Fujifilm « 360Photography

RSS

Posts Tagged ‘Fujifilm’

TTArtisan to release a limited-run 50mm F0.95 lens for Sony E and Fujifilm X mounts

25 Mar

Lens manufacturer TTArtisan has released information on a new limited-edition 50mm F0.95 manual focus lens. According to Japanese photo gear distributor Shoten Kobo, TTArtisan will be making only 40 lenses: 20 with a Sony E-mount and 20 with a Fujifilm X-mount.

According to the product text, the lens is ‘designed for old lens fans.’ The manual focus lens is constructed of 12 elements in 7 groups, features a 12-blade aperture diaphragm, has a minimum focusing distance of 50cm (20in) and offers an aperture range of F0.95-F16.

The lens measures in at 69mm (2.72in) in diameter, 88mm (3.46in) in length and weighs roughly 725g (1.6lbs). Shoten Kobo says the lens will retail for ¥42,800 (~$ 410), but no release date is given.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Fujifilm X-T4 vs X-T3: Which should I buy – and is it worth upgrading?

20 Mar

X-T4 versus X-T3

Fujifilm says the X-T4 is intended as a sister model to the X-T3 rather than a direct replacement, but there are enough differences between the two that some users might wish to upgrade. And there may be people looking at the X series afresh, wanting to know which is the better choice.

The more I’ve used the X-T4, the more I believe some stills-only photographers will appreciate it

Initially I wrote that the majority of benefits would be experienced by video shooters but the more I’ve used it, the more I believe some stills-only photographers will appreciate the newer model.

But, of course, the X-T3 has been on the market long enough that its price has dropped, so anyone looking to buy for the first time might be tempted to save a fair chunk of money by going for the unstabilized camera. So what are the differences that matter?

Stabilization

Image stabilization will be the decisive factor for some photographers, but not all. Given Fujifilm’s lens lineup is primarily built around stabilized zooms and fast primes (the same approach that’s worked well for Nikon and Canon’s DSLR systems), many photographers are likely to conclude they don’t need a stabilized camera body.

Some kinds of photography, such as macro work, could benefit from it but for many stills shooters it’s likely to be a feature that’s nice to have, but not necessarily essential.

For many stills shooters IS is likely to be a feature that’s nice to have, but not necessarily essential

Stabilization is probably a feature that offers the most benefit to videographers. Unlike lens IS, in-body IS can correct for camera roll, and in our experience so far, it’s sufficiently effective to allow the X-T4 to be used without a tripod or gimbal. This pairs nicely with the excellent video spec shared by both cameras.

For really ambitious video work, the X-T3 mounted on a gimbal is arguably the more powerful combination (especially now Fujifilm has added the ability to control the camera from the gimbal), but for ad hoc video shooting, the X-T4’s stabilization is a major benefit.

Battery life

Battery life is another big differentiator between the two cameras. The X-T3 could already be charged and operated by connecting a power bank to its USB-C port, so it was easy enough to keep topped-up, such that its battery capacity wasn’t a major limitation for most users.

Video shooters, who need to know their battery won’t cut out mid-shot, and photographers who need to travel light and not carry an external battery, will be the main beneficiaries of the X-T4’s larger capacity W235 battery.

The X-T4 delivers a 600 shot rating if behaving like the X-T3’s default mode, or 500 with a better user experience

Interestingly, the X-T3 achieved its pretty respectable 390 shots-per-charge rating by dropping the brightness and refresh rate of its screen after 12 seconds of inactivity: a behavior the X-T4 calls ‘Economy’ mode. A like-for-like comparison would be that the X-T4 delivers a 600 shot rating if compared to the X-T3’s default mode, or 500 while providing a better user experience.

Improved autofocus

The X-T4’s autofocus improves over the X-T3’s in terms of both performance and usability.

The difference in performance is immediately apparent in tracking mode, with a single AF reticule sticking much more tenaciously than the ‘cloud’ of AF points did in the past. We’ve not been able to fully test this yet, as we’re told full production X-T4s won’t be available for a while, but it’s a very promising sign: Fujifilm’s autofocus has generally been very good at assessing subject distance, the main shortcoming has been the ability to stay locked onto the correct subject (hence us generally recommending using a focus zone, rather than tracking mode). Concerns about AF drive speed on some lenses persist, but we’re looking forward to testing an X-T4 with the likes of the 50-140mm F2.8 LM.

The X-T4’s autofocus improves over the X-T3’s in terms of both performance and usability

Meanwhile the X-T4’s face and eye detection systems have been improved, particularly in terms of how they’re operated. Like the X-Pro3, the X-T4’s face detection works pretty well and lets you drop out of face detection mode simply by operating the AF joystick. This means you can leave the camera in face detection mode most of the time, if you wish. The Face Selection mode is also pretty effective, letting you use the joystick to choose between faces or press it inwards to drop back to your underlying AF mode.

Sadly, like the X-Pro3, you can’t leave the camera in Face Selection mode: you can only access it by applying it to a custom button and the camera exits the mode every time you power it off.

Improved stills processing options

The X-T4 includes the additional processing options introduced with the X-Pro3, including Color Chrome Effect Blue, Classic Negative film simulation and the Clarity parameter. On top of this it adds the Eterna Bleach Bypass film sim and more fine-grained control of the camera’s response curves.

The X-T4 also gains the option to re-process Raw files as 8 or 16-bit TIFF files, for situations in which you intend to post-process your images, but prefer the in-camera color and detail rendering to anything you can get from a Raw converter.

Your position may differ, but personally I tend to feel that once I’ve got Provia, Astia, Eterna and Acros I’ve got all the options I need. So, while these new options will add some value to the new camera, they wouldn’t sway my own buying decision.

Movie shooting differences

The X-T4’s base movie shooting spec is very similar to that of the X-T3. It’s a testament to how good the T3’s video capture was that it’s still one of the most video capable hybrid cameras on the market, so long after its launch. With internal 10-bit and 60p capture, it’s still probably the most powerful 4K shooter this side of Panasonic’s latest GH models.

The X-T4’s ‘Movie Optimized Control’ is an appreciable improvement that makes it quicker to adjust settings

There are improvements, though, even beyond the provision of a fully-articulated screen and in-body stabilization. For a start, the ‘Movie Silent Control’ function, that lets you use the touchscreen to change settings without interrupting your footage – and, crucially, lets you set distinct exposure settings for movie and stills shooting – has been improved. The X-T4’s ‘Movie Optimized Control’ mode lets you adjust exposure using the camera’s front and rear dials, in addition to the touchscreen. It’s an appreciable improvement that makes it quicker to adjust settings when shooting in changing light.

The other small change that makes a big difference is the Log Preview Assist mode. This doesn’t go as far as Panasonic’s mode, which lets you import LUTs onto your camera but, more like Sony’s implementation, gives a loosely graded preview, which makes it much easier to check your shots in both preview and playback modes.

Greater movie/stills separation

We’ve seen some posts decrying the removal of a dedicated metering switch from the X-T4, but we suspect many users will end up finding the stills/video switch that replaces it more valuable, even (perhaps especially) die-hard stills-only shooters.

While many stills shooters are likely to prefer the X-T3’s two-axis screen, since it stays in line with the camera’s optical axis for both landscape and portrait orientation shooting, travel photographers and the generally clumsy may appreciate the ability to fold the screen so that it faces in towards the camera, leaving it protected from scratches when thrown into a bag.

Users who don’t ever plan to shoot video need never encounter the pages of video setup options

The other benefit for all types of shooters is that distinct movie and stills modes allow the menus to be be more focused on the settings they need. Users who don’t ever plan to shoot video need never encounter the pages of video setup options, and movie shooters can more easily find the options they want, with audio and timecode options broken out into their own menu tabs.

What about the X-H1?

Of course the X-T4 isn’t the first Fujifilm camera to offer in-body stabilization. The X-H1 was a stabilized sister model to the X-T2 and, like the X-T4, appeared to offer most to video shooters. With the last of the X-H1s still available new at knock-down prices, how does it stack up?

Looking back (and it’s not really that far), it’s impressive how far the X-T4 brings us, compared with the X-H1. The underlying still image quality hasn’t changed radically, but just about everything else has continued to creep forward.

It’s impressive how far the X-T4 brings us, compared with the X-H1

The X-T4’s IS is rated as being significantly more effective (though we’re not able to formally test that, yet), and the autofocus is significantly better, not least in that the phase-detection capability extends across the whole sensor, rather than being confined to a central square.

On the video side, the X-T3 and 4 both offer full-width 4K video, which makes it easier to shoot wide-angle than the X-H1’s 1.18x cropped version. They also offer 10-bit internal capture, which is especially valuable for Log shooting. Both of the newer cameras also include the ability to shoot 4K/60p, either to represent fast action or to allow for 50% or 40% slow-mo playback, and both can continue recording for around twice the time the X-H1 can.

We tended to find the X-H1’s shutter button over-sensitive but this and the camera’s quiet shutter had their fans. For us the X-T4’s shutter is quiet enough, and now comes with the added reassurance of a 300,000 lifespan rating.

Upgrades to the X-T3

The question hanging over a much of this article is whether Fujifilm will implement any of the X-T4’s features in the X-T3.

Having established a reputation for providing feature additions and improvements (onto often already well-specced cameras with good performance), Fujifilm has now put itself in a position where its users have come to expect to continue to receive the benefits of its ongoing R&D in their cameras, for free.

There’s an argument to be made that Fujifilm has already provided X-T3 users with an reasonable level of post-launch support

The X-T3 is now 18 months old, so is probably getting towards the end of its life cycle, yet its feature set remains competitive. It’s received a series of updates improving its performance and making small feature additions throughout its life so far. At which point, there’s an argument to be made that Fujifilm has already provided users with an appropriate level of post-launch support. Obviously it would be nice if the company decided to make add some of the additional features it’s developed for the X-T4. But whether it’s a reasonable expectation is another matter.

It’s likely to hinge on whether Fujifilm really does plan to maintain the X-T3 and X-T4 concurrently. Sony clearly believes there’s room for both its a6400 and a6600 models which, aside from battery size and image stabilization, have feature parity, but Fujifilm may decide not to upgrade the X-T3 up to X-T4 level in order to make the X-T4 more attractive.

Should I upgrade?

Ultimately, the choice of whether to upgrade from the X-T3 to the X-T4 depends on your specific needs. Given how competitive the X-T3 is, we believe both could happily co-exist – it’s still an excellent camera, offering tremendous capability for both stills and video shooters. Paired with a $ 500 DJI Ronin SC, it’s still one of the best video cameras under $ 2000. For those reasons many users might quite legitimately follow Dan’s advice, and settle for a bit.

But the X-T4 does have a lot going for it. Image stabilization, a bigger battery, improved autofocus and a host of performance and handling tweaks that will really add up for some photographers. I’m certainly looking forward to getting a change to test a full production version.

Until we get a chance to test the fine detail, we hope this article helps you assess whether it’s an upgrade you need to make, or whether it’s better to save your money for an extra lens or perhaps even the conjectured X-H2.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Fujifilm GF 50mm F3.5 impressions: an easy lens to love

18 Mar

Introduction

Fujifilm GF 50mm F3.5 | 1/60 sec | ISO 400 | F8

Adobe Camera Raw Settings: Adobe Color Landscape, Daylight WB, Highlights -25, Shadows +60, Vibrance -6, Sharpening 40, Luminance Noise Reduction 0, Color Noise Reduction 25

Over the past half-century, 50mm lenses, with a field of view that most closely approximates natural human vision, have reigned supreme as the classic ‘normal’ lens for 135 film and full-frame digital cameras. In the days before ubiquitous zoom lenses, 50mm primes were kitted with just about every 135 SLR on the market. If you’ve ever shot with a Canon AE-1, a Pentax K1000, or Olympus OM-1, there’s a better than 90% chance it had a 50mm lens on it.

In my nearly 30 years as a photographer, I’ve purchased a 50mm (or equivalent) prime for every camera system I’ve ever owned. Over the past 15 years of teaching photography, I’ve recommended the 50mm prime lens to literally thousands of students as the highest-quality, most-affordable, must-have upgrade for anyone getting ‘serious’ about photography.

Fujifilm GF 50mm F3.5 sample gallery

$ (document).ready(function() { SampleGalleryV2({“containerId”:”embeddedSampleGallery_0098865943″,”galleryId”:”0098865943″,”isEmbeddedWidget”:true,”selectedImageIndex”:0,”isMobile”:false}) });

The hard truth is, though, I’ve never truly loved shooting with any of my 50mm primes and they’ve tended to sit in the bag more often than my other lenses. For me, the ‘normal’ 50mm has always been a little boring and I find a 35mm or 40mm a little more interesting with a slightly wider-than-normal view that doesn’t really feel wide. Generally speaking, 40mm lenses also tend to be rather compact and you’ll find them on many classic fixed-lens rangefinders from the 1970’s including the legendary Canonet G-III QL17 and the Rollei 35. Canon’s current 40mm F2.8 ‘pancake’ lens is a lovely performer as well.

Speaking of 40mm (equivalent) lenses, I have to mention an old favorite of mine: the Panasonic Lumix 20mm F1.7 for Micro Four Thirds. This was one of the first MFT prime lenses, released in late 2009 alongside the wonderful Lumix GF1. Although a bit dated, the Lumix 20mm still holds up very well on my 20MP Olympus Pen-F.

Panasonic Lumix GF1 with 20mm F1.7

The Lumix 20mm also has at least one notable superpower: a close focusing limit of just 20cm, which is significantly closer than just about any non-macro-specific lens I’ve ever used. This very close focusing enables Micro Four Thirds to transcend its inherent depth-of-field limitations (or lack thereof) to produce images with extreme background blur, albeit limited to close subjects. The slightly wider-than-normal field of view also includes a bit more context, which can make ordinary junk-drawer-stuff visually interesting in a way that classic 100mm macro lenses can’t. In short, it’s just a very ‘arty’ lens that makes casual photography really fun for me. As a bonus, it happens to be very small and very sharp.

Fujifilm’s new 50mm F3.5

So when Fujifilm announced the new GF 50mm F3.5 for the GFX system, with its 40mm full-frame equivalent field of view, I got very excited. I imagined a larger version of the Lumix 20mm mated to an ultra high resolution medium format sensor. Is it a dream come true? Well, yes and no. Let me explain.

Fujifilm GF 50mm F3.5 | ISO 200 | 1/500 sec | F11
Adobe Camera Raw Settings: Adobe Color, Daylight WB, Exposure +0.5, Highlights -100, Shadows +100, Sharpening 40, Detail 10, Luminance Noise Reduction 0, Color Noise Reduction 25

I recently drove a 4500-mile loop from Seattle, WA to Santa Fe, NM and back. DPReview kindly loaned me their copy of the Fuji GF 50mm F3.5 to try out along the way, so I attached it to my own GFX 50R and hit the road. It wasn’t a photo-specific trip and I was pretty much always on the way to somewhere else so I didn’t get to shoot in ideal lighting conditions. The images from this road trip are a good example of the sort of casual shooting I might do with the lovely Olympus Pen-F and Lumix 20mm F1.7.

Here are my thoughts.

It’s still kind of big

Everyone writing about this GF 50mm has commented on how ‘tiny’ it is. Well it’s definitely smaller than Fujifilm’s other larger-than-full-frame GF lenses, but calling this a ‘tiny’ medium format lens seems a bit like describing a 16-passenger van as a ‘tiny’ bus. Yes, it’s the smallest Fujifilm GF lens to date, but it’s still larger than an old Hasselblad 80mm F2.8 or the wonderful Pentax 645 75mm F2.8, both of which have a larger aperture and were designed for even larger formats. Proportionally, the GFX 50R with 50mm F3.5 feels something like a Texas-sized version of the for-real tiny Pen-F and 20mm F1.7.

Inoffensive bokeh

In general, a lens’s maximum aperture affects its physical size and weight (and price). It’s clear that Fujifilm had compactness in mind here and I’m neither thrilled nor disappointed in the result. Honestly, I’d rather have a slightly larger F2.8 lens or a slightly smaller F4 lens. This lens’s maximum F3.5 aperture feels like a compromise nobody really asked for. Does it matter? Not much… F3.5 is fine. The half-stop either way would make very little difference in terms of light gathering or depth of field.


ISO 250 \| 1/3200 sec \| F3.5 ACR Settings: Default	ISO 250 \| 1/250 sec \| F11 ACR Settings: Default

My casual impression of the bokeh is that I generally like it. Perhaps it could be a bit smoother (more ‘beautiful’) in shots with busy foliage and smaller apertures, but there’s certainly nothing specifically negative to say about it. In all, the out of focus rendering is very nice, very clean, and very modern. Some people might even say ‘generic looking.’ It’s just not the sort of bokeh that really stands out in any particular way – but that’s not a bad thing.

It’s a darn good lens

Yes, as expected, it’s sharp. Very, very sharp. Fujifilm has claimed that all the GF lenses were designed for more than 100MP of resolution. I have no problem believing that statement. To be honest, I’d be shocked if anyone had a legitimate reason to be disappointed in the sharpness of any modern digital medium format lens. I feel obligated to note, however, that digital medium format should be held to a higher standard, particularly when you consider the physical size and weight (and cost) of such systems.

Does that mean this (and other GF lenses) are, in general, measurably sharper than all other lenses? Not necessarily. There are plenty of extremely sharp lenses for other systems. That said, even the best lenses are rarely the same sharpness across the frame at all apertures. When pixel-peeping at 100%, I was rather impressed to see essentially perfect sharpness all the way out to the extreme corners and I didn’t notice any practical difference in quality throughout the aperture range.

ISO 100 | 1/250 sec | F5.6
ACR Settings: Classic Chrome, Highlights -80, Shadows +20, WB Daylight, Sharpening 60, Detail 10

No lens corrections or transform adjustments.

ISO 100 | 1/60 sec | F11
ACR Settings: Classic Chrome, Highlights -80, Shadows +20, WB Daylight, Sharpening 60, Detail 10

No lens corrections or transform adjustments.

I don’t myself shoot charts or flat brick walls so I can’t comment scientifically on this lens’s ‘square-ness’ or lack of distortion. In my studio, I often capture flat artwork but 50mm is not a focal length I would ever use for that purpose. What I can say is that in the field, I didn’t notice any geometric distortion that would matter for a real subject.

I should also note that I couldn’t find any chromatic aberrations in any images I shot through this lens. I’d be extremely impressed if this were a smaller format lens, but again I expect nothing less from a modern medium format optical formula.

ISO 400 | 1/250 sec | F11
ACR Settings: Adobe Color, Highlights -50, Shadows +50, WB Daylight

The pine needles are impressively sharp and detailed even in the extreme corners. Note the total lack of color fringing.

ISO 100 | 1/500 sec | F8
ACR Settings: Adobe Color, Exposure +0.75, Highlights -70, Shadows +20, WB Daylight, Sharpening 60, Detail 10

No lens corrections or transform adjustments. Note the total lack of color fringing.

So is this the sharpest, cleanest lens in the world? I have no idea, and I don’t care. In my opinion, this lens (really any GF lens) is so close to practical perfection from corner to corner at almost any aperture, that discussion of inherent sharpness or distortion is virtually irrelevant. At this level, depth of field, diffraction, plane of focus, focus precision, and vibration are far more critical issues. If anyone is getting ‘soft’ rendering out of this system, it is almost certainly a result of technique, or in very rare cases, a manufacturing defect.

Fast, confident autofocus

On my GFX 50R, focusing from close to far with the 50mm seems faster than all my other GF prime lenses except the 23mm. The 45mm is just a bit slower. The 63mm feels noticeably sluggish by comparison. The most notable difference, though, is the surprisingly quiet confidence exhibited by this new 50mm. It locks on almost instantly with hardly any ‘wobble’ and a barely audible ‘zip’ sound. The 23mm is almost this good. The 110mm is slower of course, but surprisingly not far behind, considering the longer focal length and how much further the large glass elements must travel. The other primes all make significantly more noise and require a deeper in-out movement to lock on a subject.

The 50mm exhibits surprisingly quiet confidence

All in all, I’d say Fujifilm made the autofocus of this 50mm medium format lens feel a lot more like one of the better X-mount APS-C lenses than any other medium format lens I’ve used. It’s certainly faster than manual focus on Hasselblad V system lenses, faster than Pentax 645 AF lenses, and faster than Mamiya / Phase One AF lenses I’ve used in the past. It’s also faster than my Lumix 20mm on the Pen-F, though not nearly so fast as the best lenses from Canon, Nikon, or Olympus. But let’s put this into perspective… if you’re an event or sports shooter and ultra-fast autofocus is a primary concern, then medium format is NOT the droid you’re looking for. Full stop.

Close focus could be closer

The minimum focus distance of 55cm is really the only thing I find disappointing about this otherwise wonderful lens. In theory, Fujifilm’s 50mm F3.5 should have a full-frame depth-of-field equivalence of F2.8, which should blur backgrounds more than the Lumix 20mm’s full-frame depth-of-field equivalence of F3.4.

In reality, the GF 50mm just doesn’t focus close enough to win this particular contest. There were so many times when I wanted to get just a little closer than the GF 50mm would allow. If there’s enough time, attaching a Canon 500D close up filter can help you get a little closer, though I felt the +2 diopter of the Canon 500D was not quite enough to match the 20cm close focusing magic of the Lumix 20mm.


Fujifilm GFX 50R + GF50mm F3.5 ISO 800 \| 1/60 sec \| F3.5 Shot at minimum focus distance	Olympus PEN-F + Lumix G 20mm f/1.7 II ISO 800 \| 1/60 sec \| F2.2 Shot at minimum focus distance

It would be easy to suggest simply cropping into the much higher resolution GFX image to match the close crop of the Pen-F. But even if you get to a similar crop with similar resolution, the physics of being closer to the subject produces a more dramatic perspective and depth of field rendering.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Five reasons why Fujifilm probably won’t make a full-frame X100

17 Mar

Introduction

The X100 series is one of Fujifilm’s most popular and important product lines. Over the course of almost ten years, the company has built the X100 series into an iconic line of cameras, which established Fujifilm as a serious brand with enthusiasts, and continue to be best-sellers.

Ever since its introduction, some photographers have been asking Fujifilm to develop a full-frame version of the X100. And on the face of it, that’s an appealing thought. Who doesn’t like the idea of greater depth of field control and a boost in potential image quality? But we strongly suspect that Fujifilm will never do it. Read on for the five main reasons why not, and why we doubt that a full-frame version is on the cards, either.

Size and weight

The Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II is a very small compact camera with a 35mm F2 lens, but in order to make it so compact, compromises were made on ergonomics and battery life.

The X100V is a little bigger than previous iterations of the X100 series, but it’s still a relatively small camera, considering everything that Fujifilm has packed into it. One of the reasons for that is its APS-C sensor. A larger sensor would mean a larger imaging circle (which means a larger lens to achieve the same F stop), a larger shutter mechanism, and probably a deeper body, to accommodate the additional circuitry hardware, and to keep it cool.

Genuinely small full-frame cameras exist (the Sigma fp and Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II spring to mind) but with both, their small size comes with compromises. The fp lacks a viewfinder and even a mechanical shutter. In fact, the fp is better thought of as a module inside a camera system rather than as a wholly complete camera in and of itself. Meanwhile the RX1R II has a fairly cramped control layout and a tiny battery, rated for a pitiable 220 shots, and not infrequently capable of rather less than that, depending on how you use it.

It’s impossible to know exactly what a full-frame X100 might end up looking like, but you can bet it would be larger and heavier than the cameras that we know and love.

Development cost of full-frame

The Sigma fp is even smaller than the RX1R II, and one of the ways in which Sigma ensured the smallest possible body is by eliminating both a viewfinder and a mechanical shutter. An X100-type camera without either of those things would probably be a non-starter.

And then there’s cost. The 26MP sensor in the X100V is used in multiple other Fujifilm cameras, which means that they can be purchased from Sony in bulk, keeping the per-unit cost down.

Economies of scale mean that it would probably be very expensive for Fujifilm to procure a relatively small number of totally different sensors for only a single product line, aimed at a relatively small group of customers.

On top of that, a new, larger sensor would probably mean developing a new shutter mechanism: either a conventional mechanical shutter in-camera, or a scaled-up in-lens shutter, of a type similar to the current X100 line. Either way, Fujfilm would need to make it from scratch, likely with associated development and production costs.

Bigger sensors also draw more power, and create more heat. One way or another, it all costs money.

Add all of these costs together, and developing a niche product like a full-frame X100 would probably be very expensive for Fujfilm. And what would that mean?

Literal cost to consumer

The Leica Q2 is a good example of a fantastic camera, with a built-in finder and a great lens, that makes the most out of its high-resolution full-frame sensor. But it’s priced beyond the reach of most of us.

You guessed right: it means that a hypothetical full-frame X100 would cost you more. One of the major reasons for the success of the X100 line over the past decade has been the cost of the cameras, at a sweet spot of around $ 1,200 at point of launch, usually dropping a little over their lifetime. Obviously, $ 1,200 is still a considerable chunk of change, but compared to the likes of the Sony RX1R II or the Leica Q2, it’s a relative bargain.

Imagine if Fujfilm had to double the cost of the X100 in a full-frame version. Would you buy one? Even if you’re one of those people who would answer “yes”, it’s only logical that you’d be counting yourself among a minority, compared to the potential audience for the traditional APS-C bodies.

Loss of brand identity, and customer trust

For customers who have made large investments in Fujifilm’s APS-C products, the announcement of a full-frame camera may look like a vote of no confidence in the smaller format.

Customers really like it when companies play to their strengths, talk frankly to them, and don’t try to fix something that isn’t broken. Fujifilm has said so often – and for so long – that it has no interest in developing full-frame cameras, that such an abrupt change of direction would risk damaging the brand in the eyes of some of its most loyal customers.

In short, Fujifilm is not a full-frame brand. It’s arguably the only company (R.I.P. Samsung) that has really made a full-throated case for the benefits of APS-C over full-frame, and has spent the past decade doubling-down on that approach, creating the most convincing dedicated APS-C lens lineup on the market.

If Fujifilm introduced a full-frame version of the X100 concept, there’s no doubt that the company would attract a certain number of new customers. But several other, much less positive things would happen: For starters, a lot of loyal X100 series fans would feel betrayed, and worried that such a move might spell the end for a range of cameras they’ve come to love.

Photographers with an investment in the APS-C interchangeable lens X-series would also get spooked. To a Fujifilm shooter who has spent thousands of dollars on XF lenses, the announcement of a full-frame camera – any full-frame camera– could look like a massive vote of no confidence in APS-C.

Finally it’s not hard to imagine the feelings of someone who has just dropped thousands on one of Fujifilm’s medium-format GFX cameras, if the company suddenly announced it was developing a compact full-frame camera. Which leads us on to…

Risk of cannibalization

How many GFX 50Rs would Fujifilm sell if a similarly-sized, fixed-lens alternative were available? Such a product would risk cannibalizing Fujifilm’s existing lineups.

I’ve explained the likely potential costs (both real and in terms of potential damage to the brand) to Fujifilm of adding a full-frame X100 lineup, but there are always costs associated with doing something new, and costs are acceptable if there’s a major long-term benefit.

There’s no doubt that by putting a full-frame sensor behind a fixed 35mm F2 lens, Fujifilm would be providing photographers with a more powerful tool than any of the previous X100 series models, but that might actually end up being a problem. Why? Because it would risk ‘cannibalization’.

In this context, ‘cannibalization’ describes a situation where sales of a new model come at the expense of sales lost in other parts in the lineup. Would Fujifilm want to risk a large number of sales of the (at this point presumably quite profitable) X100-series in favor of a new, costlier full-frame model? It seems unlikely, and it’s even less likely that the company would risk sales of the nascent GFX range by inserting a full-frame model into the lineup, aimed at the exact same type of users.

Summing up – arguments against

Every one of Fujifilm’s medium format cameras so far has used the same NP-T125 battery. It’s physically big, because it has to be. That means the cameras have to large enough to accommodate this kind of battery.

To sum up, it’s highly unlikely that Fujifilm will develop a full-frame X100 series camera for the following reasons:

A larger sensor would add size and weight, mitigating a major X100 selling point
Such a product would cost a lot to develop and manufacture
The result would be a very expensive camera – reducing its potential audience
A move to full-frame would annoy and worry existing loyal Fujifilm APS-C customers
The risk of cannibalization within existing lineups is too great

At a technical level, the imaging potential of full-frame is undeniably greater than APS-C, and only slightly less than medium-format. But the additional development cost, and the size and weight penalty involved in making full-frame work in a compact X100-type form factor, would be considerable. It’s lovely to imagine a full-frame X100 with a 35mm F1.4 lens, but less lovely to picture how much larger, heavier, and costlier that camera would have to be, compared to an X100V.

But what about medium format?

Fujifilm has a long track record of making fixed-lens medium format cameras, from the days of film. Could it repeat the trick with digital?

Fujifilm has said repeatedly that it has no interest in full-frame. Instead, it has developed a medium format lineup, offering far superior image quality potential and differentiated from both its own APS-C line, and the growing crop of full-frame mirrorless cameras now on the market.

The sensor in Fujifilm’s flagship $ 10,000 GFX 100 can be thought of essentially as four X-T3 sensors, in a single piece of silicon. With four times the surface area, and current-generation chip design, the GFX 100’s sensor is capable of astonishing resolution and dynamic range, putting it in a different league to even the best APS-C cameras.

So might Fujifilm build a medium-format X100? There’s an argument to be made that it makes sense in a way that full-frame just doesn’t. Medium format would offer an increase in potential image quality over full-frame (albeit relatively modest – about 2/3EV), a significant leap in image quality over APS-C, it’s a major part of Fujifilm’s brand identity, and the larger format is a key differentiator for Fujifilm compared to competitive manufacturers.

In conclusion

For all of the appeal to Fujifilm of burnishing the company’s credentials in the medium format marketplace, an MF X100-type camera still seems very unlikely, for all of the same reasons why a full-frame X100 is probably a non-starter.

The difference in image quality between full-frame and what Fujifilm calls medium format is relatively modest. In fact, in our testing we found that the 50MP sensors used in the GFX 50S and 50R don’t offer significantly better performance than the best current full-frame sensors. The more advanced 100MP sensor in the GFX 100 is a slightly different matter, but its cost (larger sensors are significantly harder to produce, and their ‘yield’ is much smaller) probably makes it impractical for use in such a different type of camera.

Meanwhile, remember how a full-frame X100 would have to be bigger and heavier? Well that’s even more true with a hypothetical medium format version.

The GFX 50R provides a convenient point of comparison here. It’s not huge, compared to (say) the GFX100, but it’s definitely not a camera you can slip into your pocket. Imagine a fixed version of the compact 50mm f3.5 on the front, and it might be possible to shave off a few mm here and there. But either way, you’re likely still looking at a very expensive product, which probably won’t deliver much better image quality than a current full-frame model from Nikon or Sony.

Of course, that doesn’t mean we don’t still want one.

What do you think? Let us know in the poll below.

.

Have your say

$ (document).ready(function() { Poll({“pollId”:”6671089955″,”openForVoting”:true,”mainElementId”:”poll0″,”slot”:null,”isSingleChoicePoll”:true,”minNumberOfChoices”:1,”maxNumberOfChoices”:1}); })

What do you think? Full-frame Fujifilm X100

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Tokina Announces 6 Lens Roadmap for Fujifilm, Sony, Canon, Nikon

15 Mar

The post Tokina Announces 6 Lens Roadmap for Fujifilm, Sony, Canon, Nikon appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Jaymes Dempsey.

Tokina has announced a “2020 Lineup” which details six new lenses the company will debut this year.

The lenses are designed for various mirrorless and DSLRs, including Canon, Sony, Fujifilm, and Nikon cameras.

According to the Tokina press release, the 2020 lineup “was originally planned to be presented at the biggest annual Asian Camera and Imaging photo show CP+2020 (Yokohama, Japan). Unfortunately, due to unforeseen circumstances, the show was canceled.”

The CP+2020 was slated to take place at the end of February, but was abandoned due to the coronavirus.

Tokina goes on to explain that, in lieu of the CP+2020 announcement, the company would release the lens roadmap in honor of Tokina’s upcoming 70th anniversary.

Therefore, the lenses we can expect from Tokina in 2020 are:

An 11-20mm f/2.8 lens for APS-C Canon EF-mount and Nikon F-mount cameras
A 23mm f/1.4 lens for Sony APS-C E-mount cameras and Fujifilm X-mount cameras
A 33mm f/1.4 lens for Sony APS-C E-mount cameras and Fujifilm X-mount cameras
A 56mm f/1.4 lens for Sony APS-C E-mount cameras and Fujifilm X-mount cameras
A 35mm f/1.8 lens for Sony E-mount cameras (full-frame)
A 50mm f/1.8 lens for Sony E-mount cameras (full-frame)

Note that the first of these lenses – the Sony APS-C E-mount glass and the 11-20mm Canon/Nikon wide-angle – will come available in the summer of 2020, with the remaining lenses debuting in the fall.

This crop of new lenses should bolster already impressive lens lineups from Nikon, Canon, Sony, and Fujifilm. In particular, Sony users will appreciate the opportunity to purchase lower-priced, fast primes, given the limited options currently on offer.

Because that’s who should check out these Tokina lenses: Photographers who don’t want to spend massive amounts of cash for $ 1000+ glass, but who still require top-of-the-line image quality and suitably fast apertures.

And, given Tokina’s excellent third-party optics produced in the past, you can expect great things from these roadmapped lenses.

Now over to you:

What do you think of these lenses? Are you excited for any of them? Which camera system do you think is most in need of some third-party glass?

Share your thoughts in the comments!

The post Tokina Announces 6 Lens Roadmap for Fujifilm, Sony, Canon, Nikon appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Jaymes Dempsey.

Digital Photography School

Comments Off

Posted in Photography

A Look at the Fujifilm X100V in Action for Street Photography (video)

14 Mar

The post A Look at the Fujifilm X100V in Action for Street Photography (video) appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Caz Nowaczyk.

In this video from Moment, Taylor takes the puts the new Fujifilm X100V in action on the streets to see how well it performs.

For street photography, the camera is the perfect size and weight to carry with you anywhere you go. The flip screen allows you to shoot from the hip – which is a great advantage when shooting street photography less obtrusively.

The fixed 23mm lens on an APS-C sensor is the equivalent of a 35mm lens on a full-frame camera.

Also, the famous Fujifilm film simulations are another great feature of this little camera.

So check out some of the images that come from this camera.

	I would love a full-frame X100!
	I'm happy with my APS-C X100, don't change a thing.
	Don't stop at full-frame, I want medium format!

Posts Tagged ‘Fujifilm’

X-T4 versus X-T3

Stabilization

Battery life

Improved autofocus

Improved stills processing options

Movie shooting differences

Greater movie/stills separation

What about the X-H1?

Upgrades to the X-T3

Should I upgrade?

Introduction

Fujifilm GF 50mm F3.5 sample gallery

Fujifilm’s new 50mm F3.5

It’s still kind of big

Inoffensive bokeh

It’s a darn good lens

Fast, confident autofocus

Close focus could be closer

Introduction

Size and weight

Development cost of full-frame

Literal cost to consumer

Loss of brand identity, and customer trust

Risk of cannibalization

Summing up – arguments against

But what about medium format?

In conclusion

.

Have your say

You may also like:

Assessing exposure

Fujifilm X-Pro3 sample photographs