I remember my Mamiya 645 Pro, and how I dreamed with a Mamiya 7ii and their massive negatives. The difference between this "XL" full frame sensors and the regular 35mm full frames is much smaller. (Not saying equal, though)

The only massive difference (leaving the Leicas aside) is price.

Rawtherapee 5.0 handles them just fine. I'm sure it is not optimized yet, but download the raws and have a play with the raw conversion and the files.
When I first saw the jpegs on DPR web pages I wasn't impressed either but I downloaded the raws and converted them in RT 5.0 and they looked a lot better, plus the files were very malleable.

I have a feeling this camera was not designed for jpeg only shooters.

@HeyItsJoel, well, you might want one but if you're just an amateur there's no ROI for you. So please in future refrain yourself from the stupid comments on price.

Picture 33 tells me.already enough about what I need to know now for such a new product. Sensible people really wanting to buy it, will try it at their retailer when fuji will,organise fuji days. Keep cool man....

This is definitely not medium format. This is à just a little bigger format than full frame but has nothing to,do with former 6x6 , 6x7 or 6x9.
At the argentic time, pictures taken by 35 mm leicaflex were better than pictures taken by the Pentax 645 film,camera.....
even when the 645 d came out, it was difficult to tell a difference with the shots taken with the d800. I would be curious to see a comparison between the canon SR , the Sony 42 mgp cameras and this Fuji....
I know someone who will make that , probably Steve Huff but you will also experience a painful reality : he is a so so photographer....

Basically if full-well capacity (in electrons) divided by read noise > 16,384, then, yes, you'd benefit from a higher than 14-bit ADC.

I'm not sure it's easy to measure input referred read noise from actual Raw files, though, as it's impossible to tease out the noise added by the ADC (if any). I would've thought anyway. But I may be misunderstanding this. Been meaning to ask this in PST to get the input of Jim Kasson and Jack Hogan and Bill Claff.

For example, I believe the lower-than-expected DR of the a7S at base ISO is due to quantization error from a 14-bit ADC, as its pixels are too big. 155k electron full-well capacity with low read noise can't be quantized properly with a 14-bit ADC - unless there were 9.5 electrons of read noise, which I doubt there would be with a Sony sensor.

There are some tricks to still encoding the full dynamic range with a lower bit-depth ADC, but I don't know that any of them are actually employed at the CMOS level in today's cameras.

More samples coming soon, including a variety of portraits.

It's beginning to look like those people who wear all the latest ski fashion and have the best equipment but never leave the lodge.

so it merges in camera 6 images offset by 1\2 a pixel with the worlds most advanced moving sensor [ emphasize moving only ]that can computer control tiny movements in 5 plus axis's and applys this ability to produce hi res files instead of image stabilization

well maybe........... ill look it up thx

edit , wow it looks interesting and something i could use with my x pro 2
i have wished some of olys sensor magic could be in fuji cameras
it looks quite good.. but you must take a sequence , offload them to your computer open the program perform the merge with several images and get the result.. its really not the same thing as olympus shifts quite exactly to produce a defacto 50 mp file . the other way the program is relying on ? camera shake? tripod micro movements ? hand shake?. as cool as this program looks it isnt the same as what olympus does in camera automatically in seconds. but it does seem similar and the results look beautiful ion their website

cheers

LFPCPH,

It's all a matter of perspective. One's Canon/Nikon with lens is big and heavy to someone sold on a Sony A7 which is big and heavy compared to a Fuji X series which is big and heavy to a point and shoot which is big and heavy compared to an iPhone/Android phone.

It's all relative.

" Isn't it the quality, design, and functionality that really matters, just as is the case with camera equipment?" if that were true, there would be no high-end.

The kind of photography I do is fast paced, something like events or stage performances, sometimes dances. It's very reactive, hence I don't see myself as an artist. I have both a Fuji X and Nikon full frame system, and to be honest, I don't see that much improvement in image quality between APS-C and full frame unless at high ISO.

I can shoot a street scene with my Fuji at ISO 200, or the same with my Nikon, and I honestly can't see any real difference. If anything, I kinda feel on full frame digital (I love film though) is overrated because distortion and softness outside of the center is more pronounced. I'm not a pixel peeper, and I don't care about getting tack sharp images across the frame. But where I can get something like 80 of the frame sharp wide open on APS-C, it's probably only 40-50% on a full frame, which requires stopping down for group photos.

What I'm curious is, how would having a medium format change the way you shoot, as well as the results?

Ad hominem.
If you don't know what it means you can always google it.

Thanks, Eamon. I have to admit that I hadn't heard of Nittoh before, when Hasselblad revealed it as the maker behind the X-lenses.

He said digital 35mm wasn't that affordable ten years ago not APS-C.

That's kind of the point of our studio tests... and Bill Claff's independent PTC/statistical analyses... no?

Anyway, not to burst anyone's bubble or ruin the surprise, but, here you go.

Bill Claff's excellent data/analysis show that you can get just as much dynamic range (well, 0.2 EV less, kind of within the margin of error) with a Nikon D810 (at ISO 64), and the BSI-FF sensor in the a7R II can do just as well in low light as the larger sensor in the 645Z. The same sensor used in the Fuji, to our knowledge.

Worse, you tend to have brighter lenses on FF, so that parity will actually sway in favor of the a7R II in low light once you use brighter lenses.

We also already showed the D810 to have similar dynamic range to the 645Z here (full analysis here.

You will get more resolution w/ the Fuji tho - bigger pixels put fewer demands on lens lp/mm.

Barney, since this renders detail so beautifully, please include more "textured" images. Closer portraits at base ISO, and fine detail stuff... textiles, foliage, animals (at base and higher ISO values) - things that can really give an idea of the resolving power. Concrete walls ... while providing nice geometrical compositions and a easy way to look for distortion are not a great at showing detail.

Also please set the noise reduction at minimum since it is not nice - in the portrait at ISO 640 (image 13) it seems to be kind of aggressive (but i also might be wrong and something else could to be at play there... seems a jpeg processing issue anyway).

@Gazeomon

Why bother discussing with a vicious old man?