The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

50mm f/0.95 for Fuji GFX

gerald.d

Well-known member
Just a heads-up for anyone who is thinking of purchasing this lens, whatever you do, do NOT place an order on eBay with "3c_photography".

They are scammers who pretend they have stock, take your money, don't respond in a timely manner to enquiries, and then, when threatened with fire and brimstone, finally admit they have no stock and have no idea when or if they will get any.

And now the fun begins,.

For the purposes of SEO -

3c_photography, Leica, TTArtisan, eBay, scammers, con-merchants, thieves.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
[HR][/HR]

I was under the impression that the CFV II was the sensor as the X1D, which is the same as the Fuji GFX 50S and 50R.

Shown to be 14 bit only, not true 16 bit which is found in the newer GFX 100..

I feel I have seen it mentioned a number of times that the claim of 16 bit is a bit of marketing by Hasselblad?
(bolded) I was too, which is why I presumed that the Fuji GFX50R had 16 bit output.

I can only go by the data I see in the Hasselblad spec sheet with regards to the CFVII 50c and X1D II which says 16bit raw files, and the claim seems to be backed up by evidence of the sensor's dynamic range—it proves substantially greater than the 14 bit sensors I've had in other cameras by the evidence shown in test photos I've made with it.

I don't know what "true 16 bit" means: Since the output of a imager sensor is an analog voltage signal which is rendered to discrete integers by an A->D converter, it's quite possible for the sensor in two different cameras to be the same part yet the data stored in the digital domain to be different. That's a matter of what the camera does upon readout in sampling and digitizing the data. I guess it also matters where the A->D conversion is taking place—if the A->D conversion is an embedded part of the chip and the chips have the same part number, it would be most likely they have the same output in the two cameras. If, however, the chip outputs its raw voltage signal for the camera to process, then the A->D conversion and resultant range of output values is whatever the camera supplies as part of the data handling chain. Lacking the insight of an electrical engineer who's dismantled the device for analysis, and the part numbers/specs for all the chips, I tend to trust the manufacturers' specification listing. :)

In the end, it doesn't matter at all to my photography what these specifications might be: I'm delighted with the CFVII 50c sensor performance regardless. It's the best sensor I've used in a camera so far, the performance it delivers is simply outstanding.

G
 

SrMphoto

Well-known member
[HR][/HR]

I was under the impression that the CFV II was the sensor as the X1D, which is the same as the Fuji GFX 50S and 50R.

Shown to be 14 bit only, not true 16 bit which is found in the newer GFX 100..

I feel I have seen it mentioned a number of times that the claim of 16 bit is a bit of marketing by Hasselblad?
X1D cameras use a 14-bit sensor. It seems that Hasselblad uses 16-bit in-camera calculations and produces files with 16-bit data. GFX100 sensor generates 16-bit of data. Unfortunately, it seems that OSPDAF banding degrades GFX100 images so that 14-bit is practically as good as 16-bit. I shoot GFX100 always in 14-bit mode.
 

med

Active member
(bolded)
In the end, it doesn't matter at all to my photography what these specifications might be: I'm delighted with the CFVII 50c sensor performance regardless. It's the best sensor I've used in a camera so far, the performance it delivers is simply outstanding.

G
I am still amazed at the quality and malleability of the files coming from my Phase One IQ250, which is an early implementation of the same sensor. The only things calling me to the upgrade well are outside of the raw sensor performance; BSI for tech cam usage, live view performance and readout speed, electronic shutter (which other have with the same sensor, just not Phase, and sensor size. The size of the "crop" sensor in and of itself is not an issue for me; only since I am using it within the Phase One ecosystem do I deem it an issue.
 

tcdeveau

Well-known member
I am still amazed at the quality and malleability of the files coming from my Phase One IQ250, which is an early implementation of the same sensor. The only things calling me to the upgrade well are outside of the raw sensor performance; BSI for tech cam usage, live view performance and readout speed, electronic shutter (which other have with the same sensor, just not Phase, and sensor size. The size of the "crop" sensor in and of itself is not an issue for me; only since I am using it within the Phase One ecosystem do I deem it an issue.
I agree re: quality and malleability of the Sony 50mp sensor (IMX161 I think?). I don't have an IQ250 but have had a 645z in the past and currently have an X1D and CFVII 50c. I was surprised at how much I was able to pull out of the X1D files last time I took it out in less-than-ideal lighting conditions. It's pretty amazing how much mileage manufacturers have gotten out of that little sensor, which is now at least 6-6.5 years old.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Doing a little further reading on imager sensors, the CCD chip design is as I said earlier, its output is an unquantized analog signal that the camera renders to digital domain through an A>D converter. CMOS chips, however, produce a quantized output and the number of bits in that output is indeed fixed at the chip interface; the Sony IMX161(?) indeed produces a 14-bit output range.

However, Hasselblad's specs on the X1D II and CFVII 50c never refers to the chip but to the raw files, which are noted as containing 16-bit data, so that means their data handling, filtering, etc, expand the numeric base from 14-bit to 16-bit, which minimizes any potential losses and degradation as the signal is put through filtering and other operations and eventually written to the raw file.

I used to do this sort of thing with the sensor data when I was at NASA working on the radar imaging system in the middle 1980s! The physical output of the digital capture devices we were using (tape recorders, essentially) was limited to 10-bit (and later 12-bit) quantized data, but we achieved much better quality data for the later stages of image processing by up-sampling the device data to 16-bit space for handling through the system. It also sped up the processing by a small increment because although the data volume went up by a third, we could simplify the algorithms in implementation by using more efficient instructions in processing rather than having to bookkeep the data with byte level instructions and bit manipulations.

It's good to hear that "the more things change, the more they remain the same" in this domain. :)

That was my Geeky Moment for the day. I think I'll go look at some photographs now. :D

G
 
Top