike crops and this pseudo MF :). Just let's be honest.

I feel your pain :) martindpr. Still, objectivity is the right way to go.

At first i thought that the GW690 was huge, then i found out there was a 617.....

@ecka84: Hello from 2013! It's 2016 now and the teething problems RAW software had with Xtrans have been resolved for a good 2-3 years now (only Adobe still lacks a bit). Assuming you don't have a Fuji camera, fair enough, you haven't been following.

As for insight, easy, just google the countless pros and amateurs loving X-Trans, or have a look on Fuji forums ;-)

As for why not in MF - I think it's because the processing of so many pixels would just be too much for the computing power, and I suspect the pros this camera is aimed at have very set workflows and looks they achieve from a Bayer sensor that they don't want to risk even changing slightly.

How is the FF mirrorless market crowded? There are literally two players there - Sony and Leica. And mostly nobody is buys Leicas, because of the insane pricing. So there is a Sony monopoly basically.
Now there will be two insanely priced 4433 MF(ish) mirrorless cameras. Whatever :)

Brandless1 can defend himself, of course, but I'll just point out that at no point does he use the word "mirrorless".

Yes there is MF market that is ”crouded". But the mirrorless MF is not. The thing I like about mirrorless MF is that its not any larger than 35mm FF DSLR. Great for travel and location MF shooting.

Who cares ... it is larger than FF mirrorless. The difference between FF and 44x33 is smaller than the difference between APS-H and FF. Because FF is effectively a 1.28x crop from 44x33 (43 vs 55 in diagonal). I can literally stitch 2 shots and get more, while using 10 times cheaper camera even the "not any smaller FF DSLR".

Well, about the same justification for going for the a7 over the a6000.

It's all a sliding scale between size and affordability vs. price.

A couple of things. 1. I believe Fuji will offer at least two lenses with leaf shutters. 2. Having the FP shutter in the camera means lenses can be adapted to it just like they have been for Sony's Alpha series. 3. Sync speed won't be going up. Think about it: If the 70% larger FP shutter in the GFX could achieve a speed of a 250th of a sec., then the makers of FF would have already raised the top speed of their smaller shutters. FF shutters are already going as fast as they can. No MF FP shutter will be able to match the smaller shutter's top speed.

I don't follow the Fuji forum to be sure, but I thought that move was entirely because of the bad Adobe support for X-trans.

Fuji can't risk having their expensive DMF flagship stuck on store shelves, just because ACR or Lightroom dislikes dealing with T-trans files.

This is a serious matter. Personally, there was a time I was going to buy a Sigma SD-1 Merril.

I didn't, just because of lack of Adobe support. Imagine how many SD-1 sales Sigma lost that way...

Fuji can't afford the same problem, so going conventional Bayer is the right move.

As Lloyd Chambers wrote recently, X-trans is a solution in search of a problem.

I'm convinced Fuji would have sold far more of their cameras had they ditched X-Trans and instead relied on a conventional design. They were/are quite good at making those as well.

Fuji has been very slow to increase the pixel count on X-trans sensors so I wonder if there was a technical issue.

There are no technical limitations in x-trans pattern, fuji only changes the pattern, but the bare sensor comes from sony. They increased slowly the resolution just because they needed to fine tune the processing for the 24 mpx one, otherwise there wouldn't be a big benefit as the 16 one was really good (and still preferred by someone).
Regarding the bayer pattern I think they preferred it both because professionals are less inclined to change technology, and also because it would be easier to be supported by software raw developers, even old one. I can easily imagine some professionals using old versions of softwares because they simply find it better. As an example in my office everyone is still using office 2003 because we find the ribbon interface confusing, and with newer versions it takes us double the time to make the same things!

Good arguments about the pros, marcio and Toselli! Hadn't thought about that. It seems the most logical one. Enthusiasts are not as strictly married to their established work flows as pros are. From a market perspective, working pros will likely outnumber spendy enthusiasts in the digital MF market for quite some time to come.

@Steve As much as everyone things Nikon is a camera maker, they are a lens maker first. Prescription glasses, microscopes, binoculars, rifle scopes, action cameras, 1" sensor based camera lenses, and lenses for their SLR/DSLR. In their past, they have also made lenses for medium and large format.

What Fuji has that Nikon doesn't is balls. Nikon came out with a new format a few years ago (1") but crippled the cameras and lenses so much as to make them unattractive visually and functionally. Nikon has admitted that their core business is APS-C & FF cameras and lenses and they are cautious and protectIve of it.

Fuji has always said they had no intention of entering FF. Now we see why and it was a brilliant move. Yes, Fuji has MF camera and lens experience. But this is a new mount for them too and the promise of 6 lenses in total by this time next year. Thats how you launch a new system. That's balls.

Now, my own speculation is that Nikon and Hasselblad have some partnership going. The X1D uses a Nikon TTL hotshoe. If Nikon were to make a MF body, perhaps they would use the new Hasselblad mount but with focal plane shutter as a way of differentiation.

That said, :-), all these new E lenses make me thing a mirrorless is coming and these can be more readily adsptiblensince they don't have a mechanical linkage to activate the aperture blades.

(@mgblack74) Fujifilm and Nikon are different in a more fundamental way. Nikon is a digital camera company -- their digital camera business accounts for the majority of their corporate revenue and income. Nikon has to tread carefully lest they destroy their majority business, and camera R&D has to be paid for by camera sales. Fujifilm's digital camera business is a tiny percentage of their corporate revenue and income. Fujifilm can, and I believe does, operate their digital camera business primarily to honor their heritage and for the resulting prestige.

Fujifilm doesn't need commercial success in the digital photography market. If it comes, that's great, but their goal is to be thought of as a genuine option for the serious professional (both in APS-C and in MF).

No digital camera company is more dependent on their digital photography business than Nikon is, and none is less dependent than Fujifilm is.

@Steve Nikon has a long history of making medium and large format lenses. The Zenza Bronica 6x6cm had a system of somthing like 13 Nikkors ranging from 40mm to 1200mm! then there is a whole series of lenses for view cameras from 4x5 to at least 8x10. The Plauble Makina 67 had a Nikkor lens too.

We'll also have a full written interview on the site in a few days.

Yes it will sell like HOT CAKE...Its much much smaller and more intuitive than Pentax....Pentax got it all wrong to include the mirror in their design. Fuji should be sharper (and better in colours) due to late of mirror shock.

Sell like Hot Cakes, yeah right. You will be able to buy a nice, brand new car for what the 3 lenses you Need and the body cost.

There is not 2% of the people on here that can justify to their wife to let them buy one LoL.

@Brandless1, Did Hasselblad, Phase, and Pentax all get it wrong, or did they cater to people who not only don't mind the mirror, want to see through the lens, don't care to gaze at a glowing screen to focus, etc., you know.. those people who actually actually buy these cameras and lenses? A lot of us don't fancy the idea of having to rely on using a screen. I'd rather use a mirror, my eyes, and have lots of battery life in the process. :)