Can't wait to shoot a Fuji GFX in 10 years when i can afford one.

https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/19/fujifilm-gfx-50s-is-a-mirrorless-camera-with-a-giant-sensor/

Apparently the 'hopeful' price is around $5,000.

Does the camera also come with a virtual Gordon Parks or Anne Lebowitz to assist with framing photos?

No, but seriously, could you explain the significant differences between say an entry-level camera which would cost around $400, and something like this GFX?

Is it simply better technology which makes a better image? If so, how noticeable are the differences?

<--- Me when my head hits the pillow

https://lensvid.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Sensors-size-01-01.jpg

Because the sensor is so big, you can get ENORMOUS photos and incredible sharpness and bokeh, and dynamic range. They’re not really meant for everyday/street/snap, they’re designed for working professionals making working professional money with big clients. Medium format not only gives you larger images, you get a smoother depth of field.

the easiest way to understand is to look at it via print size

sensor sizes are based on film size:print size.
full frame is the same as 35mm film.
with 35mm film and a decent lens, you can get a double page spread of a magazine.
with a digital full frame camera nowadays, you can get close billboards and have great dynamic range.

a step down is APS/CMOS which didn’t exist in film
these are what you find in entry level DSLR and some premium compacts
With a good lens you can get nice 22in prints nowadays. You won't quite have the depth of field as a full frame camera and the resolution is lower, but these days its not really that noticable.

and it goes down like that until you get to cell phones.

>No, but seriously, could you explain the significant
>differences between say an entry-level camera which would cost
>around $400, and something like this GFX?

in general the bigger the sensor size the more light that can be gathered on the sensor due to more surface area. in photography since light is everything, that means more light is more information to produce the digital image. the more information you have for the image means you will generally have:

- better dynamic range,
- better ISO performance,
- better ability to print larger sizes while keeping quality high,
- better ability to crop a picture and just use a portion of it, but this is also dependent on the next point,
- more sharpness, but this is dependent on the MP count on the sensor itself. for example, the Sony A7S is only 12 MP, while the A7RII is 42 MP. both same size sensor, but the A7RII will show more detail and produce sharper images,
- bigger sensors allow more control and artistic use of depth of field and bokeh given equivalent focal lengths.


>Is it simply better technology which makes a better image? If
>so, how noticeable are the differences?

well, this could kind of be interpreted in 2 ways. a good or great image mostly comes down to composition and an interesting subject IMO. so if you had the theoretical BEST camera in the world but couldn't compose or choose an interesting subject your photo would still be shit.

if you are asking just about the technological side and if the photos are better then yes the better technology can help the photographer. for example, take a cell phone camera and a full frame camera like the A7RII. you can downscale the A7's photo to whatever MP the cell phone camera is for comparison. take the exact same photo. now look at the photos side by side at a normal viewing size (aka not small like on your phone or tablet). generally what you will see is that the camera phone picture quality will quickly fall apart when you enlarge it. that's really easy to test as i'm sure you have a smartphone. the A7's photo will hold up. what i mean by that is the sharpness will remain, the color saturation will remain, the gradation of color will be there (huge), the smooth transition of colors and light to dark, the noise level of the photo will be significantly lower, etc etc.

lower light performance its not even a fair comparison. remember its all about gathering light so obviously the larger sensor can produce a better and CLEANER photo because of the massively bigger surface area.

i personally shoot APS-C size. i think its the right balance of sensor size, body size, and lens size while giving me great quality photos/files. the next size down is the micro 4/3 sensor, but i can see the difference between the files. this is especially true with any sort of processing. you can't manipulate m43 files quite as much.

the next size up is full frame, but there's enough of a jump in quality from APS-C to full frame for me to spend the extra money and also carry the heavier/bigger gear. i like to travel light. plus, with the right lenses i can get enough control of DOF and bokeh with the APS-C sensor and camera. oh, and with the advances in sensor technology today, the APS-C sensor i have provides great higher ISO performance (less noise) so the extra benefit of light gathering ability of the full frame sensor is negated a little bit.

damn, i typed way more than i intended to. hopefully this makes sense. any other questions just post up!

i will say one last thing though. its the photographer that makes a photo. the camera is just the tool. i really, REALLY hate when someone looks at one of my photos and immediately asks what camera i used. it's so dismissive of what it takes to really capture a memorable image.

GamerTag and PSN: PokeEmAll

the M1-3 were very underrated video cameras because everybody was looking for still photo performance (as they should have been), but with the M5 being bigger and still unconvincing for the price, i'd grab an M2 or M3 since those are now the best value for money in terms of video.

Canon

The M5 seems like a step in the right direction, although it being priced close to Sony's A6300 without 4K seems like the kind of bad idea that Canon normally has when they try to keep their cameras from having specs that their other higher end models have.

Fuji

Their medium format system looks interesting, and the fact that they said it supports 100 megapixels makes me wonder if they mean just the resolution or if the mount and lenses can support the larger 100 megapixel sensor from Sony. The one in 50S is more like the medium format equivalent of APS-C compared to that larger Sony sensor.

Hasselblad

They showed off the already announced X1D. If I could get either that or the Fuji for free, I'd take the Hasselblad, but if I was spending my own money I'd pick the Fuji because I have more faith in them to keep putting out lenses in a timely manner.

Leica

They showed off a Fuji Instax camera called the Sofort. It looks pretty but offers nothing new compared to what Fuji and Lomography have put out. I think they also had a very big 50mm f/1.4 lens for their SL system.

Nikon

They showed of some video cameras I don't particularly care about. No D810 successor, no Df successor, and no enthusiast DX lenses for all those D500 owners.

Olympus

The OMD EM1 Mark II seems like a solid update to their previous model and they keep putting out more and more lenses. In terms of complete systems, I think they're probably the best overall after the full frame Nikon and Canon systems.

Panasonic

The GH5 looks very ugly and SLR-like, but I'm sure it will kick everything else's ass when it comes to video. I'm not sure how useful having 6K will be since 8K seems the next logical step after 4K, but I guess maybe it'll be easier to uprez the video to a larger size? I dunno, I don't care much about video.

Pentax/Ricoh

They announced nothing as far as I know. I was really hoping for a new GR camera.

Sony

The A99II seems like a beast of a camera, and spec wise it makes it seem like Canon wasn't trying very hard with the 5D Mk IV. 12 fps at 42 megapixels to Canon's 7 fps at 30 megapixels, 4K video with no crop compared to Canon's 1.64x crop (and you can't even use EF-S lenses on the camera!), in body stabilization...it beats the breaks of the Mark IV on paper. I'd imagine it also has Nikon considering what to do with the D810 successor. Of the Photokina camera announcements, this is probably the second most interesting to me behind the Fuji.

At the same time, as an E mount shooter I don't really care about A mount stuff too much aside from wondering what features might show up in later cameras (4ev AF, faster fps, and dual card slots would be nice on the next A7 bodies as long as the size doesn't get bigger) Unfortunately, Sony didn't really announce any new E mount stuff other than the 50mm macro (which, to be fair, I may end up getting). What I really want from them is a 24-105 f/4 type lens that I can keep in my bag with my primes. I was hoping maybe Sigma would step up and make one, but all their announcements were for DSLR lenses.

>Canon
>
>The M5 seems like a step in the right direction, although it
>being priced close to Sony's A6300 without 4K seems like the
>kind of bad idea that Canon normally has when they try to keep
>their cameras from having specs that their other higher end
>models have.

i sort of agree. i think the M line is just painting itself into the high-end amateur line like it should. I know Sony giving people the option of 4k is good, but i'm still unconvinced consumer cameras' ability to handle 4k recording enough for it to be a strike against any manufacturer just yet.

>
>Fuji
>
>Their medium format system looks interesting, and the fact
>that they said it supports 100 megapixels makes me wonder if
>they mean just the resolution or if the mount and lenses can
>support the larger 100 megapixel sensor from Sony. The one in
>50S is more like the medium format equivalent of APS-C
>compared to that larger Sony sensor.

i feel like they meant the lenses. i wasn't sure either.
i'm interested to see what the camera looks like a year after release after Fuji's incredible firmware updates.


>Hasselblad
>
>They showed off the already announced X1D. If I could get
>either that or the Fuji for free, I'd take the Hasselblad, but
>if I was spending my own money I'd pick the Fuji because I
>have more faith in them to keep putting out lenses in a timely
>manner.

same.


>Leica
>
>They showed off a Fuji Instax camera called the Sofort. It
>looks pretty but offers nothing new compared to what Fuji and
>Lomography have put out. I think they also had a very big 50mm
>f/1.4 lens for their SL system.

yeah i was expecting the Sofort to have like extra controls or something like a compact camera but it just looks like all the other ones with maybe a better lens which doesnt really make that much difference on instant film

>
>Nikon
>
>They showed of some video cameras I don't particularly care
>about. No D810 successor, no Df successor, and no enthusiast
>DX lenses for all those D500 owners.

>Olympus
>
>The OMD EM1 Mark II seems like a solid update to their
>previous model and they keep putting out more and more lenses.
>In terms of complete systems, I think they're probably the
>best overall after the full frame Nikon and Canon systems.
>
>Panasonic
>
>The GH5 looks very ugly and SLR-like, but I'm sure it will
>kick everything else's ass when it comes to video. I'm not
>sure how useful having 6K will be since 8K seems the next
>logical step after 4K, but I guess maybe it'll be easier to
>uprez the video to a larger size? I dunno, I don't care much
>about video.

6k seems like a marketing thing rather than something actually useful.

>Pentax/Ricoh
>
>They announced nothing as far as I know. I was really hoping
>for a new GR camera.

Canon is too little to late IMO with that M5.

what e-mount you shooting? i also am a sony shooter. A6300 and the A6000. my normal kit is the 16-70 zeiss, 24mm zeiss, and the 10-18 sony. i have a bunch of others, but over the years i've figured out i can get 90% of the shots i want with that combo. it's gone all over the world with me. i only pull out the other lenses when i want a specific shot.

GamerTag and PSN: PokeEmAll

I have a bunch of Nikon AI-S lenses I use with an adapter for occasions when I need stuff wider/longer/faster/macro.

>I have a bunch of Nikon AI-S lenses I use with an adapter for
>occasions when I need stuff wider/longer/faster/macro.

i think the A7RII is beast. the files from that thing are fantastic. sony seriously crammed so much tech into that small body. still, even though a really small full frame body it's still too big for my tastes overall. when i travel i MOSTLY have given up switching lenses with a prime setup. for the longest i shot 75% with just my 24mm, but i learned to give up the smallest bit of IQ for convenience with my 16-70. only the 16-70 could do that to me though with it's really useful range of 24-105mm equivalence. i miss that little extra reach with typical 24-70mm lenses so that's why the 16-70mm and a6300 work for me.

i'd love that little extra bit of light gathering ability and cleaner files that the full frame sensor would provide, but right now the APS-C hits the sweet spot for me. along that line, while the Oly EM1 MKII looks like a great camera, its still m43. i tried m43 out briefly because of the large lens lineup, but i could tell the difference right away with the files. i sold the m43 body and lenses i had pretty quickly.

GamerTag and PSN: PokeEmAll

I was using a D800 before, which is a great camera in its own right, but for what I do this is even better and a lot less to carry.

The high ISO performance is easily the best I've ever experienced, plus it has built in stabilization so I can handhold at lower shutter speeds no matter what lens is on the camera. Those two features combined with a fast prime gets me significantly cleaner shots in low light than I was ever able to get before, which is great since I do a ton of low-light shooting.

That's great to hear. Man, I just saw you have the Tumblr page. Just had time to check out the first couple pages, but good stuff! I'll look again later when I have more time.

GamerTag and PSN: PokeEmAll

The touch screen and IBIS in the A6500 sound great although it's bigger and more expensive.

The V should have had a touch screen. Not really interested in it without that. I hope Nikon eventually gets around to releasing those DL cameras and their sensors can keep up with the Sony ones.

I bought the a6000 last year, upgraded to a6300 earlier this year and now this?

___________________________________
http://instagram.com/mrellsberry

the a6500 doesn't make your a6300 any less capable of a camera. unless you need the stabilization or increased buffer is there a reason that you would really need to get the a6500 other than just wanting the latest and greatest?

i just got the a6300 also, but i'm gonna get the a6500 because for my shooting the added features will help. however, i'm still gonna keep the a6300 as my second body.

GamerTag and PSN: PokeEmAll

>The touch screen and IBIS in the A6500 sound great although
>it's bigger and more expensive.

more expensive, but correctly priced IMO. its still cheaper than the competition such as the XT2 and EM1-II. compared to the A6300 you get the touchscreen, IBIS, and a bigger and faster buffer and processing. plus new LSI chip that might improve high ISO even more. those additions are worth the $400 easy IMO.

to say it's bigger is true, but the size increase is pretty negligible. it only increases by (i believe i read) 5mm depth wise and they were able to fit in IBIS. that's a good tradeoff.

to prove my point, look at this direct comparison. i doubt many would notice the difference at all and it's certainly smaller than your A7RII setup.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#691,656,624,ha,t

>The V should have had a touch screen. Not really interested in
>it without that. I hope Nikon eventually gets around to
>releasing those DL cameras and their sensors can keep up with
>the Sony ones.

i agree, should have had a touch screen. the other thing i really wanted was just a little bit more reach. i would love a 24-100, but if they could have done at least 24-85mm i would have bought it no question. for now i have the canon g7x II because of the focal length.

the nikon 24-85 has me interested, but honestly they've taken so long to release the DL series sony just kind of came and dampened some of the excitement with the rx100 mk5. the nikon has price and touchscreen on their side, but at the same time the rx100 mk4 will drop in price and that is still a beast compact that people may consider instead. too bad the EVF is also a separate purchase on the nikon, plus it will significantly add to the size.

one thing that sony has on the mk4/5 that is a KILLER feature that nikon and others lack is the fabulous eye AF. it works so well on the rx100, a6300, and a7rII that if you ever shoot portraits its hard to go back to not having it once you tried it.

for me i'm gonna continue to use the g7x II and see how i like it. i only just got it, but so far the files are good. i'm 75% sure i'm going to pick up the a6500 even though i already have the a6300. when i was asking you about the a7rii setup above you mentioned a couple things that are very important to me as well. that is, clean high ISO and stablilization. in my current situation and city i can't really walk around with a tripod so i need a setup that i can hand hold and get sharp results.the a7rii as i mentioned was just a bit too large for me so this a6500 seems perfect. a REALLY big plus is now i can use my favorite lens of all time, the sony/zeiss 24mm with stabilization. i'm really excited about that combo.

GamerTag and PSN: PokeEmAll

>more expensive, but correctly priced IMO. its still cheaper
>than the competition such as the XT2 and EM1-II. compared to
>the A6300 you get the touchscreen, IBIS, and a bigger and
>faster buffer and processing. plus new LSI chip that might
>improve high ISO even more. those additions are worth the $400
>easy IMO.

I guess my point as that it's getting close to some full frame cameras in terms of price, so its value is going to it depend on your photographic priorities. For me, high ISO performance is the big thing and that's pretty much always going to be better when you move to a larger sensor. For not much more, the A7II is there with at least a stop better performance (to say nothing of other full frame DSLRs if size isn't an issue).

But yeah, if you want an APS-C action oriented camera, this one is hard to beat at the price and $400 is definitely worth a touch screen and IBIS. The D500 has incredible AF and two card slots, but a weak 4K implementation and costs significantly more with not enough DX lens options. The Fuji has a great lens lineup but is also more expensive and uses that X-Trans sensor. Both of those lack IBIS, but you could argue that they both have better external controls since the Sony lacks a two dial setup that almost every $1,000+ camera has.


>to prove my point, look at this direct comparison. i doubt
>many would notice the difference at all and it's certainly
>smaller than your A7RII setup.
>
>http://camerasize.com/compact/#691,656,624,ha,t

Well, this is slightly misleading considering they account for the (removable) eyepiece in a weird way on the A7RII, measuring the thickness from the very tip of the concave shaped rubber. That's not camerasize's fault since that's the way Sony does their thickness measurements, but even with that there's only a 7mm difference between the two bodies (although realistically it's more like a 5mm difference). Where the A6xxx really kills the A7x series in size is more the height; I think putting that big viewfinder hump in the A7x series was a mistake and I would much rather the more rangefinder like style of the A6xxx cameras.


>the nikon 24-85 has me interested, but honestly they've taken
>so long to release the DL series sony just kind of came and
>dampened some of the excitement with the rx100 mk5. the nikon
>has price and touchscreen on their side, but at the same time
>the rx100 mk4 will drop in price and that is still a beast
>compact that people may consider instead. too bad the EVF is
>also a separate purchase on the nikon, plus it will
>significantly add to the size.

Yeah, for me I wasn't really interested in the 24-85 DL. Although it's inexpensive compared to the Sony I'd really want a built in viewfinder in a camera covering that range. The Nikon that piqued my interest was the 18-50; there still isn't any competitor on the market and it would essentially eliminate the need for a wide zoom or prime for me. I would use it mostly in the 18-28mm range where I don't think an EVF is quite as necessary (I got by with my Ricoh GR just fine).

>one thing that sony has on the mk4/5 that is a KILLER feature
>that nikon and others lack is the fabulous eye AF. it works so
>well on the rx100, a6300, and a7rII that if you ever shoot
>portraits its hard to go back to not having it once you tried
>it.

Yeah, eye AF is nice, but for portraits I feel like a 1" sensor is probably not what I'd want to be working with. Not enough depth of field control. Love it with my A7RII and 55mm, though.

>for me i'm gonna continue to use the g7x II and see how i like
>it. i only just got it, but so far the files are good. i'm 75%
>sure i'm going to pick up the a6500 even though i already have
>the a6300. when i was asking you about the a7rii setup above
>you mentioned a couple things that are very important to me as
>well. that is, clean high ISO and stablilization. in my
>current situation and city i can't really walk around with a
>tripod so i need a setup that i can hand hold and get sharp
>results.the a7rii as i mentioned was just a bit too large for
>me so this a6500 seems perfect. a REALLY big plus is now i can
>use my favorite lens of all time, the sony/zeiss 24mm with
>stabilization. i'm really excited about that combo.

Yeah, I'm sure you could get a good price for the A6300 right now, too. I think I like Sony's strategy of "drop some new shit every year" over everybody else's "let's let that shit rock on the shelf for a couple of years" thing. This way, new technology keeps getting thrown in so that even if you got last year's model, you don't feel *that bad*, whereas if you copped something like X-Pro right before the X-Pro2 dropped you'd feel salty as hell.