Photokina 2016 highlights: What we saw (and what we didn't)

"Medium format" basically encompasses everything larger the 35mm format but smaller than 4x5 format. Consider these other medium format digital cameras:

Leica S: 45.0 x 30.0mm sensor, categorized as a medium format camera.
Hasselblad X1D: 43.8 x 32.9mm sensor, categorized as a medium format camera.
Pentax 645Z: 43.8 x 32.9 mm sensor, categorized as a medium format camera.

The Fuji GFX has a 43.8 x 32.9mm sensor. So Fuji is not "trying to get away with" anything. They are correct in calling the GFX a medium format camera. I don't know why you're getting all bent out of shape over Fuji. They are in the right.

"..ire"?
"..all bent out of shape"?

Can one not ask a question without being met with insinuations of aggression?

The Pentax 645 is a true MF camera with a crop-MF sensor. It mounts proper 645 MF lenses and when you acquire such lenses, you'll only have to wait for one of the full-MF successors to be released in order to be able to shoot with an original MF format.

I've heard of the technical definition of MF as being "anything between 135 format and large format" but I don't think the majority of people think of a sensor that is slightly larger than 36x24 as an MF sensor. Is a 37x25 sensor already an MF sensor? Technically, it is, right?

Marketing is never looking for truth but if someone asked me about which MF cameras exist, I'd tell them about the biggest, the ones that use crop sensors but allow one to collect MF lenses, and the ones that have no future to grow.

An "FF+" format is fine, just don't associate the grandeur of standard MF formats with it.

"I've heard of the technical definition of MF as being 'anything between 135 format and large format' but I don't think the majority of people think of a sensor that is slightly larger than 36x24 as an MF sensor."

No, it's not "slightly larger than 36x24." A 36 x 24mm sensor is 864 square millimeters in area. A 43.8 x 32.9mm sensor is 1,441 square millimeters in area. A 43.8 x 32.9mm sensor has 67% more surface area than a 35mm sensor. That's a 2/3rd increase in area. For a digital sensor, that's a pretty significant increase in size. And yes, people *do* consider cameras such as the Pentax 645Z, Hassy X1D, and Fuji GFX to be medium format cameras. You're comparing today's digital sensors to a format size (6 x 4.5cm) that now only exists in analog film. That format literally does not exist in any commercially available digital cameras (and never has).

@Class-A Digital Full-MF as you think doesn't exist. All sensors are in the range 43x33 - 53x40. Don't exist sensors 60x45, 60x60, 60x70

I know that full-sized MF doesn't exist yet. I'm talking about the future. Let's see in five years what sensor sizes will be on offer then.

The GFX system is not as future proof as current digital MF systems.

And no, adapters won't help the GFX, unless they are speed-boosters. But who wants to use a 50MP sensor with adapters and speed-boosters that all have their slight or not so slight problems?

Plus, the speed-booster would only work with a big MF lens and then we are back to the A7 series ergonomics issue. Huge lenses with tiny cameras are just a mismatch.

The cameras in the A7 series and the GFX are fine cameras. I don't have anything against them. I just don't like it when they are hyped up beyond proportion as the non-plus ultra and solution for everyone.

@Class A - you seem to have a chip on your shoulder. No one is hyping these cameras "up beyond proportion as the non-plus ultra and solution for everyone." You're just being ridiculous. Those are your characterizations. Who is saying that this is the "solution for everyone"? Geez, calm down.

As for your obsession for "full-sized MF", I think you're stuck on an old standard. In the film era, there was a linear relationship between film frame size and image quality, and it didn't cost that much more to increase the size of the film frame. Today in the digital age, things aren't so simple. First of all, increasing the size of the sensor gets exponentially more costly. Secondly, there is no longer the simple linear relationship between sensor size and image quality. Smaller sensors can deliver near comparable quality to larger sensors. It becomes an issue of diminishing returns, at a far higher cost.

Depends on the country. Dirk Jasper was citing 2 – 10% for Europe and over 10% in Japan. I’d say cameras like J5 (1-inch sensor) could be sold for some 5 years reasonably well. Though the typical buyer will want zooms or DL rather than the primes, this concept will sell more and for much longer, I think. The higher-end compacts have larger sensors for a reason. They won’t sell well with 1-inch imo, that’s where the dead is fitting.

i just got back from a trip to Japan. Olympus m4/3 cameras were everywhere. I saw lots of OM-D's, and several people using the latest Pen-F, which is a really gorgeous camera (I had never seen one in real life). Second most widely used camera I saw was mirrorless (A7's and A6XXX's). I was surprised to see very few DSLRs, except by a few tourists. Mirrorless definitely seems to be quite popular in Japan, that's for sure.

@T3 they are practical if you bring a very stable tripod. Unfortunately they are not cameras for the "happy snapper" :-)

AKH, the latest crop of medium format cameras (Hasselblad, Phase, Pentax), as well as most of those before them digital or film, are quite practical cameras without a tripod.

don't think Fuji, Oly and Pana are underdogs in the mirror-less market. They're well established now. people like underdogs and sometimes it attracts some. But to keep saying they're underdogs is an overstatement. Fuji AF is unreliable but their X system is so established to a point where people buy them reading all the hype and for feel good thingy.
Canon looks like may fill the underdog status for MILC.

For most normal pictorial shooting, a mono sensor has little advantage though some. The potential advantages of mono are: effective quantum efficiency (QE), resolution, dynamic range and precise control of wavelength(s).

re effective QE: an unfiltered sensor detects substantially more photons per time than Bayer filtered pixels.

re resolution and dynamic range: De-Bayering interpolates missing pixels per color (e.g. only 1/4 pixels are red) and that introduces blur so a Bayer cam with smaller pixels will sample enough to make the blur meaningless. But using more pixels means accumulating more read noise, which lowers the sensitivity and dynamic range.

re filtering: with mono you can precisely control the wavelengths whereas Bayer filters interfere with other filters and produce a (usually subtle) different result. You may notice that film landscapes made with some filters (yellowish) cannot be fully replicated by mixing Bayer filters.

all important for astroimaging...

I understand your complaints perfectly, DABurleigh. I'd be extremely interested in such a camera (ideally from Sony or Canon, Fuji is too damn expensive for me).

@Jonathan Brady - agreed, 4K is about as useful as sensor resolutions higher than 12MP (or so). Purely a "nice-to-have" feature rather a necessity.

JB: hanging around here can easily give people the impression that they need a digital photcamera. Pretty rare for the average Joe, an iPhone does the job well. So we can stretch this remark of yours of course. Most of us do not need a specialised digital cam at all (most average people).

It is a ever smaller bunch that needs to work in RAW on PCs nowadays.

@Jonathan Brady: It's very nice to have for some applications. I process 4K footage from a Phantom 3, and it's simply way more malleable than what comes out of my 1080p SLT.
For most photo enthusiasts, the video record button on their cameras could well not exist and they wouldn't care. I think that it's those of us using gear for business that really lust after hybrid gear.

Thanks for comments/suggestions. The NX1 would have been out of my price league anyway. The G85 seems to me let down by sensor size and 16MB. I agree with Jonathan's 4K comment; in my defence I'm someone who researches and buys things to last me until my requirements change significantly, so do look for a degree of future-proofing without spending a premium on being an early-adopter. The M5 is the closest to my requirements - I guess if it were weatherproofed (I will use a lot by the seaside) I'd forgive the polycarbonate body and live without 4k, but with these shortfalls at its current price I'll wait :-(

No new NX1 for sale with a believable ad at anywhere near my price point (~£1200 for system). Admittedly ticks my essential boxes and reinforces disappointment that no-one has offered better against those requirements in over 2 years :-(

Agreed. I bought into the Samsung brand because it had a nice trio of pancake primes. The NX500 with a pancake lens is hard to beat for travelling light.

Maybe the best available FF camera for travelling light is Pentax K-1 with a Pentax 16-85mm WR zoom.

I had the same issue with my A6000 but I purchased anyway because I liked adapting legacy lenses. Once my interest in legacy lenses faded I sold the camera - replaced by an NX500 which had some great native glass at reasonable prices. Sadly Samsung has silently vanished. I wish Samsung would supply Pentax with their sensors! Pentax has a decent range of smaller primes and zooms that are not too expensive..

Leica lenses are famous for their compact size. And their prices.

It's hard to see any sort of reasonable correlation between those two things. "Elephants are so big, why is their skin grey?!"

M4/3 is actually already littered with more inexpensive lenses...

With M4/3 you don't get something quite as cheap as nifty fifties for DSLR (which are old designs and an odd FL on crop bodies anyway), but in most other regards you have plenty of affordable options, more so than other systems (even vs APS-C DSLR if you actually want wider primes).

I'm very much looking forward to that 8-18 as a step up from my 9-18... If I didn't have the means to spend more on some higher grade lenses I'd be totally content with the M4/3 kit I already have tbh. The 8-18 will be a splurge, and the 7.5/2 an indulgence. :p

I'm actually glad Oly and Pana are focusing on some higher end lenses to broaden's the system's appeal and versatility.

Pentax?Canon?Casio?

Yes, and DPR is also already looking for a replacement for the D820?
So ... we're looking for a D830 now?

It's contra-productive with an early product announcement as the present products will be made obsolete.
This will hamper the sales
And if you can't deliver the new products you'll loose sales =>the R&D department get's a shorter time for development and testing and production get's less time to work with the production lines.
=> poorer quality of the products
Hooray!

For people spending a lot of money, product announcements can be very helpful. If I was about to spend thousands of dollars on a new camera and lenses, I would be far more upset if new versions were released a week later than I would be having to wait. Waiting can be tough, though...

Exactly, touch screen adds functionality and new ways to do photography.

And same way a side articulating screen and tilt screen or any other articulating screens offers new ways to do photography over fixed screen.

But side articulating screen takes away compared tilt screen, as it extends to side, it comes on the way of the left hand for good grip and holding, it has single hinge that is weakpoint for structural damage and it is slower to open/close. But doesn't add anything to display scratch resistance that 2.5D glass would do, or using any third party glass over display compared to flipping screen around.
The benefit for getting screen show view up/down when camera is in vertical position and raised straight above head or pointed downwards or put on ground and pointed upwards is very niche situation, as the cons are larger than benefits. And if you are serious for video, you have external display. And if you want flexibility, connect smartphone to camera and use it as screen.

I wish my Sony had a touchscreen, but I do not agree that touch-screens are "cost-free" in terms of function. Rather, while literally true, this observation ignores the practical dimension.

A properly-implemented touchscreen is more than an appendage; it is a control surface with unique strengths and limitations. It would be crazy to simply slap a touch screen onto an existing camera without comprehensively re-imagining every physical dial and button, and deciding whether that control is best rendered physically or via screen. I completely agree that Sony seems to have invested no more than fifty cents into this important project, but not every camera "needs" a touchscreen as badly as Sony. The problem with the "turn it off if you don't like it" argument is if the screen is actually well-designed, you're going to lose some functionality previously provided by a switch or knob somewhere.

You can go 100% in either direction, or somewhere in between. But you can't go 100% in both

I'm guessing Sony reps have no first-hand knowledge. So, I'm also guessing that you're basing your retort on a rumor. Perhaps reality is a better fit?

I looked it up, Jonathan, and it was Kenta Honjo who said that. He's product manager for mirrorless cameras and lenses, so I think it's credible. I think the earthquake had an effect on timetable.