Full Version: Thinking about buying the GFX? Article by DpReview
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Will further comment on the whole article but, what do you think?



Will read it later. Superficially looked at it and found something about equivalencing and that you can do something with a FF which is currently not possible with the Fuji.


Heck, that point you can say about any given camera.  <_< The current line-up of planned and already available adapters again says more "it's a camera for folks who know what they do and can justify the investment". Since when are "MF"-bodies in a brighter focus than before? Excatly, since Hasselblad and Fuji came up with different and fresh concepts.


Sooner or later I like to rent one for a weekend and get my own picture and impression. There will be limits as each system has it's own limits and benefits as well.

Makes sense. It comes down to the specific wishes. Maybe a single certain lens renders particularly nicer, which then would be a reason to get the system. Like for instance how some particularly like the smooth bokeh from the silly high priced Nikkor 58mm f1.4. That then is a reason to buy a Nikkor FF DSLR. So maybe there will be such a lens for the Fuji or Hasselblad cameras.

Now I read a good bit more of this article, just not until the end. After a couple of sentences I thought "well, colleagues of Rishi Sanyal, stop mobbing him and borrow him the camera for one or two days, he's trying hard enough to make the Fuji look like a bad idea".


It is a very bad idea to talk in terms of "FF xx beats the Fuji in terms of whatever"- Fuji didn't make it to beat anything, as the concepts of a mirrorless FF+ (to me it's still no medium format, pardon me) with a tons of adaptors is something else than the concept of big brand high end DSLR with a more or less closed system of lenses.


The Fuji has some advantages - but not all. It doesn't need to be coming with fast or faster lenses and theoretical equivalencing doesn't lead to real-life views and pictures. Also, some of the adapters claim that longer lenses have enough performance to fill the image circle. We see tons of 85/1.4 or f/1.2, we see 105/1.4, 135/1.8 - voilà, there are the fast lenses.


And his sample picture with the 24-35/2 might be unparalleled - but there ARE 45/2.8 MF lenses and I bet, no one would see the difference in bokeh between equiv. f/2.5 and real f/2.8  Rolleyes And actually, as much as I like the rendering of the Sigma in his sample picture - I don't like the looks it does to the face of the model.


He's splitting a lot of hairs to prove the Fuji is nothing for him. That's cool, so somebody else will get his order sooner, because Rishi Sanyal doesn't come in between  Big Grin .


The price gap between the Fuji and any other high end FF DSLR is existing - but not as huge as between FF and, say Phase One or Hasselblad with their 50 MP backs. I'm looking forward to the next Kaizen update for X-T2. Today there was one, the next should bring a lot of new features and Fuji will play this kind of game also with the GFX line. I call that securing the investment - anyone able to say the same about expensive Nikons? What did the last firmware update bring except bug-fixes?


Maybe it's not the same difference as it was in the old days when going from 135 to at least 6×4.5/120 was kind of a real improvement - I could remain with beloved Ilford HP-5 or even T-Max 400 and there was so much more tonality and less grain on the negatives, less dust to remove after printing, bigger end formats and easier composings in the finder - a part of that Fuji will bring in. And stepping over a crowded FF market and go straight beyond with a new concept for this kind of sensor size is basically a good thing.


Last word: Yes, fast lenses are a lot around for DSLR - but with them, the need of extremely time consuming AF adjustments and hoping the AF will guess good enough also come along. Mirrorless is not always better, but in terms of focusing preferable.

 I don't think Rishi is trying to put off photographers that know what they want and need, just balancing the case for those others who think that a bigger sensor is automatically the way to go.


 For the most part it's price tag coupled with a few lenses will do that task very nicely all by itself!

Over at Fuji rumors:




DPReview published a controversial article about the GFX, where they basically end up saying that the GFX is not worth the money extra compared to FF cameras. In short:

What a fanboy...


It was not "they", it was one (1) author who took the time to elaborate why he feels better served with a FF sensor. To me, perfectly fine and within the ranges of opinions. I don't agree with every reasoning, but the more I read about the self incidenting hype - each one has to cheer louder than the other - the more I'm longing for a more fact-based discussion.


At least, Patrick tones down a bit and  comes to the conclusion that DPReview needed 3 different FF cameras to "beat" or come close to GFX: Canon 5Ds R for resolution, D810 for dynamic range, and Sony A7R II for high ISO (not saying that probably each of them will "beat" the GFX in focusing speed and finder refresh rate)


It's a great camera, no doubt, but by far not the only one on the market and also by far no flawless one.

Over from Fuji rumors: Upcoming firmware updates for X-T2 and X-Pro2


"They", aka Patrick, count 33 added or improved functions, bur some of them are only for one of the two bodies.


Nonetheless, some improvements I was looking forward to for quite a while.I tip my hat, Fujifilm!


I can't comment on the GFX as I've not used one but I remember the Mamiya 7 and taking some decent pictures with it. It wasn't just the larger format the camera encouraged a more deliberate work flow. I'm not even sure what form factor the GFX has (i know the specs are out there just haven't bothered to look); but I'm keeping an eye on it to see how things evolve.

It's more a FF extended than a real MF (43.8×32.9mm). I agree with the more deliberate workflow, I made the same experience with Mamiya 645, 67RB and even more so a Sinar 9×12

I can hardly wait for the OP's conclusions.  DPR seems to always be displaying multiple personality disorder!


Rishi sets the record straight from the very start: 

"But while heads turn, eyes widen, and colleagues fight over who gets to take the camera out for a shoot,..."


And on inherent higher performance of larger sensor size:


"For the same f-number and shutter speed (or ‘focal plane exposure’), a larger sensor is exposed to more total light. The same light per unit area is projected by the lens, but the larger sensor has more area available capturing it. An image made with more light has less relative photon shot noise (the noise that results from the fact that light arrives randomly at the imaging plane). The more light you capture, the more you ‘average’ out these fluctuations, leading to a cleaner image."


He doesn't bother to point out that more will fit on the larger frame for a given magnification!


But he lets us know from the very start (if we didn't know) that this camera will be capable of doing things that a smaller sensor camera cannot.  So much so, that they are fighter over it at the office.  End of article, right?


Nooooooooo!  Rishi has to go and make the case for why you don't need more capability, instead of focusing on what the camera can do.  DPR split personality syndrome.  You get it every time!


DPR always gives you well informed facts.  I loved:


"And, no, the ‘but larger formats have more compression because you use longer focal length lenses for the same field-of-view’ argument is false. Just say no to the compression myth. For equivalent focal lengths/apertures, there's no extra compression."


I totally agree!  But it isn't long before he makes statements like:


"We’ve seen some 50MP files from the 5DS R paired with truly stellar lenses where we simply can’t imagine anything better, resolution-wise. In fact, at ~F5.6-6.2 equivalent, I'm not seeing a major resolution advantage of the medium format cameras over the full-frame cameras in our studio scene comparison tool, and the 50MP full-frame image below isn't exactly starved for resolution, is it?"



Which basically is a statement that could be used to argue anything, including that the Canon 5DS R is already a better camera than anyone could possibly need.


again, in case you missed it:

"we simply can’t imagine anything better, resolution-wise"


Even I don't say that, and and I don't really have the interest to processes huge sized images.  It doesn't mean that I don't want the choice of going to the highest resolution possible when I want to.


In fact, that's a game a lot of people play.  I have a friend who just sold his Canon 5DS R to get the 5D MK IV.  I agree that the MK iv is easier to use in everyday situations, and a good performer.  It's his decision.  I'd rather have the 5 DS R.  That's because for what I like shooting it is vastly superior, except when I don't need it, I can grab my 70D (when I get it fixed).  It is reasonably fast and light.  Or my T1i if light weight is the idea.  Well, that's just me.  But even though most of you would probably like the 5D MK iv better, at least I hope you wouldn't pretend that there is no reason to own a 5DS R!


One final little jab at DPR.  Don't get me wrong!  They provide great information!  But part of the syndrome is to do things like compare two different photos that look quite different and say, see:  Look, there is no difference!  Only...there is?  Does that not bother anybody? 


OK, Obicon...I took the bait!  Still, if I had that kind of money, I'd spend it on lenses and lighting.  Or better yet...learning how to use what I already have!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5