Why won't Fuji make full frame cameras? They're the

File: bd8cdf27e9201deb922158db50376673f339a363.jpg (653KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

653KB, 1080x1080px

i'm not super-smart on this subject, i'm not super well-informed, and someone will tell me to kill myself but

i think it's just a design decision being made to test the waters for new, future cameras (products) in the same vein as say, apple deciding to remove optical media or headphone jacks. and i think fuji has done a fine job in the case of the argument for aps-c sensors. i shoot both full-frame and aps-c, and have as of late been using my xpro2 much more for work, though not for paying clients just yet. i use full-frame because it's kind of what the client wants, but i'm finding that aps-c can deliver that same look these days, as aps-c has mostly caught up to full-frame in the ways that it physically can. the detail is negligible, especially for me as i am not a pixel peeper.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:08:22 11:34:53
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	-1.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>but I'm not gonna make the jump to digital if it's less than full frame
what is GFX 50S

>>3065059

>b-but i can't afford that anon

>>3065059
Something between FF and MF that doesn't really attract me in any shape

I only shoot 135 film, I don't shoot 120 film
So when I make the jump to digital I want a quality replacement for 135, which I haven't seen yet

Actual MF might be there already with Hasselblad but it's not for me at all

>>3065062
Price isn't an issue, if I wanted to change system just my glass is worth more than the camera

It's just big and slow and clunky and not for me
I have no interest in digital MF just like I never had any interest in analog MF

>>3065059
>GFX 50S
implying gear threads like these are made by anons with money

>>3065064
so FF is big enough, but something bigger isn't?

>>3065047
Because Fuji have created the perfect balance of usability and performance.

Fuji is the new Leica, it is the logical progression forward.

Have you actually seen the size difference between Aps-c and full frame? It's laughable. And if you're so obsessed with sensor real-estate why aren't you shooting medium format? Fuji has that area covered too.

The cameras are discrete, look excellent, the lens line up is largely made up with big winners like the 23mm 1.4 / 35 mm f2 / 56 mm f1.2, There are very few crappy lenses which other brands have a whole slew of.

While Sony makes great cameras too, with great video capabilities, Fuji is aimed at people who have at some point shot a lot of film and want that feeling translated into a digital format.

>>3065069
MF cameras are big and clunky
Even most digital FF cameras are too big

Hell my Nikon FA is probably the size of Fuji crops

>>3065075
>23mm 1.4 / 35 mm f2 / 56 mm f1.2

Can't even tell what this is

Look if I'm gonna change system and get a whole bunch of new glass I want to at least know what it is, I don't care about doing extra conversions and math for every piece

>>3065084
Holy fuck, don't bother then if you can't multiply by 1.5

35 / 50 / 85

Christ.

>>3065085
>don't bother

Yeah that's the point. I'm not gonna bother until they make full frame cameras and lenses made for full frame sensors.

>>3065086
They won't, so what the fuck is the point of this shit thread?

>>3065087
>They won't

Why?
You claimed they hoped to capture the market of film shooters.
No one who actually shot on film is gonna make the change to a smaller format with absolutely no additional benefits.

>>3065089
not having to use film is a pretty fucking big benefit

jesus just kys then if you're going to be such a big baby bout it. you bothered to learn shit for film but not for this new format?

why bother making a thread bout it? go buy a full-frame camera

>>3065089
> absolutely no additional benefits.

>Can't multiply

You know what, just end it, kys my dude because we can't have people like you procreate.

File: Sensor-Size.jpg (55KB, 970x538px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 970x538px

>>3065075
>Have you actually seen the size difference between Aps-c and full frame? It's laughable.

You call this laughable? It's a big difference.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	970
Image Height	538

>>3065096
>go buy a full-frame camera

They're ugly as shit, bloated, fat, and heavy.
There's a reason I have a decent collection of Nikkor glass and never made the jump to Nikon DSLRs.

File: leicam10desk.jpg (103KB, 1104x733px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1104x733px

>>3065103
>full frame cameras are ugly

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4738
Image Height	3159
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2017:01:18 12:32:55
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1104
Image Height	733

>>3065107
Not ILC.

>>3065107
he's referring to ff dslr

>>3065109
m10 is ilc

File: b97c992fc27a4f77a8e08e23f38500e6.jpg (11KB, 310x249px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 310x249px

>>3065102
Yeah Ok...

>>3065110
Oh my bad, thought that was the Q
Yeah it does look good. I don't like rangefinders though

hey listen dude

sounds like you just want to stick to film

so just do that then

good luck in your travels my friend i hope you find what you are looking for

>>3065047
They went with APS-C because they felt that having smaller bodies and lenses was worth going with a smaller sensor.

I felt the same way, which is why I switched from FF Nikon to Fuji after I stopped shooting professionally. (I'd be lugging a D5 and D500 around right now if I were still making my living with a camera, though.)

>>3065064
>>3065047
fool frame shitter actually thinks 135 is the same as FF digital. holy shit

>>3065084

Are you fucking special mate? Fuck off FujiX community doesn't want you

File: 0224a.jpg (171KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 640x426px

>>3065075

>Its laughable.

Yrs, it is laughable that anyone would ever use APS-C.

And while they have some decent lenses, the majority are mediocre (especially when you consider the price) unless stepped down considerably.

What they need to do is make an e-mount body.

>>3065089
Aps-c outresolves 35mm film
Digital =/= film.

>>3065047
Because x mount is too small, they can't afford 3 mounts at once and it would alienate their customers that have dumped way too much money into lenses that are now redundant.

>>3065319
No, film outresolves any digital sensor.

>>3065365
No it doesn't you idiot, the cut off for film is 24 megapixels.

>>3065367
>2017
>Not shooting glorious 124192412389 giganiggerpixel Adox CMS 20.

http://www.adox.de/Photo/adox-films-2/cms-20-ii-adotech-ii/

>>3065047
http://www.fujirumors.com/why-dont-fujifilm-make-a-full-frame-camera-interview-with-fujifilm-manager-mr-takashi-ueno/

Yes, higher image quality can be achieved with full frame sensors, but in order to maximize the use of the sensor size, the lens will be very bulky and heavy.

As you know, the size of full frame sensor, 24x36mm is exactly the same as the size of 35mm format analog film. But how they each receive light onto the imaging surface is completely different.

Firstly, the angle of light that film and imaging sensors can receive differ from each other. Film can receive light at the slanted angle of up to 45 degrees without any problem, but in case of the digital camera, the light needs to be as perpendicular to the sensor as possible. Slanted angle light causes mixed colors and therefore the real colors sometimes cannot be reproduced. In order to receive the light perpendicular to the sensor, it is important to make the rear glass element on each lens as big as possible to put the light beams parallel from the outlet of the light to the sensor. Finally, the back-focus distance should be shortened as much as possible to eliminate the degradation in image quality.

In case of SLRs, there is also the mirror box, it is very difficult to design an ideal lens especially for wide-angle and standard focal length lens. It is physically impossible to shorten the back-focus distance. As a result, many of the high image quality lenses for SLR bodies are designed with extended forefront and are of the larger diameter. You can see that by looking at the SLRs lens lineup.

Their lens system is already so big and they have s ton of fantastic apsc lenses, making a full frame system st this point would fragment their market even more, eat into the sales of both of their other systems by introducing a middle tier and it wouldn't actually offer a huge amount of benefit. They'd need to make a whole new series of lenses, the benefit of apsc is that lenses tend to be more compact and it's actually nice in a lot of cases to have a bit more in focus at wider aperture especially at nice so it comes down to preference I suppose, the low light advantage of full frame isn't as big as it used to be because Fuji apsc can shoot comfortably at high isos

>>3065554
actually the cover glass is more to blame than the sensor.

https://kolarivision.com/product/sony-a7-series-thin-filter-legacy-lens-upgrade/

File: 1476555616893.jpg (41KB, 620x451px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 620x451px

>>3065554
>Slanted angle light causes mixed colors and therefore the real colors sometimes cannot be reproduced
So, using a tilt-shift on digital give me colors I shouldn't get?

neglegiblebele

>>3065554
>Film can receive light at the slanted angle of up to 45 degrees without any problem, but in case of the digital camera, the light needs to be as perpendicular to the sensor as possible. Slanted angle light causes mixed colors and therefore the real colors sometimes cannot be reproduced.
what the fuck. didnt know of this.

digital is actually trash, then.

>>3065047
>implying your film is better than apsc

>>3065059
worse than the X1D

Oh no, they're making slightly smaller small-format sensors compared to all the other small format sensors, it must be so terrible.

The Fuji crop sensors and their signal processing are all amazing. Stfu, doesn't matter that they're a tiny bit smaller.

>>3067902
>signal processing are all amazing
lolno

>>3067476
>>3065584

>>3067902
>tiny bit smaller
>less than half the surface area

That's over a stop worse low light performance

And your lenses need to be able to resolve 137% more detail to be equivalent.

And longer lenses have smoother, more appealing bokeh and better feeling of depth.

Full frame vs crop is like arguing NBA vs WNBA, everyone loves one, only those that participate in the other could name a star player, and objectively, next to the men, they suck.

>>3067910
Signal processing so good they actively encourage not editing your own photos without assfucking the image quality.

>>3068003

Hey bud, as someone who has been posting here for far too long can I just say thanks? Your post is so fucking cancerous that it's made me think about why I come here.

>Low light
>137
>Smoother
>More appealing
>Some fucking shithouse analogy

Fucking kill yourself you fucking loser, masturbating over specs like you have done in your post makes you look like such a fucking faggot, can you fucking imagine anyone saying this autistic shit to you in person? Jesus fucking Christ.

>butthurt apsc shooter

I have two flagship bodies and work full time cunt, not that it fucking makes a difference I just wanted to try and help you out and let you know how much of a ducking autistic faggot your post makes you sound like.

Thanks again, have fun wasting your life talking about specs on a fucking Chinese cartoon image forum. Loser.

>>3068018
Has someone hit a nerve?

Why do you take offense to objective truths?

Timestamp your 2 fagship bodies, bet you can't.

>>3068003
>Signal processing so good they actively encourage not editing your own photos without assfucking the image quality.
Keep drinking that Koolaid. There's another dimension of delusion for brandfags like you.

>>3068140
Enjoy your wormy images.

>>3068148
>wormy images
>wormy

>>3065715
From the rear element.