(Relatively) affordable, compact medium format 100MP camera

On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 9:35:16 AM UTC-5, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 27, 2021, Alfred Molon wrote
(in ):
I don't think I'll buy it, but this camera is quite affordable
(and compact) considering it's a 100MP medium format camera:

https://petapixel.com/2021/01/27/fuj...ls-the-medium-
format-gfx100s-102mp-5-axis-ibis-6000/

And it comes with IBIS.

It's even cheaper than the 50MP Sony A1, although of course you
can't compare these two cameras.
The question should be; “Is anybody in this room contemplating buying one?�

Wellll....

My UW camera system is ten years old, so I did take a peek for ~10 minutes to see
what (if any) medium format underwater housings presently exist, to see if this
camera might be in line to get on within a year or so.

I for one cannot justify spending $6K on this body, and then another considerable expense for GX glass.

Everything's always in context. If my current body (Canon 7D) that I use in my UW
setup dies, my short term fix would be to buy a used body to replace it ... but it will
eventually become impractical to maintain the system such that I'll be looking at
replacing more than just the body.

If I had to pull that trigger today, my short list would include the Canon R5 ($4K)
w/15-35mm ($2K). Then the Ikelite housing ($2K) and "new style" DL ports, since
my existing ones don't fit...probably another $1K before its done. Then recycle
my strobe heads & arms, but pony up for new battery packs... sums to ~$9.5K..
In this context, the $6K for a Medium format body is "only" an additional ~20%.
Probably not, because I'd really prefer to move down in size (for easier transport),
which probably would be cheaper too.


-hh

On 1/28/2021 8:17 AM, Joe Makowiec wrote:
On 28 Jan 2021 in rec.photo.digital, Neil wrote:

I doubt that the sensor is 6x6cm or larger, and the 102mp resolution
is well below that of MF film.

Image sensor 43.8mm×32.9mm Bayer array with primary color filter
Number of recorded pixels 4:3 11648×8736 [max listed pixel dimensions]

From the manufacturer's specs page:

https://fujifilm-x.com/global/produc...pecifications/

By way of comparison, Hasselblad H6D-100c (US$33,000):

Sensor dimensions 53.4 x 40.0mm
Pixel dimension: 23200 x 17400 (taken from sample image; spec sheet doesn't list)

https://cdn.hasselblad.com/0d402917-...heet_en_v5.pdf

This basicaly states that, the sensor sizes of the two are below the
size of MF film and the resolution is far below even consumer-level
scanned MF film (4000dpi 6x6 = 144000mp; 5000dpi 6x6 = 180000mp). Again,
they seem to be addressing the aspect ratio of the sensor. No big deal,
and ergo no valid analogy.

--
best regards,

Neil

In article , Neil
wrote:

This basicaly states that, the sensor sizes of the two are below the
size of MF film

nobody said it's the same size as mf film, nor is that even relevant.

the sensor is larger than 35mm full frame, thereby making it medium
format. it's very simple.

and the resolution is far below even consumer-level
scanned MF film (4000dpi 6x6 = 144000mp; 5000dpi 6x6 = 180000mp).

you're confusing scanner resolution with the capabilities of film.

35mm full frame digital cameras can easily match or exceed mf film in
every metric, with actual digital mf cameras even more so.

Again,
they seem to be addressing the aspect ratio of the sensor. No big deal,
and ergo no valid analogy.

nonsense. the aspect ratio is irrelevant, especially since medium
format film had no single aspect ratio.

In article ,
says...
scanned MF film (4000dpi 6x6 = 144000mp; 5000dpi 6x6 = 180000mp).

Doesn't 4000 dpi of a 6cm x 6cm film give you 9449 x 9449 = 89
MP (6/2,54 * 4000)? That's far less than 144000 MP.

Besides I doubt that a film scan gives you pixels as crisp as
from digital.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

scanned MF film (4000dpi 6x6 = 144000mp; 5000dpi 6x6 = 180000mp).

Doesn't 4000 dpi of a 6cm x 6cm film give you 9449 x 9449 = 89
MP (6/2,54 * 4000)? That's far less than 144000 MP.

yes, but that's irrelevant.

what matters is the information content of the film being scanned, not
the capabilities of the scanner.

Besides I doubt that a film scan gives you pixels as crisp as
from digital.

it doesn't.

In article
.com,
says...
The question should be; ?Is anybody in this room contemplating buying one??

I for one cannot justify spending $6K on this body, and then another considerable expense for GX glass.

On the other hand, if money didn't matter and you don't need
long lenses, it would be cool to travel with this camera to some
interesting places and come back with nice pictures of sceneries
and architecture with insane resolution levels.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Jan 28, 2021, Alfred Molon wrote
(in s.net):

In article
.com,
says...
The question should be; ?Is anybody in this room contemplating buying one??

I for one cannot justify spending $6K on this body, and then another considerable expense for GX glass.

On the other hand, if money didn't matter and you don't need
long lenses, it would be cool to travel with this camera to some
interesting places and come back with nice pictures of sceneries
and architecture with insane resolution levels.

For now I will stick with my X-T3, and APS-C.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On 1/28/2021 12:57 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article ,
says...
scanned MF film (4000dpi 6x6 = 144000mp; 5000dpi 6x6 = 180000mp).

Doesn't 4000 dpi of a 6cm x 6cm film give you 9449 x 9449 = 89
MP (6/2,54 * 4000)? That's far less than 144000 MP.

6 * 4000 = 24000 * 6 = 144000.

Besides I doubt that a film scan gives you pixels as crisp as
from digital.

Now, it's "crisp pixels" that somehow have meaning?

I see the differences as different media with different qualities.
Preferences one way or another are personal decisions, and I'm quite OK
with that.

--
best regards,

Neil

In article , Neil says...

On 1/28/2021 12:57 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article ,
says...
scanned MF film (4000dpi 6x6 = 144000mp; 5000dpi 6x6 = 180000mp).

Doesn't 4000 dpi of a 6cm x 6cm film give you 9449 x 9449 = 89
MP (6/2,54 * 4000)? That's far less than 144000 MP.

6 * 4000 = 24000 * 6 = 144000.

Isn't MF film 6 cm x 6 cm = 2.36 inch x 2.36 inch?

2.36 inch x 4000 dots/inch = 9448 pixel per side

--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article , Neil
wrote:

scanned MF film (4000dpi 6x6 = 144000mp; 5000dpi 6x6 = 180000mp).

Doesn't 4000 dpi of a 6cm x 6cm film give you 9449 x 9449 = 89
MP (6/2,54 * 4000)? That's far less than 144000 MP.

6 * 4000 = 24000 * 6 = 144000.

major math fail.

Besides I doubt that a film scan gives you pixels as crisp as
from digital.

Now, it's "crisp pixels" that somehow have meaning?

it's one way to convey that digital has higher resolution and less
noise than film.

I see the differences as different media with different qualities.
Preferences one way or another are personal decisions, and I'm quite OK
with that.

major goalpost movement.

this is *not* about preferences. it never was about preferences.

you made the baseless claim, that medium format film has higher
resolution than medium format digital (or even high end full frame).

objective measurements show that it does not, along with your bogus
calculations.

you might prefer lower quality film results, but that does not change
the facts.