Nikkor

Pretty impressive!

6000$ is the new 2500$. Central Banking doing it's job.

Remember the hype about the first Fullframe digital cameras? In 2004 you could buy a phase one p25 with a respectable 48x36sensor or leaf equivalents with colors that make canon cmos look amateur. The price difference wasn't that high in the beginning until the 5d came along, but if you compare the hype... Still today, if I have to choose shooting with a modern CMOS or an old MF I would only use the CMOS if I needed fast AF and/or Iso above 200. That's some value for a digital product.

For anything that demands high quality MF will be standard when cameras get good enough for video, the fuji is clearly almost there. This doesn't mean you can't shoot s35, m43 or FF, but when you want to go for the ultimate image it's the simplest thing to go with MF. If there were a 4x5 camera with good specs people would use that one for high quality. The larger the format, the larger the quaility, no matter how good your s35 lenses are they will never give the depth a large format camera can give.

Intelligent ways to tonemap highdynamic range.

Films that interest me have been rare latetly, I started to notice this specially since 2014.

This only shows that PC raw conversion softwares are getting old, generally speaking they suck at handling HDR, no matter if it's from a 16bit sensor or multiple exposures..

Hasselblad launched a speedbooster for their X1D system which helps to adapt existing H mount lenses to the X1D lens mount with incorporated optics to reduce the cropfactor 0.8x The result is a virtual sensor 1.5x bigger than fullframe, or as big as a 645 medium format frame. https://www.hasselblad.com/x-system-accessories/xh-converter-0-8/?utm_source=Instagram&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=XH Converter It costs €959.00 tax included.

Additional edit: The information itself has to be cognizable, the information needs some order, this is why thick images usually have a lot of element separation (closeups, thin dof, elaborate lighting,blocking, composition).

A thin negative can have a lot of contrast but the image tends to go mushy and the colors have a bias towards something that is not their own color. A thick negative is not an overexposed one, overexposed negatives lose contrast and colors go more pastel. A thick negative is a negative that uses the maximal potential of the emulsion, this involves correct exposure, a contrasty scene with good lighting, textures, colors ,etc... In film you can add in development to help pushing things into something closer to thick, in digital you can color correct. But one thing is clear, Nothing comes f

Yes the legend, I remember seeing a post of you with a picture of it on the gfx.

How does the nikkor 28 1.4 look on the fuji? I remember putting it infront of a groundglass and beeing suprised over the coverage.

Still no words on the hasselblad to fuji speedbooster. Keeping the impressive secret to himself. I don't get why this isn't the big thing right now. Since I have my medium format camera CCD back any picture I take looks impressive, it's the definitive magic bullet.

I don't understand why people still are so obsessed with canon, there are a thousand of other camera brands. Maybe it's time to let go.

Nice camera, now put a mediumformat sensor inside.