• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Thinking about buying the GFX? Article by DpReview


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#21 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 08 October 2017 - 02:55 PM

Didn't try GFX nor D850 but from what I read, not a single guy said GFX autofocus was better, as for sensor performance from the pictures I saw both are capable of delivering outstanding results.
However as you mentioned for studio work GFX seems a stellar performer

#22 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,873 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 08 October 2017 - 07:26 PM

I didn't write "judging things you never had in hands nor made a single picture with it" to tease or harm you.

 

If you ever try a MF camera you will see how different the reactions foreground - subject - background do come out. If you like, you can try for yourself: Take a picture at 25 mm with your 7DII, then take enough pictures at 50 mm to cover the same frame and stitch the result (crop from Canon to Fuji is roughly 2×).

 

The more tele you go, the more dense will the background be. Very blurred background and very sharp subject = very tri-dimensional picture. 



#23 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 405 posts

Posted 08 October 2017 - 08:23 PM

Joju, most of the things I've said on the previous page (AF speed, ease of use, service, retail etc.), think of them compared to other medium format manufacturers. Even the shitty Mobile App. Yes those are still horrible compared to CaNikon, yet they are miles ahead of what Hasselblad/Phase One has been able to do so far.



#24 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,873 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 08 October 2017 - 11:08 PM

I don't know Hasselblad, but the bit I played with a Phase One, AF was pretty snappy. Are you referring to Capture Pilot or their tethering? Because tethering with Fuji... for LR, you need to have a windows PC (!) and pay some extra cash for a plugIn (!!)

 

This here is for toni:

 

i-zbfSz5P-X2.jpg

 

the 63/2.8 is the standard lens of GFX. f/5.6, but the background is blurred enough to not distract. Details like hair and skin don't need added sharpness, they are rendered by bigger pixels which gives the colors more energy.



#25 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 405 posts

Posted 09 October 2017 - 12:10 AM

Tethering is absolutely fantastic with Capture One but I haven't been able to make Capture Pilot work so far. No idea what's wrong, maybe it's because I'm using a desktop PC instead of a laptop. No idea. Other than that, good luck transfering your photos from the camera to a mobile for a quick edit on site on any other medium format system. To be honest, Sony is by far the best for that, simply because you can transfer the files via NFC without pressing many buttons, going through settings and such. I've more than once used my A7 to transfer photos that were taken with another camera to my mobile so that I could quickly edit and send them to the customer. Just put the card into the A7, go to play mode, touch the NFC tag of the phone to the side of the A7 and it's done. It's worth its money as a card reader alone, really :).

 

GFX files really are almost magic, coming from 35mm. Lenses are ridiculously beautiful, pixels are fat, files are rich and editability is unlike anything I've worked with so far.

 

Then I remember the aperture dial on the 63mm I had in my hands. Bloody thing wouldn't switch to f/2.8 if you turn the dial too fast. It'd go f/4>f/3.6>f/3.2>f/4 again. You have to move it back and forth a few times so it'd finally catch. That's unacceptable for a lens that has been used for less than a year. Yes it belonged to the workshop team so it probably has been abused more than it's been used but come on, if such a thing happens in less than a year, it'll happen to my own copy in what? 3 years? And that lens costs about 1500$? 

 

Actually I wouldn't mind if it happens in 3 years because all Fujifilm products have 3 year warranty here :). Nope, still unacceptable. 



#26 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 09 October 2017 - 08:03 AM

Where is the 50mm f4.5 135 format comparison shot to make a convincing argument that that GXF renders depth differently?



#27 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 405 posts

Posted 09 October 2017 - 09:52 AM

The rendering is different than pretty much all what we have in 135 format but that's most probably due to the actual lens design than sensor simply having a larger area. I'm absolutely not convinced that the lenses somehow become magic because the sensor is marginally larger than a 35mm FF sensor, no. 

 

Oh sorry I meant much microcontrast, such 3D pop, muh transition zone.



#28 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,873 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 09 October 2017 - 10:16 AM

obican, it's pointless to explain things like that to someone whose religion is equivalence and never realizes this equivalence can't be only aperture or FL. Everything in the process of making a picture until looking at one has to be equivalent to make the equation work - which is the reason it never works  :D



#29 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 405 posts

Posted 09 October 2017 - 12:21 PM

Oh btw, it's not that much of a hassle to make GFX RAW files work with Capture One. Lack of Capture One tethering would be the real problem though.



#30 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,873 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 09 October 2017 - 12:35 PM

Interesting. I tried to import some of the RAWs I brought back, but had to go Iridient or ON1PhotoRAW - these two worked great  :)

 

At least with uncompressed Fuji RAWs (are there also compressed ones?). Roughly double size of D850 compressed RAW.  :mellow:



#31 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 601 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 09 October 2017 - 03:44 PM

Often, discussions about the merits of system A vs system B remind me of wine tasting. Pure subjectivity with a lot of placebo effect.

A lot has to do with people's own convictions about things (e.g. sensor size, color reproduction, brand, particular lens used, coating, etc. - insert whatever subjective metric here).

Sure, some parameters are quantifiable and measurable, but most of the time it's purely subjective and I'm sure than no one would be able to accurately pinpoint photos shot with say system A vs other systems in a blind test.

I believe that under most circumstances, people wouldn't be able to tell images from MFT, APS-C, FF and medium format (as in Fuji GFX) apart. Maybe for a few shots here and there, but I highly doubt it would be significant.

 

It reminds me of this article on lensrentals' blog:

 

https://www.lensrent...-a-sony-a7r-ii/


--Florent

Flickr Page


#32 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 09 October 2017 - 03:52 PM

That reminds me of this recent article/video:

https://www.dpreview...rtrait-shootout



#33 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,873 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 09 October 2017 - 04:17 PM

thxbb12, a comparsion betweeen FF sensors might be hard. Less so a comparison between µ 4/3, FF and MF - but that depends on the subject. If it's already flat, is kind of typical web-resolution, has low contrast and not much colors in it, it will become difficult to tell. Pretty easy would be a wide angle comparison at A2 print size.

 

For the D850 I sometimes have the impression "blurred" or "out of focus", until I switch to 100% view  :D

 

Focus transition zone, color details and shadow/highlights are different IMO and still sufficient to see the differences in extremely challenging situations - in normal situations, the "weakest" sesor in it's comfort zone, I'm pretty sure to have onyl a 50% chance of guessing.

 

I mean, in that blogpost you linked to, it was the non-photographer guessing right  ;) .



#34 Arthur Macmillan

Arthur Macmillan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 09 October 2017 - 05:16 PM

Joju and Obicon-

 

Your enthusiasm, and breakdown of this cameras features is really such that I would love to grab a GFX and see what it can do.  As an amateur photographer I doubt it's going to happen, but how fun it would be to use one and see the results! 

 

I guess guys like me are stuck with FF, APS-C, and MFT.  And so it is tempting to say FF can do just as much.  But if I say that, what I am really saying is that I have to try to make FF do just as much.  In fact, I have to make an older FF DSLR do as much.  And I am really glad I have my camera and lenses.  But that GFX is putting more pressure on CaNikon.  They've been chopped of at the knees by MILC's and now this!  I can live with it.  But it must be fun having GFX and/or Capture One!



#35 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,873 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 09 October 2017 - 05:57 PM

Arthur, I don't own a GFX 50S, I just had maybe an hour with it to try some things, It was good to know the menu from the other Fujifilm bodies, because it's just a bit extended but more or less the same. I was at the edge to jump for this MF adventure, but then... after trying and feeling things are not that solid like a Phase One (for which I really would need a car to transport all the necessities, plus assistants  :D ) I'm happy Nikon came out of their cover with something like D850. I only want to afford one body in the 47 MP class and it's the most versatile they made so far.

 

That sample is about the impression of a blurred picture

 

i-SvqJFZM-L.jpg

 

which after all is not that blurred...  :D

 

i-xDfhBJj-L.jpg

 

I'm not sure about the "fun" part of the GFX 50S, I'd call it more a rewarding part - I know since I started fooling around with high MP bodies what can go wrong. Keeping an eye on this potential sources of technically bad pictures is not much of fun but I got a bit addicted to this amount of details.



#36 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 405 posts

Posted 09 October 2017 - 06:07 PM

I believe that under most circumstances, people wouldn't be able to tell images from MFT, APS-C, FF and medium format (as in Fuji GFX) apart. Maybe for a few shots here and there, but I highly doubt it would be significant.

 

 

Are you kidding, I can't tell my shots from whether they are wide open or one stop down :D. Most embarrassing was looking at a shot I made, thinking "wow, I'm glad I've bought that 50/1.4 lens, wide open it's an amazing rendering", only to realize it's at f/2 :D.

 

Side by side, of course I could've told which one is at f/1.4 and f/2 but an isolated shot with no comparison? Good luck with that.

 

I remember all the OMG WIDE OPEN fanboys debating the upcoming Zeiss Batis, precisely whether it was f/1.8 or f/2, 100mm, 135mm or 200mm, which turned out to be a 135/2.8. Almost all the so called experts, judging the sample shots had failed. It was hilarious.

 

There was even one guy saying it'll be precisely f/2.4. 



#37 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,873 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 09 October 2017 - 06:22 PM

At least he was closer than the guessers of f/2.

 

:lol:



#38 Arthur Macmillan

Arthur Macmillan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 10 October 2017 - 01:31 AM

Well, still, just guessing, but I am thinking more about the color transition quality, and the contrast.  I really don't ever shoot wide open except in poorly lit situations.  I seldom find wide open is sufficiently sharp and contrasty.  I just meant that some types of photos should be easy.  A photo of something complex and fairly close with slightly low light available, and a slightly variable light.  The lighting seems sufficient in terms of exposure, but my APS-C cameras just can't deal with the dynamic range, whereas my FF can.  It is the same lens, and the same image processor (more or less, I'd have to check.  I think the aps-c may even have a newer image processor).  The larger pixels.  I am seeing how that effects the cameras ability to do fine color transitions. 

 

And yet...you need resolution as well.   At some point this means a physically larger sensor. 

 

It is sort of a sad confession, but I really like large aperture lenses, simply because they work better better at the apertures that I use.  I would not expect to guess what a photos aperture is by looking at it.  But you can tell if you are impressed or disappointed!  We all have different tastes anyways.  But medium format cameras seem extremely capable for shooting portraits, and things like that.  It would be fun to have to struggle less with portraits.  Some say they are easy.  Well...I don't!


  • JoJu and obican like this

#39 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 10 October 2017 - 05:04 AM

The lighting seems sufficient in terms of exposure, but my APS-C cameras just can't deal with the dynamic range, whereas my FF can. !

Which cameras are you using ? 5Dmkii doesn't hold the dynamic range advantage versus modern cameras like 80D, are you sure you have dynamic range issues that evident?

#40 Arthur Macmillan

Arthur Macmillan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 10 October 2017 - 05:15 PM

Now, I guess I have to look it up :( .  The ones I've been using recently are Rebel T1i (D500) and 5D Mark ii.  Processors are...

...DiGIC 4 for both.  And anyways I am not a technician.  There may be a difference between the capability to span a dynamic range and the ability to sense as many shades at the sensor level, thus you could display the dynamic range, but only parts of the range will be detected by the sensor, so the outcome is different.

 

And actually I would not look forward to dealing with new controls, or software.  But it seems almost a sure thing that getting good photos of some subjects would be easy, and that's what puts the fun in it.  Fujifilm is working its way to a much better camera, and this current one is just round 1.  I like to see these developments because unlike Reaganomics trickle down theory, This technology has the potential to be affordable somewhere down the line.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de