(01-26-2019, 03:09 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: For MFT has a 17.3x13mm image sensor size. It is a 4x3 aspect ratio format. It is said to be 2x crop compared to 135 format. The 2x crop round figure stems from the diagonal comparison. Pretty weird and quite wrong, I know, but this is just to illustrate that not "every other system compares the length".
The digital crop medium format has a crop factor of 36 / 44 = 0.82x compared to 135 format. Or, if you want to compare the diagonal like with MFT (pretty silly, I know) 0.79x.
The biggest drawback for the digital crop medium format is the lack of AA-filter, and the limited shallow DOF ability (due to the lack of large aperture options) compared to what is available for 135 format.
I don't really mind comparing 4:3 vs 3:2 in either length or the diagonal. They are not that different. Comparing 5:4 or even worse, 1:1 against the more conventional 3:2 by the diagonal however, don't really make much sense to me. Even if you compare the diagonals however, you are still comparing two lengths and not the area as some GFX boy in a previous post had done.
Most of the time when people ask about what a lens in 6x6 format is in 35mm terms, I usually try to explain them as "80/2.8 in 6x6 is like a 35/1.2 in 135 format, if it were cropped into a square.
Again, the point is that no matter how you measure it, 44x33 is only very slightly larger than 135 format.
(01-27-2019, 11:48 AM)Skillividden Wrote: Nobody compares the length. Only diagonal maybe. Surface of the sensor is much mote important. 35 mm has a 2x3 ratio whereas the GFX has the 3x4 ratio. Maybe we should compare the height of the sensor instead? Why not? I say it is bullshit. Of course, the "full frame" 645 sensor is better, but hey, Phase One IQ4 costs over $40K. Just compare the size and weight of Schneider 40-80 zoom lens with the GF 32-64 and the size and weight of Phase One vs GFX 50R.
Talking about lens support, the GFX system is very young. Remember when the X system hit the market? Now it has the best lens lineup in APS-C world. And I feel that the popularity of the GFX is so high partly due to the possibility of adapting third-party lenses. Canon TS-E work very well, so do many MF lenses like Mamiya or Pentax. Focus peaking allows manual focusing so easy, that, for example, Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 makes so much more sense to me on the GFX than on Canon or Nikon.
Regarding the IQ, the difference is HUGE. I switched from Canon 1Dx (I still have it), I tried Nikon D850, Sony A7R3... GFX beats them easily in IQ. It is much slower now, but PDAF in the 100S should fix this issue. Anyway, GFX is not meant to be used in sports/action.
And... just remember that Hasselblad and Phase One used the "cropped" 44x33 mm MF sensor for quite a long time before switching to 53,4x40 mm. And they were still selling their cameras and backs for $30-40 000. Nobody complained it was "just a little bit more than 35 mm full frame".
Just try to shoot with GFX. I am not a Fuji ambassador, I don't work for Fuji, so I am not that biased.
First of all, everyone compares the length. Even the diagonal is a length. You are trying to compare the surface area when you claim GFX has a sensor 1.7 times larger than FF. By that methodology, FF is 2.25 times larger than APS-C and 4 times as large as MFT. GFX is still relatively close to FF, no matter how you compare them. Also good job bringing in the "heavy boys" of medium format digital into the mix to make the GFX even more impressive.
Yes the GFX system is very young and yes Fuji has done a marvellous job at building the X system from the ground up. We were all there. I've been using them from the early days of X-E1 and X-Pro1, so has the most people who reply to you, except for BC who just exclusively uses Nikon for whatever reason (or was it Canon? ). In my experience, focus peaking is all but useless when the DOF is as shallow as you've mentioned. It's really imprecise and misleading and it's much better to go for focus magnification.
Yes the IQ is better than all the cameras you've mentioned it's not HUGE by my standards. Especially considering the horrible AF and metering of Fuji. I'd really rather go for an A7R3 right now which has all the lenses that I want (almost all of which Fuji lacks and has no plans of releasing anytime soon) and don't care about the IQ difference at all. Really wanted to like the GFX system and I like the 50S a lot. But the reason is mostly due to ergonomics, not because the sensor is very slightly larger than 35mm.
Hassy and Phase One s ystems are not comparable to the GFX apart from the fact that they shared a sensor size once. Leaf shutters, modular build, lens support, support for film backs, tethered shooting (GFX works with Capture One now though, FINALLY), interchangable backs, lenses with movements, backs going on view cameras were the reasons why people shot medium format and paid those 5 figure prices. They were able to do what 35mm digital cameras just couldn't, and they had a much better IQ on the side. Now the IQ difference between 35mm and MF (even 645) isn't that great but most of the other advantages still stand strong.
Also if you shoot with GFX, you ARE already biased. Probably even more so than an official Fuji ambassador.