Fuji did it again.

TINY

>>2933727
look ma I posted it again

>>2933727
Fuji just now does what Pentax did twice already.

>>2934789
which is...?

>>2934874
fail at making a mirrorless system?

>>2933727

If it was 100 MP I would be impressed.

It's 50 MP. Photos aren't going to be any better than a 5Ds or A7R II.

>but muh sensor size!!!

>>2935023
learn about background compression :^)

>>2935023
Megapixels doesn't mean much as far as image quality goes. The old 645D thrashes the 5DSR when you actually compare real images.

>>2935023
>caring this much about mega pixels

shit nigger how big do you honestly need your photos

File: 1474989119251.jpg (33KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 625x626px

>>2935023
>first MF system.
>make it "affordable"
>glass fully capable of more than 100mp
>implying fuji not film wont make gfx100

people still not realizing that 12mp full frame produces the best possible image purely because of large pixels. retards.

>>2935023
sensor size is important, pixels are not.

>>2935386
says the Sony cuck

File: 1452530073807.jpg (116KB, 510x600px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 510x600px

how do you not realize that lenses are a gazillion times more important than the fucking sensor, and fuji makes great lenses.

>>2935415
>lenses
HA! Counter that, Sonyfag!

>>2935023
5DSR review with comparison shots to the 645Z: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5ds-r/canon-5ds-r-image-quality.htm
Take special care to look at the fabric details; Canon = smudgy piece of shit, even in a controlled studio setting at ISO100. And forget about pushing shadows or using high ISO and expecting the same result, the performance delta will just increase.

>>2935386
Somehow the Sony sensor has 51 million pixels, 15 stops DR, and is very much usable up to ISO12,800. If you have the cash, there is no need to "pick two", this bitch gives it all. And that's from a 2-year old sensor, this one is supposedly updated.

>>2935415
>fuji makes great lenses.

So do Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang, Lensbaby, your mom and everybody else.

>>2935482
Tell that to Sony FE 50/1.8 owners.

>>2935034
Learn about lens selection.

>>2935044
Spoken by someone who has never touched any of these cameras. Even the 645z doesn't "thrash" the 5Dsr.

>>2935193
If I don't need big prints then why would I look at the Fuji MF or any of the higher resolution FF bodies?

>>2935376
Call me when they introduce the 100 MP version. That would be a substantial gain over existing top end 35mm sensors.

>>2935466
>Take special care to look at the fabric details; Canon = smudgy piece of shit,
>Your Post = childish hyperbole

The difference, when viewed at 100%, amounts to sharpening of about 50% @ 0.5px of the Canon file.

In print? Nobody could see the sharpness difference even in a 60" print.

At high ISO? Looking at ISO 12800 the 5Dsr has more noise, but the 645z looks more smudged by NR. A wash. (The 645z goes higher, but who would use those ISOs?)

DxO hasn't tested the 645z yet, but the 645D has essentially the same DR at base ISO (12.6ev vs. 12.4ev). Now, I won't be shocked if the 645z scores in the 13ev range when it is tested, so that may be a win, but a small one.

tl;dr - medium format is not an automatic win. "Muh bigger pixels" meme is just that, a meme. Right now circuitry trumps pixel size for DR and high ISO. So if you're going to have a bigger sensor, the only way to make it stand out is to have comparable pixel density so that you're resolving more total detail than any of the smaller sensors.

The price of any of the MF digital bodies and lenses is way too fucking high for 40 or 50 MP. Drop a 100 MP chip in that mother fucker so it's worth the price.

>>2934593
SCAR-H NERF WHEN
>>2935023
tfw you're so new to photography you don't know shit about compression/dof/sensor size
>>2935828
call me when you stop baiting or being stupid.
Also call me when the 6x9 sensors are here, I can't stand fucking crop babies.

>>2935831
>>>2935023
>tfw you're so new to photography you don't know shit about compression/dof/sensor size

35mm has the most lenses. By far. Which means you have more control over compression and DoF.

The only 645 lens that can hang with fast 35mm primes, in terms of shallow DoF, is the Mamiya 80mm f/1.9. That's not going to fit on the Fuji.

>>>2935828 (You)
>call me when you stop baiting or being stupid.

Looks like I was speaking over your head. Let me try a simpler approach: HURR DURR

>Also call me when the 6x9 sensors are here, I can't stand fucking crop babies.

6x9 sensors aren't coming.

>>2935840
100% baited.

I WAS JUST PRETENDING TO BE RETARDED ALL ALONG.
HURR DURR

Sorry, I'd respond properly but you also gave up on that. Consider taking pictures of bins as a living.

>>2935843

Mom has your PB&J ready. After that she will tuck you into bed. Goodnight.

>>2935915
My mum is dead.

Don't worry, I already made my neato sandwich and I pay a prossie to tuck me in at night :3c

>>2935922
>My mum is dead.

Then who was phone?

>>2935840
>35mm has the most lenses. By far. Which means you have more control over compression and DoF.
>The only 645 lens that can hang with fast 35mm primes, in terms of shallow DoF, is the Mamiya 80mm f/1.9. That's not going to fit on the Fuji.

Hey retard, you should learn a bit about sensor size / depth of field / focal length calculations before writing stupid shit.

In general most medium format lenses have LESS depth of field than 35mm lenses.

For example at 6x7 format a 100/2.8 lens would have paper thin DOF, equivalent to a 50mm f1.0 lens on a 35mm camera. This due to the laws of optics AND due to increased resoluton.

>>2936441
>Hey retard, you should learn a bit about sensor size / depth of field / focal length calculations before writing stupid shit.
>In general most medium format lenses have LESS depth of field than 35mm lenses.
>For example at 6x7 format a 100/2.8 lens would have paper thin DOF, equivalent to a 50mm f1.0 lens on a 35mm camera.

Hey retard:

* The new Fuji camera is NOT 6x7. It's not even full 645. It's a fucking CROPPED 645.

* A 50mm f/1.0 on 35mm has LESS DoF than a 100 f/2.8 lens on 6x7.

* The fastest 645 lens was the Mamiya 80mm f/1.9. About the same DoF as a 50 f/1.2 on 35mm. But worse on the Fuji because, again, the Fuji is NOT FULL 645.

* Now try to find lenses for CROPPED 645 that can match the characteristics of the many fast wide angles and moderate telephotos on 35mm. (Pro tip: you can't.)

File: IMG_3597.jpg (82KB, 900x391px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 900x391px

>>2935828
>DxO hasn't tested the 645z yet
Here you go, these numbers just haven't been published.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	900
Image Height	391
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2936750
D810 is also a Sony sensor, right?
log2((44*33)/(36*24)) = +0.75 stops area
log2(4505/2853) = +0.66 stops low light

NOT EFFICIENT

>>2936777
never change /p/

>>2936750

This is NOT current.