4 ms·

I understand that's the actual, original title, but it is so semantically meaningless. GFX is a "Mirrorless Camera" (with a large sensor). So of course it "perf

I understand that's the actual, original title, but it is so semantically meaningless. GFX is a "Mirrorless Camera" (with a large sensor). So of course it "performs like a mirrorless". I get what they're trying to say ("This is not your daddy's medium-frame"), but the notion that these are somehow qualities intrinsic in a "Mirrorless" designation irks me. (Certain) DLSRs were fast, small, portable, effective and efficient long before mirrorless. As well, the notion that GFX isn't a "Mirrorless", or that "Mirrorless" implies a particular sensor size (such as m4/3rds or similar) is again erronenous. Medium format was expensive, unwieldy and slow due to artificial market segmentation, limited competition, and essentially being at the far *-phile end of the price/feature curve. Fuji is a new entry and an underdog competitor, which is what drives most of the attractive features, not just the mirrorless part.

la_barba 7y ago
All they mean is that medium format cameras are perceived to be slow, while 'mirrorless' cameras are not. Its no different than people thinking "AMD chips run hot" when that hasn't been true for years. There is a lot of misinformation, incorrect assumptions, and sacred cows in the world. If every article was written to correct those assumptions, then (1) it could consume the entire article (2) nobody would actually even read them (3) no ad-revenue would mean such publications would eventually die out.
- jdsully 7y ago
  Which AMD chips ran hot? For me nothing will ever compare to the P4 for thermals (even though modern chips have higher power consumption).
  - la_barba 7y ago
    The Athlon XPs did run hot. I don't have a handy link right this moment. Maybe someone can look it up..
  - jdietrich 7y ago
    The 15h (Bulldozer to Excavator) series had pretty lousy efficiency, with most desktop parts having a TDP of 95W or 125W. The FX-9590 achieved some level of notoriety for having a 220W TDP despite only having four real cores.
    - jdsully 7y ago
      The real problem with bulldozer was by that point they were so far behind nobody in my circle bothered mentioning them at all.
      - NikolaNovak 7y ago
        I would agree in principle; in practice, my main desktop is still FX-8350. I keep looking for excuse to replace it... and not finding one :-/ Still available as new in mainstream shops [1], and at recent times strangely peaked specific price/performance chart. It boggles my mind to be honest :P 1: https://www.newegg.ca/p/pl?d=fx-8350&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH https://www.newegg.ca/p/pl?d=fx-8350&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Submit=...
- NikolaNovak 7y ago
  That's fascinating though, because Mirrorless cameras until so very recently were "the slow ones", and very much perceived as such, primarily and quite legitimately due to: * refresh rate of EVF (vs optical viewfinder); * Contrast Detect vs Phase detect autofocusing; * as well as some design/control/menu choices Even to this day, highest-end mirrorless are just starting to be trully competitive in the professional sport / action arena. In other words, no active photographer I follow would use "mirrorless" as a universal shortcut slang for "fast, speedy, responsive". On the contrary... So I don't feel it's a case of "every article needs to work hard to dispell myths"; but rather, an article not actively, for no seemingly good reason, starting wrong myths from scratch :).
  - la_barba 7y ago
    You are comparing historical mirrorless performance with DSLRs, but article is comparing them to medium format cameras, two different things. Medium format cameras were slower than both, older consumer/compact mirrorless cameras as well as DSLRs. BTW.. Its fair to assume that these myths are common, than to assume that someone purposely chose to perpetuate them with bad intent.
    - NikolaNovak 7y ago
      Oh I don't at all feel it was bad intent and vicious ulterior motive :) As I said, the title just irks me :>
i_am_proteus 7y ago
Fuji also has a history with medium format rangefinders, lenses for which translate well to mirrorless digital designs since rangefinder cameras are... mirrorless.
- subhro 7y ago
  That is a damn good argument. You should also include TLRs in the discussion.
pkulak 7y ago
I thought it was referring to the sensor stabilization. Medium format is generally just for studio, where you wouldn't need or want that. Seems like Fuji means for this to be portable... like any other "mirrorless".
GuiA 7y ago
> Medium format was expensive, unwieldy and slow ?! There are plenty of very pocketable, no fiddling required cameras that take 120/220 film from the 50s onwards. I have a few that I still regularly take on hikes and trips around town (although for shorter trips I can deal with the slightly bigger footprint of a TLR), and let me take pictures with a detail and tonal range most digital cameras can only dream of (particularly smartphones), all about the same size and weight as my Anker battery pack. Yes there are also crazy bulky Mamiyas/Hasselblads etc but those were always targeted to studio use.
- subhro 7y ago
  Come on, 500 series 'blads were far from bulky and were totally walk around cameras. If you are talking about RBs and RZs, I agree.
  - stan_rogers 7y ago
    ...and none of those were as bulky and unwieldy as Fuji's own GX680.
- NikolaNovak 7y ago
  Apologies; I should've explicitly indicated "Digital Medium Format", as the most appropriate "like for like" comparison - shows my biases :->. (I would edit for clarity but I believe time has expired for that) Thx for pointing it out!

la_barba 7y ago

All they mean is that medium format cameras are perceived to be slow, while 'mirrorless' cameras are not. Its no different than people thinking "AMD chips run hot" when that hasn't been true for years. There is a lot of misinformation, incorrect assumptions, and sacred cows in the world. If every article was written to correct those assumptions, then (1) it could consume the entire article (2) nobody would actually even read them (3) no ad-revenue would mean such publications would eventually die out.

jdsully 7y ago
Which AMD chips ran hot? For me nothing will ever compare to the P4 for thermals (even though modern chips have higher power consumption).
- la_barba 7y ago
  The Athlon XPs did run hot. I don't have a handy link right this moment. Maybe someone can look it up..
- jdietrich 7y ago
  The 15h (Bulldozer to Excavator) series had pretty lousy efficiency, with most desktop parts having a TDP of 95W or 125W. The FX-9590 achieved some level of notoriety for having a 220W TDP despite only having four real cores.
  - jdsully 7y ago
    The real problem with bulldozer was by that point they were so far behind nobody in my circle bothered mentioning them at all.
    - NikolaNovak 7y ago
      I would agree in principle; in practice, my main desktop is still FX-8350. I keep looking for excuse to replace it... and not finding one :-/ Still available as new in mainstream shops [1], and at recent times strangely peaked specific price/performance chart. It boggles my mind to be honest :P 1: https://www.newegg.ca/p/pl?d=fx-8350&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH https://www.newegg.ca/p/pl?d=fx-8350&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Submit=...
NikolaNovak 7y ago
That's fascinating though, because Mirrorless cameras until so very recently were "the slow ones", and very much perceived as such, primarily and quite legitimately due to: * refresh rate of EVF (vs optical viewfinder); * Contrast Detect vs Phase detect autofocusing; * as well as some design/control/menu choices Even to this day, highest-end mirrorless are just starting to be trully competitive in the professional sport / action arena. In other words, no active photographer I follow would use "mirrorless" as a universal shortcut slang for "fast, speedy, responsive". On the contrary... So I don't feel it's a case of "every article needs to work hard to dispell myths"; but rather, an article not actively, for no seemingly good reason, starting wrong myths from scratch :).
- la_barba 7y ago
  You are comparing historical mirrorless performance with DSLRs, but article is comparing them to medium format cameras, two different things. Medium format cameras were slower than both, older consumer/compact mirrorless cameras as well as DSLRs. BTW.. Its fair to assume that these myths are common, than to assume that someone purposely chose to perpetuate them with bad intent.
  - NikolaNovak 7y ago
    Oh I don't at all feel it was bad intent and vicious ulterior motive :) As I said, the title just irks me :>

i_am_proteus 7y ago

Fuji also has a history with medium format rangefinders, lenses for which translate well to mirrorless digital designs since rangefinder cameras are... mirrorless.

subhro 7y ago
That is a damn good argument. You should also include TLRs in the discussion.

pkulak 7y ago

I thought it was referring to the sensor stabilization. Medium format is generally just for studio, where you wouldn't need or want that. Seems like Fuji means for this to be portable... like any other "mirrorless".

GuiA 7y ago

> Medium format was expensive, unwieldy and slow ?! There are plenty of very pocketable, no fiddling required cameras that take 120/220 film from the 50s onwards. I have a few that I still regularly take on hikes and trips around town (although for shorter trips I can deal with the slightly bigger footprint of a TLR), and let me take pictures with a detail and tonal range most digital cameras can only dream of (particularly smartphones), all about the same size and weight as my Anker battery pack. Yes there are also crazy bulky Mamiyas/Hasselblads etc but those were always targeted to studio use.

subhro 7y ago
Come on, 500 series 'blads were far from bulky and were totally walk around cameras. If you are talking about RBs and RZs, I agree.
- stan_rogers 7y ago
  ...and none of those were as bulky and unwieldy as Fuji's own GX680.
NikolaNovak 7y ago
Apologies; I should've explicitly indicated "Digital Medium Format", as the most appropriate "like for like" comparison - shows my biases :->. (I would edit for clarity but I believe time has expired for that) Thx for pointing it out!