How big exactly is the medium format sensor inside the Fuji GFX 50S camera and other related coverage

fuji-gfx-50s-medium-format-digital-camera
FujiAddict published so far the best Fuji GFX 50S sensor size comparison that in addition to the ratio to other sensor sizes also gives you the new Fuji G lens mount as a reference:

fuji-gfx-50s-medium-format-sensor-size-comparison
Some additional info on the sensor inside the Fuji GFX 50S camera:

  • 51.4MP
  • Size: 43.8 × 32.9mm
  • Effective pixels: 8256 x 6192
  • Various aspect ratios, including 4:3 (default), 3:2, 1:1, 4:5, 6:7 and 6:17
  • Flange distance: 26.7mm
  • Crop factor: 0.79x
  • Sensor "developed by Fujifilm"
  • Bayer Array sensor

fuji-gfx-camera-3 screen-shot-2016-09-19-at-11-27-31-am
screen-shot-2016-09-19-at-11-26-56-am fuji-gfx-camera-2
Here are the first Fuji GFX 50S hands-on video previews from Photokina:

For a better Fujifilm coverage, visit FujiAddict.com.

This entry was posted in Fuji and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • Spy Black

    So it should be called somewhat-medium-format…

    • yes, “kind-of-medium-format”

      • Spy Black

        Everyone got bent out of shape from my joke.

    • Christopher J. May

      Even the largest digital sensor is on the bottom end of “medium format” if film is the reference point. Like “full frame” the reference is to another era. Imagine if the sensor manufacturers started make “1/4 plate” sensors or something.

    • did you say the same about the Pentax 645z? Because if you didn’t it just sounds like you’re hating on Fuji. Bigger than FF at a similar size to a D800. Fuji will sway FF landscape and studio photographers, and maybe even street shooters/photojournalists who don’t mind manual focus (I use my XT1 on manual focus when I need to track).

      And for the sports they got the XT2. Interesting times for DSLR’s. Unless you’re an extreme sports shooter that needs state of the art tracking, the end of mirrors is near.

      • BP2012

        Mirror vs mirrorless is a stupid confrontation. People will choose cameras based on their preferences. Most of them will choose based on price/preferences ratio. DSLRs still have advantage in that because mirrorless cameras are too expensive. Fuji with GFX 50s and Pentax with 645z are two examples. Fuji will always cost much more and that includes not just those two models but all their future MF models with similar sensors.

        • “mirrorless cameras are too expensive” ? They are cheaper because they DON’T have a mirror.

          “Mirror vs mirrorless is a stupid confrontation” – That’s like saying range finders vs SLR’s are a stupid comparison – It’s not stupid, people will use these cameras everyday, the easier camera to use wins. Look what happened to Leica.They are no where near the company that they used to be.

          • BP2012

            I’ve bought Pentax K-1 full frame DSLR for the same amount of money which my friend gave for Fuji X-Pro2 APS-C. Both cameras are brand new at initial price without any kind of discount. Mirrorless doesn’t look cheaper to me from that example. Better example will be compare of Pentax 645z with mirror and Fuji GFX 50s without mirror when Fuji set the price. 645z is 2 years old, but still at initial price so compare will be valid.

          • Right now Pentax K1 is $2700 AUD. The x pro 2 is $2000 AUD. Your friend got ripped off.

            Mirrorless is cheaper just google it for yourself.

          • Nyarlathotep

            Comparing the price of a FF DSLR that has quite a few higher end features to the price of an APS-C MLIC with more limited specs? Not Apples to Apples at all. Compare the Fuji against a mid-level, recent release APS-C DSLR (D5500 maybe) and all of the sudden the Fuji is a lot more expensive (1,700 USD vs 650 USD). Even the higher end D7200 is less @ 1,200 USD. Okay, Fuji does generally charge a premium. How about the D5500 versus the Sony A6300? Same issue, just slightly less exaggerated (1,000 USD vs 650 USD). For some reason, like for like DSLR to MLIC comparisons often show MLIC to be more expensive. Its counter intuitive, less parts, less complexity, I know, but seems to be the way it is.

          • d500 , why are you comparing to an entry level camera?

          • Nyarlathotep

            D5500 is the mid-range consumer camera, D3400 is entry level. I don’t know, I should have just avoided the comparison all together. How do you tier the two (DSLR v MILC) evenly if not on price? I am going to mostly back away from my prior statements, because in some ways the XT2 is comparable to each of the D5500 and the D7200. I couldn’t stretch that comparison to the D500. The D500 is a very different beast, I wouldn’t equate the XT2 to the D500 at all.

    • Brennan McKissick

      Anything larger than 35mm and smaller than 4×5 is medium format. So it’s just called medium format.

    • El Aura

      Medium is everything between small (24×36 mm) and large (5×4″+).

    • sperdynamite

      Guess what, digital has a different set of realities over film. For digitial, this really is medium format considering the largest practical format we have is 645. If you have a 6×6 CMOS sensor camera out there that will be priced under $10,000 dollars for a kit then I would love to buy it from you.

      • Spy Black

        So you didn’t like my joke?…

        • Nyarlathotep

          I liked the joke 😉

  • Apsc and ff look so similar when compared to fuji’s sensor. Good move on fuji on skipping FF.

    If they can keep the price down it’ll sway landscape and studio shooters who shoot FF.

  • BP2012

    Sensor is the same size as most other digital MF cameras. It is the same sensor as in 2 years old Pentax 645z and that is a very good choice. But unlike Pentax, Fuji’s bad choice is the size of a new mount, it is not big enough for a full size 645 sensor. So Fuji will stay “the king of crop sensors” also in MF world.

    • BdV

      Still, something like 50 iphone sensors should be able to produce a reasonable picture.

      • BP2012

        No doubt about that, I worked with Pentax 645z which have the same sensor like Fuji and that was amazing experience. You can recover 5 stops from shadows 🙂

    • Brennan McKissick

      Or it’s because they don’t need to get into a sensor size where other top tier manufacturers have to charge $30k just for the back? The market for Fuji just isn’t there at this point. By the time those sensors become affordable they will probably have developed a new camera anyways.

      • BP2012

        Yes that is a possible scenario, but they will need a new mount for those new cameras and off course a complete new set of lenses.

        • El Aura

          No APS-C system ships with lenses that cover FF for the WA to normal range. You’d be paying the size and price penalty of FF lenses without getting the FF benefits. Ditto here, we can argue about the mount, but Fuji shipping 67 mm image circle (instead of 55 mm image circle) lenses with this camera would make it far less appealing due to their larger size, weight and cost.

  • vriesk

    Soo, why this (and the Hasselblad mirrorless as well)?

    This camera has a sensor that’s 70% bigger area-wise than a FF sensor. Which means that in terms of light-gathering capability (think: high ISO) and background blur, it is less than a full stop “better” than FF.

    Now, for FF we have things like 42MPix sensors and awesome f/1.4 and f/1.8 primes. In order for this new camera to have any noticeable advantage, it would need to outperform available FF 50mm primes stepped down to f/2.2 (with the 63mm f/2.8 prime) and FF 85mm primes stepped down to f/1.6 (with the 110mm f/2 prime), while obviously still having the disadvantage of not being able to open up more.

    Which makes me wonder, can the Fuji lenses deliver more than Sony Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8 and Sony GM FE 85mm f/1.4, both Otuses and Sigma Arts, Nikon and Canon 85mm primes?

    • Jeffry De Meyer

      No, you don’t get medium format to get better high iso, you get medium format to get better base iso, better dynamic range and most important of all a larger field of view at any given focal length.

      lenses need to be less sharp for medium format systems since they don’t need to be as sharp as say an aps lens, they just need to be sharp enough on a larger area.

      best thing is just to forget about equivalency and try lenses when you switch formats you won’t be getting what you expect.

      • vriesk

        OK, I can see the argument for better dynamic range. This makes sense.

        However, since we (supposedly) already have super-sharp lenses for FF outresolving every sensor you throw at them, the “MF lenses can be less sharp” argument is moot.

        Also, larger field of view is exactly what equivalency calculation gives you. All lenses that have the same focal length equalized to 35mm film size (or whatever else) will have the same field of view and the same perspective – angles stay the same, focal length and sensor sizes scale up/down proportionally.

        • Jeffry De Meyer

          Field of view yes but not the perspective, which is why I wrote per focal length.

          • vriesk

            Nope. Perspective depends only on field (angle) of view.

          • Jeffry De Meyer

            Just take a fullframe camera that has a crop mode and do the test.

            it is not the same, it changes.
            if you don’t feel like doing it your self

            http://depont(dot)ovh/crop/

          • vriesk

            Nope. It’s very obvious in those pictures that they have different fields (angles) of view. EXIF reporting and producer-declared focal lengths tend to differ a bit from the actual values.

            Crop them both to the same angle and then compare. And, oh, to make it more difficult, you need to precisely align the cameras so that their front lens elements (not sensors!) are within the same distance from the subjects… which won’t work well for more complex lenses, but should do for the simple 35mm and 50mm ones you have used (I assume both were the standard Nikon D or G ones).

          • Jeffry De Meyer

            hmm I will try that when I find some time

  • El Aura

    I’d really like to see a size comparison between this and the X1D, including lenses.

  • Tolot

    well if i go MF i sure go not baby MF.
    this is a lot of money for a little more sensor space.

    and more important this camera is not as versatile than todays FF cameras.

  • Mike

    I’m actually shocked the iPhone sensor is that big.

    • Nyarlathotep

      There is a reason why there most recent iterations of the iPhone actually produce pretty darn good images. It is amazing they fit that sucker in the phone though.

      • Kris

        That iPhone sensor size is simply wrong.

        Sony’s 1″ sensor is almost four times the size of the iPhone 7’s sensor. A FF sensor is 26x as big as an iPhone sensor. (Which BTW is made by Sony, of course.)

        So yeah, let’s just curb our enthusiasm.

        This should not take away from the fact that the iPhone’s camera is quite amazing for its size. One of the top 10 cell phone cameras most of the time.

    • Eric Calabros

      iPhone sensor width is near 5mm, while 1inch format is 13.3
      2.6 stop difference.
      Of course 1inch format needs to keep its lens at f/2 to keep this advantage.

  • Nyarlathotep

    Hmmm, I have fallen in the same trap BP2012 advised against. Don’t compare MILC to DSLR, there are some fundamental difference that make an equitable comparison between specific models difficult. In some ways the XT2 is less and more than both the D5500 and D7200 class DSLRs.

    The XT1 is probably not a good comparison either, It is a year older than the D7200, probably at the end of its production life, so the cost may not be a good representative against a camera that is probably a year plus from the end of production. The 7200 when it is at the end of production in ~12-18 months, it probably won’t be selling new with warranty at $1,200.

  • Back to top