Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Miyata610 on January 15, 2016, 04:59:29 am
-
http://www.bjp-online.com/2016/01/fuji-x-pro2-interview-takashi-ueno/
Fuji X-series senior product manager Takashi Ueno talks to Damien Demolder........
Ueno is a medium format fan, and is actually a Hasselblad Master himself, so he has a personal interest in Fuji starting up a new line of medium format bodies. “We are in a very good position to make a medium format camera, as we make camera bodies, sensors and lenses. We already make the lenses for Hasselblad, so we have that expertise. At the moment Fuji is not planning to launch a medium format camera, but we are conducting research and testing sensors in this area. We have a good history in the medium format market, and I think we would be successful again. We have the technology to make a very modern and high quality camera, but right now we are only investigating.” Ueno agreed that now would be a very good time for Fuji to enter the market, but it seems that not everyone in the company is quite as convinced.
-
Would definitely be interesting to see a mirrorless MF with X-trans.
-
MF version of the Xpro with the hybrid viewfinder, its own lenses, but also able to take H glass with an adapter would be perfect.
-
.................................."Is Fujifilm testing the big Sony Sensor?"..............................
No they are not! ......Fuji will never use a third party sensor no matter what their future plans are! If they will ever decide to enter the MF market, either with mirrorless or with other (usually revolutionary approach - one can expect the most genius design out of Fuji - it's traditional with them), it will be with their own sensor.
-
http://www.bjp-online.com/2016/01/fuji-x-pro2-interview-takashi-ueno/
Fuji X-series senior product manager Takashi Ueno talks to Damien Demolder........
"we make camera bodies, sensors and lenses" "we are conducting research and testing sensors"
It seems obvious he meant Fuji made sensors.
-
Long Long shot if they did it in X-trans. The MF digital Market is pretty small to start with. They so far have not even produced an full frame 35mm chip. 35mm vs 645, I believe they would have a larger market for sure in 35mm, but all their current excellent optics would need upgrades as all are designed for APS-C
Paul C
-
.................................."Is Fujifilm testing the big Sony Sensor?"..............................
No they are not! ......Fuji will never use a third party sensor no matter what their future plans are!
Fujifilm currently uses Sony sensors as the base for its X-Trans sensors. It designs its own special X-Trans color filter arrays, which are put on top of Sony "silicon".
-
Fuji will never use a third party sensor
Fuji is often using old Sony sensors, for example Fujifilm X100 = has Sony IMX038CQQ (IMX038 series were originally used in cameras like Nikon D90 so many years ago)... so is 16mp "X-Trans", only CFA are from Fuji.
http://www.jamesmaherphotography.com/images/0000/3843/fuji_x100_take_apart-13.jpg
(http://www.jamesmaherphotography.com/images/0000/3843/fuji_x100_take_apart-13.jpg)
-
It seems obvious he meant Fuji made sensors.
+1... I don't know where this "Sony sensor" & "mirrorless" speculation is oriented from... Fuji's "know how" is second to none... they where making MFDB at 52mm (the 41mp DX-2000) of width (for the GX-680) back on 2003 when the largest available in the market was of 36mm... Their lenses are considered Hollywood's standard (just look at the end titles of a major film) and they have the largest experience and research out of all makers in image areas... It's Fuji we are talking about, the makers of the GX-617, 619 & 680... not ...Sony! ...who is Sony to "help" ...Fuji? ...is this a joke? :o
EDIT: Fuji X-100 is a consumer product (so it's a matter of cost) and even there they don't let the Sensor as is... They don't use Sony sensor because they can't make one one of their own... they are only trying to be price competitive... isn't that obvious?
-
EDIT: Fuji X-100 is a consumer product
MF backs are consumer products too just like MB S600 is
"isn't that obvious?" (c)
-
I think Fuji uses Sony sensors (with modifications)
-
Fujifilm currently uses Sony sensors as the base for its X-Trans sensors. It designs its own special X-Trans color filter arrays, which are put on top of Sony "silicon".
This is interesting as I had always thought that the x-trans had a different layout of pixels than the standard Bayer pattern.
If all it is instead is a color filter array over a Bayer pattern then I guess it would be quite possible.
I forgot they already have the glass out there as don't they make some of the Hasselblad glass?
Paul C
-
+1... I don't know where this "Sony sensor" & "mirrorless" speculation is oriented from... Fuji's "know how" is second to none not . . . who is Sony to "help" ...Fuji? ...is this a joke? :o
The talk is specifically about the CMOS integrated circuit devices at the heart of active pixel CMOS sensors. Fujifilm produced some interesting and innovative CCD sensors, but as far as I know, it has never designed or make any CMOS sensors, beyond the CFAs to go in front of the CMOS device itself.
If I am wrong please point to any sources about Fujifilm designing its own CMOS sensor IC devices.
(For a hint about the Sony, connection, look as the pixel counts and sizes of its 16MP and now 24MP X-trans sensors.)
-
The talk is specifically about the CMOS integrated circuit devices at the heart of active pixel CMOS sensors. Fujifilm produced some interesting and innovative CCD sensors, but as far as I know, it has never designed or make any CMOS sensors, beyond the CFAs to go in front of the CMOS device itself.
If I am wrong please point to any sources about Fujifilm designing its own CMOS sensor IC devices.
(For a hint about the Sony, connection, look as the pixel counts and sizes of its 16MP and now 24MP X-trans sensors.)
As I said before, X-trans sensors are used in low cost cameras (and then modified to suit Fuji's idea of imaging) so that the products can be price competitive... It means absolutely nothing when it comes to compete in Hi end imaging like MF is... After all, MR. Takashi was clear in his statement... "we are conducting research and testing sensors in this area" ...why the argument about Sony then?
-
It means absolutely nothing when it comes to compete in Hi end imaging like MF is... After all, MR. Takashi was clear in his statement... "we are conducting research and testing sensors in this area" ...why the argument about Sony then?
yes research and testing of Sony sensors with Fuji toppings ;D ... and hi end imaging that can be purchased online in B&H with next day delivery is still consumer level gear whether or not you call it "Hi end imaging like MF"...
and after all Sony delivered 2 sensors already, Fuji = 0...
-
yes research and testing of Sony sensors with Fuji toppings ;D ... and hi end imaging that can be purchased online in B&H with next day delivery is still consumer level gear whether or not you call it "Hi end imaging like MF"...
and after all Sony delivered 2 sensors already, Fuji = 0...
Good logic, good logic... According to the same logic, Fuji has made about 10 MF cameras up to now and Sony none... Then the score is what? ...10-2? ...and if we count the hundreds of MF (& LF) lenses that Fuji has ever made what is the score then? ....286 - 2? ...or may be 400-2... Keep up with the same logic, I'm sure adults will share it at sometime in the future...
-
Good logic, good logic... According to the same logic, Fuji has made about 10 MF cameras up to now and Sony none
we are talking about sensors...
-
i'm surprised so many people didn't know that Sony made the sensors for fuji.
yeah, x-trans has a different colour filter array...so?
i would be surprised if fuji didn't continue with sony sensors for their MF bodies in future.
-
we are talking about sensors...
So was Mr. Takashi: " “We are in a very good position to make a medium format camera, as we make camera bodies, sensors and lenses. We already make the lenses for Hasselblad, so we have that expertise. At the moment Fuji is not planning to launch a medium format camera, but we are conducting research and testing sensors in this area. We have a good history in the medium format market, and I think we would be successful again. We have the technology to make a very modern and high quality camera, but right now we are only investigating.” Ueno agreed that now would be a very good time for Fuji to enter the market, but it seems that not everyone in the company is quite as convinced."
...can't you read?
-
Their lenses are considered Hollywood's standard (just look at the end titles of a major film)
This is not true, of course. It's Panavision, Leica, Zeiss, Cooke mostly, and than come Canon and Fuji.
-
I think Captain Kirk is way cooler than Han Solo.
-
This is interesting as I had always thought that the x-trans had a different layout of pixels than the standard Bayer pattern.
If all it is instead is a color filter array over a Bayer pattern then I guess it would be quite possible.
I forgot they already have the glass out there as don't they make some of the Hasselblad glass?
Paul C
yeah, difference is where the various color filters are placed. I don't recall why it's supposed to be advantageous, always thought with all of the greens basically next to each other it would be harder to interpolate the original color.
-
I also wonder if Fuji will continue with xTrans. From what I understand, the denser the sensels get on the sensor, the less of an advantage of xTrans becomes. I think there are rumors Fuji is planning on moving away from it so the files can be handled better in raw processing software.
-
yeah, difference is where the various color filters are placed. I don't recall why it's supposed to be advantageous, always thought with all of the greens basically next to each other it would be harder to interpolate the original color.
They get color smearing instead of the usual aliasing effects.
Edmund
-
They get color smearing instead of the usual aliasing effects.
Edmund
Color smearing was an issue with LR 2-3 years ago, I am not sure whether it still is, other raw converters like Iridient worked fine.
-
Color smearing was an issue with LR 2-3 years ago, I am not sure whether it still is, other raw converters like Iridient worked fine.
yeah, well nobody is going to get past the sampling theorem - you'll still get aliasing effects if you have high spatial frequencies in your scene. It's not that Xtrans or whatever they call it is better or worse than straight Bayer, it's just different. IMHO. Some people may find they like the Xtrans issues better than the Bayer ones, and besides Fuji knows a lot about color and probably have very nice CFAs and good profiles.
Edmund
-
i'm surprised so many people didn't know that Sony made the sensors for fuji.
yeah, x-trans has a different colour filter array...so?
i would be surprised if fuji didn't continue with sony sensors for their MF bodies in future.
Yep with MF being such a small market, does not seem to make much business sense to spend all that research and development money on your own sensor.
-
Yep with MF being such a small market, does not seem to make much business sense to spend all that research and development money on your own sensor.
MF is a small market because of the "traditional" makers that have kept the prices high all that time and were "trading" S/H equipment that never saw the market again, thus restricting its marketing base... This doesn't mean that it will stay that way... If a maker makes a reasonable offering of high quality, people won't say "it's MF, I won't buy it!" They'll treat it just like a camera and according to their needs, its value and its price... People don't buy Ferraris not because they don't want one... They don't buy them because they can't afford one... IMO there is no reason why MF market has shrunk from the film days, other than that the price ratio difference changed from the film days... and there was no reason for that to happen... "more expensive" doesn't necessarily means "crazy price"...
-
I would be interesting to know what the market share of Pentax is nowadays.
The 645D is available at $3,399 and the 645Z at $7K.
I would assume that Pentax by now must have a market share that is as big as Phase, Hasselblad and Leica together...
-
I would be interesting to know what the market share of Pentax is nowadays.
The 645D is available at $3,399 and the 645Z at $7K.
I would assume that Pentax by now must have a market share that is as big as Phase, Hasselblad and Leica together...
It's not that big, but its big enough and growing... It could be as big and even bigger if Pentax had addressed the problems the original (from the film days) design was suffering, but they didn't.... One thing is for sure... that being that Pentax added customers to the MF market much more than "stealing" customers from the rest...
-
yeah, difference is where the various color filters are placed. I don't recall why it's supposed to be advantageous, always thought with all of the greens basically next to each other it would be harder to interpolate the original color.
Actually it's easier to interpolate the original color because each third line has as many greens, as blues and reds...
-
I don't want a Ferrari.
-
theodoros are you on a personal war here?
none of us know if fuji is testing in house sensors or sony sensors.
none of us know for sure how many cameras pentax is selling.
my personal take, it would save fuji alot of money to simply take the sony option, the sensors exist already and dont need to be researched first hand.
although competition is always good.
even canon mentioned that "if sensors of others are better, we would consider them in our cameras", of course this was alot of bla bla because canon clearly lost the pole position for some time and seems to losing ground every year.
just lean back and enjoy the show, i am looking forward to what fuji may offer in the future regarding MF
-
Actually Pentax is or was selling well, my dealer told me.
We seem to have a number of satisfied customers on the forum.
I don't want to use a Pentax, but I haven't heard any buyer complain.
My guess is Pentax would be happy to be able to do a product refresh.
Edmund
theodoros are you on a personal war here?
none of us know if fuji is testing in house sensors or sony sensors.
none of us know for sure how many cameras pentax is selling.
my personal take, it would save fuji alot of money to simply take the sony option, the sensors exist already and dont need to be researched first hand.
although competition is always good.
even canon mentioned that "if sensors of others are better, we would consider them in our cameras", of course this was alot of bla bla because canon clearly lost the pole position for some time and seems to losing ground every year.
just lean back and enjoy the show, i am looking forward to what fuji may offer in the future regarding MF
-
Color smearing was an issue with LR 2-3 years ago, I am not sure whether it still is, other raw converters like Iridient worked fine.
I posted several examples in the forum to get decent output from the Fuji files in C1P. There are no real smearing issues once you process them right in C1P.
LR output is still a hot mess.
-
My guess is Pentax would be happy to be able to do a product refresh.
Well, it may be late now to do so.... The original (film) Pentax 645 had two crucial handicaps with respect to competition at the days: 1. They had the longest mounting distance by far 2.There was no interchangeable film backs...
With the digital version of the camera, they decided to keep the old mount and use a much smaller image area than what the lens mounting distance is capable to serve (the lens mounting distance of the P645 is enough to serve a 6x6 image area). I think they would be much better off if they had gone for a much shorter mounting distance with the introduction of the digital body and just use adapters to attract the old customers/owners of lenses. I'm sure if Fuji will ever enter the MF market, it will be a much more modern approach...
IMO, Fuji won't be using the Sony sensor (filter converted or not) if they do enter the MF market for four good reasons:
1. They are among the older image sensor makers (with revolutionary sensors at the times) in the world and thus they would like to differentiate them selves from competition.
2. Unlike their mass production production products, they are traditionally known to be innovative when it comes to MF products.
3. It will be a good chance for them to enter the professional video market with a hybrid product as to support their cinema lenses further (especially now that the best cinema camera in the world - the Alexa 65 - is using their lenses...
4. It would be a good chance for them to sell the sensor to other makers that would like to differentiate themselves from the "Sony sensor domination" and thus to minimize the financial risk.
I think that Mr. Takashi is very careful with his end words : "We have a good history in the medium format market, and I think we would be successful again. We have the technology to make a very modern and high quality camera, but right now we are only investigating." ...he said.
-
Actually Fuji had a really interesting sensor in the Fuji S5 Pro, beautiful rendering, high DR even for today's standard. It's a shame that they never followed that up.
-
Actually Fuji had a really interesting sensor in the Fuji S5 Pro, beautiful rendering, high DR even for today's standard. It's a shame that they never followed that up.
Sure... but don't forget that S5 costed 50% higher than a D200 did (practically the same camera but with different sensor) and additionally the CCD sensor offered very good LV mode... (which nobody noticed at the times)... Well... marketing! One must note though that the "mistake" was that the sensor was of APS-c size... IMO, the big mistake was that one doesn't enter the market with a revolutionary sensor in a (size) category that is "damned" by definition within "experts of photography"... That isn't to say that the product failed... to the contradict, there many "swearing" by it even today...
NOTE: The S-5 pro was considered to be the (by far) "DR KING" a decade ago and it was an APS-c sensor CCD camera that could shoot "safely" up to 1000 ISO and additionally offered usable (on screen) LV... Octagonal pixels! ...(they are "crazy" those Fuji guys... ;D) had six of them!
-
Actually Fuji had a really interesting sensor in the Fuji S5 Pro, beautiful rendering, high DR even for today's standard. It's a shame that they never followed that up.
Yes, Fujifilm did some interesting things with its "SuperCCD" technology, but was hampered by things like its dependence on Nikon for bodies and lenses, and AFAIK, has not developed any of its own CMOS sensor technology other than exotic color filter arrays . . . It seems to have decided that its core competencies are better suited to designing interesting bodies and lenses and CFAs, while leaving the core sensor technology to electonics companies like Sony.
-
But wouldn't this far mounting flange be a real advantage in digital?
Even Rodenstock hottest lenses have some retrofocus these days and some people are expecting for them to increase it even more.
Eduardo
Well, it may be late now to do so.... The original (film) Pentax 645 had two crucial handicaps with respect to competition at the days: 1. They had the longest mounting distance by far 2.There was no interchangeable film backs...
With the digital version of the camera, they decided to keep the old mount and use a much smaller image area than what the lens mounting distance is capable to serve (the lens mounting distance of the P645 is enough to serve a 6x6 image area). I think they would be much better off if they had gone for a much shorter mounting distance with the introduction of the digital body and just use adapters to attract the old customers/owners of lenses. I'm sure if Fuji will ever enter the MF market, it will be a much more modern approach...
-
Actually it's easier to interpolate the original color because each third line has as many greens, as blues and reds...
I don't think that you are making much sense here. We are talking about sparsely sampling a color scene using a CFA in front of the sensor that can only capture a single color channel at any one point. Bayer use a 2:1:1 distribution among green/red/blue while Fuji seems to use a 2.5:1:1 (slightly more green sensels). A simple (suboptimal) approach would be to use interpolation of the channels independently. In that case, Fuji has to cover larger "gaps" in the red and blue channels (2x2) than Bayer.
The CFA chosen by Fuji seems to be "quasi random". Or perhaps more generally, Bayer is "quasi-random" with a repeat pattern of 2x2. Fuji does "quasi-random" with a repeat pattern of 6x6. This makes it less likely that a particular color-contrast pattern will couple well with the CFA pattern, meaning that they can gamble on less AA filtering (for increased apparent sharpness).
I am guessing that _when_ one is unfortunate enough to shoot a scene that "resonate well" with the Fuji CFA, results can be quite bad?
If you wanted to guarantee that no aliasing would ever appear in any color channels (something that cannot practically be done), then the Fuji sensor would seem to demand an even lower (achromatic) spatial cutoff frequency than Bayer (1/4 the sensel pitch)
I wonder what is stopping them from making a truely randomized CFA pattern. Is it production cost or raw development processing cost? Once there is not pattern in the placement of red/green/blue, chances that some pattern in the scene would trigger a patterned artifact would be practically zero. You'd still see aliasing in the form of "unrealistically contrasty pixel values instead of a smoother edge-following function", but it seems that many photographers are perfectly happy with that.
(https://ageeky.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/aaexampleIMG_id1386238400_343178.jpg)
-h
-
Hi,
My understanding is that Fujinon makes most of the Hasselblad but assembly of cameras is now in Gothenburg, Sweden.
Regarding the lenses, all HC lenses are made by Fuji. The initial lens design is often made in Gothenburg but will be refined for manufacture by Fujinon.
Best regards
Erik
This is interesting as I had always thought that the x-trans had a different layout of pixels than the standard Bayer pattern.
If all it is instead is a color filter array over a Bayer pattern then I guess it would be quite possible.
I forgot they already have the glass out there as don't they make some of the Hasselblad glass?
Paul C
-
But wouldn't this far mounting flange be a real advantage in digital?
Even Rodenstock hottest lenses have some retrofocus these days and some people are expecting for them to increase it even more.
Eduardo
Retrofocus is not relevant, all MF Dslr lenses are "retros". Longer mounting distance makes it harder to design decent WA lenses and causes shorter diameter image circles for the same focal length. It also causes more focal lengths to be designed like WAs as one approaches focal lengths near to "normal". Obviously, the problem is more evident if one uses a small image area. The P645 25mm lens is a good example, it required a complex design with huge (with respect to other MF) front element and they did it a 25mm (although they would like it to be a 24mm) ...eventually they stopped it. I doubt if the 28-45mm zoom will be able to project an image circle able to cover the full 6x4.5 image area, unless if it is zoomed to at least 35mm... (partly the reason why I believe that they won't be using the new FF Sony sensor on the P645).
All Hasselblad H, Mamyia 645 and Contax 645 are of 7 to 10mm shorter mounting flange, the P645 has a mounting flange distance that could serve a 6x6 image area, if one looks at the film days, the wider lenses of 6x6 cameras was of 40mm, while for 6x4.5 they where down to 35mm... The Bronicas are another example, they also had a much longer mounting distance which caused the ETRSi not to offer a wider lens than 40mm...
-
The P645 25mm lens is a good example, it required a complex design with huge (with respect to other MF) front element and they did it a 25mm (although they would like it to be a 24mm) ...eventually they stopped it. I doubt if the 28-45mm zoom will be able to project an image circle able to cover the full 6x4.5 image area, unless if it is zoomed to at least 35mm... (partly the reason why I believe that they won't be using the new FF Sony sensor on the P645).
Is that is the case, why did they go through the trouble of re-designing very recently their 35mm and to make it compatible with FF sensors?
Odds are that their target photographers in Japan think that 35mm is wide enough. P1 is pretty much there as well, their 28mm is already sub-par on 36x48mm sensors.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Is that is the case, why did they go through the trouble of re-designing very recently their 35mm and to make it compatible with FF sensors?
Odds are that their target photographers in Japan think that 35mm is wide enough. P1 is pretty much there as well, their 28mm is already sub-par on 36x48mm sensors.
Cheers,
Bernard
Could be the reason... one can never be sure (as I said, it's my opinion that they won't, it doesn't mean that I'm sure...), another explanation may be simply to improve their 35mm to the (even) better... If I was to ever decide for Pentax policies ( ;D), I would first redesign the body with a new mirrorbox/VF combination so that the mirror would be as short as possible, the shortest possible as to still project the full 6x4.5 film image area, that would allow some lenses (especially UWA/WA ones) to be designed with rear elements (and hence the whole lens) that would extent into the housing and thus solve the original design's handicap...
The other thing I would do, would be to change the balance of the body by re-positioning the grip further towards the mount as to balance the weight better when lens is attached. The third thing I would do (this is irrelevant to the original design's handicap) would be to design a new higher in the line body (yet retaining the "basic" ones) that would take interchangeable backs and would have interchangeable finders... Then I would use both Sony sensors as to create a MFDBs and would additionally offer the MFDBs for other MF camera platforms (or tech cameras) as to attract more customers.... ;)
Contax 645 is a very good example of how an MF camera should be designed (possibly the reason why it proves to be so popular 10 years after production stopped), not only because its balance feels about perfect or because of the interchangeable finders and backs, but it additionally has the shortest possible mirror so that it allows the lens rear element to be 8.5mm in the body before it messes with the mirror's travel... I believe that one could possibly design a 22mm/f4 lens for the Contax... I am now converting a Nikon 24mm f3.5 PCE lens that will be of Contax mount in two or three weeks time from now... it will even be of full electronic aperture control and have the lens data recorded in the files as well as metering information in the VF and all modes working as if it was a factory lens... Only AF won't work (due to the 24/PCE not being an AF lens), but with 24mm who cares? ....I never use AF with my WAs anyway.
-
Is that is the case, why did they go through the trouble of re-designing very recently their 35mm and to make it compatible with FF sensors?
Is that why Pentax redesigned the 35mm lens? I thought it was an update of a film-era lens design, so already compatible with the full "645" frame of about 56x42mm.
-
Is that why Pentax redesigned the 35mm lens? I thought it was an update of a film-era lens design, so already compatible with the full "645" frame of about 56x42mm.
That's my guess, yes.
let's see what they come up with at the CP+ in Japan February end. If the camera isn't announced there they may not be one.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I got the impression that Pentax dropped some WA designs that were cropped sensor only. Interesting to see what the future holds…
Best regards
Erik
That's my guess, yes.
let's see what they come up with at the CP+ in Japan February end. If the camera isn't announced there they may not be one.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I got the impression that Pentax dropped some WA designs that were cropped sensor only. Interesting to see what the future holds…
Best regards
Erik
There are two versions of the Pentax 25mm f4 lens, both versions are able to project an image circle that is big enough for the full 6x4.5 image area, but Pentax decided to extend the hood of the second version so that it shades more of the projected image circle... Of course one can always shave back a bit of the hood as to expand the image circle back...
-
i think now there is a definite answer that Fuji no longer produces sensors for their cameras.
From an interview with Fuji senior executive Toru Takahashi on DPReview:
What are the essential ingredients of the Fujifilm X-series?
TT: Product design is a key point of differentiation. We do this by ourselves. So sensor design, although we don’t make the sensors by ourselves. We design our processors, but of course we do not manufacturer them so we require other companies. But [whether we manufacturer a component or not] we stick to designs that we’ve come up with [in house]. So [the sensor in the X-Pro2] is a good example. This is a 24MP sensor that can produce something like 30-36MP equivalent resolution. Design is our strength I think. And lenses. We have very strong lens design capabilities. Lenses, we have our own technologies, we make lenses by ourselves.
http://www.dpreview.com/interviews/6258617860/fujifilm-interview-jan-2016