Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Holy moly ... Fujifilm GFX 100 ... 100mp ...
#21
Talking about focus peaking and image magnification... well, the peaking DOES work together with magnification. And the DOF is not that shallow as the GF lenses are actually slower than many FF lenses. So the DOF is really not much different from the 35 mm FF.

I do not understand why someone claims that the absence of AA filter is a drawback. For me, it is an advantage. And I do not think that this sharpness is "fake". Probably this is the quality of GF lenses that impressed me more than the sensor itself, but 1) I used top lenses on FF, including ones like Zeiss Otus 85/1.4. And 2) That's not only about resolution. Tonal grades and colors on the GFX seem to me much deeper than any Canon FF (including 5DSr) and Nikon D850.

The only problem - you really see the difference only when viewing the image without resize, in full resolution, either on screen or even better when printing photos.

And, you know, I've been an OVF advocate for many years, I even thought I would never switch to mirrorless. I still prefer OVF in many cases, but systems like the GFX and Leica SL made me change my mind. Modern EVFs are really amazing. And it is great to have the posibility, for example, to view your image alrealy in black & white in your EVF.

I've been shooting Canon for over 20 years, first film and then digital APS-C, FF. 5D, 5D Mk II, 1Dx. Fuji X system did not impress me that much, I did not appreciate the x-trans sensor. However, their latest APS-C cameras are great for video. But when I first tried the GFX... I sold almost all my Canon gear immediately, except TS-E lenses that I am planning to use on GFX. This system is a game changer for me.
#22
(01-29-2019, 08:30 PM)Skillividden Wrote: Talking about focus peaking and image magnification... well, the peaking DOES work together with magnification. And the DOF is not that shallow as the GF lenses are actually slower than many FF lenses. So the DOF is really not much different from the 35 mm FF.

I do not understand why someone claims that the absence of AA filter is a drawback. For me, it is not. And I do not think that this sharpness is "fake". Probably this is the quality of GF lenses that impressed me more than the sensor itself, but 1) I used top lenses on FF, including ones like Zeiss Otus 85/1.4. And 2) That's not only about resolution. Tonal grades and colors on the GFX seem to me much deeper than any Canon FF (including 5DSr) and Nikon D850.

The only problem - you really see the difference only when viewing the image without resize, in full resolution, either on screen or even better when printing photos.

From what I've seen, GFX lenses really are that good. I've never been really impressed by any of the Otus (Otii? What's the plural?) but what Fuji has done with the GFX lenses is really on another level. I've never seen many lenses that are so good in so many different areas. Most of them are tack sharp AND their rendering is quite beautiful at the same time. Two things that really don't go hand in hand.

But then the build quality is not that great and the 63/2.8 (The first lens I'd buy) has hilariously bad AF. What were they even thinking when they released that thing?
#23
(01-29-2019, 08:30 PM)Skillividden Wrote: Talking about focus peaking and image magnification... well, the peaking DOES work together with magnification. And the DOF is not that shallow as the GF lenses are actually slower than many FF lenses. So the DOF is really not much different from the 35 mm FF.

I do not understand why someone claims that the absence of AA filter is a drawback. For me, it is an advantage. And I do not think that this sharpness is "fake". Probably this is the quality of GF lenses that impressed me more than the sensor itself, but 1) I used top lenses on FF, including ones like Zeiss Otus 85/1.4. And 2) That's not only about resolution. Tonal grades and colors on the GFX seem to me much deeper than any Canon FF (including 5DSr) and Nikon D850.

The only problem - you really see the difference only when viewing the image without resize, in full resolution, either on screen or even better when printing photos.

And, you know, I've been an OVF advocate for many years, I even thought I would never switch to mirrorless. I still prefer OVF in many cases, but systems like the GFX and Leica SL made me change my mind. Modern EVFs are really amazing. And it is great to have the posibility, for example, to view your image alrealy in black & white in your EVF.

I've been shooting Canon for over 20 years, first film and then digital APS-C, FF. 5D, 5D Mk II, 1Dx. Fuji X system did not impress me that much, I did not appreciate the x-trans sensor. However, their latest APS-C cameras are great for video. But when I first tried the GFX... I sold almost all my Canon gear immediately, except TS-E lenses that I am planning to use on GFX. This system is a game changer for me.

If you think that the lack of AA-filter is a good thing, and that the resulting "sharpness" is not fake, there are 2 possibilities (not mutual exclusive):
  1. You never actually read up about what an AA-filter is, WHY it is, what its function is, what the science of sampling and the reason for the need to filter aliasing is. Your thought on this then is based on ignorance.
  2. You must think that the world somehow magically aligns to a/any grid of square elements, the world magically aligns those elements' arbitrary borders.
If you just put any thought into it (you obviously have not), you would get that edges in the world don't magically align perfectly to edges of pixels. You would get that transitions don't always go so abrupt as the edges of pixels dictate. So, if you put even ANY thought into this, you would get why you get false detail and fake sharpness just because of the nature of the grid of square pixels. Without even having to go to the trouble to try and understand sampling theory, without even to have read up on the Nyquist-Shannon theorem.

But then again, apparently ignorance is bliss...

All that being said, it is of course fine to like the oversharpened aliased look of the GFX or other AA-filter-less cameras. That does not mean that you get a free pass on not understanding basic facts.
#24
 I read Skillividden's post............quite an impressive CV in terms of user experience and knowledge!.........also nice to hear different views other than  our own!


 ......absolutely nothing leads me to believe this gentleman is ignorant!

        
Dave's clichés
#25
Nothing leads you to believe he is ignorant about aliasing? Really?
#26
(01-29-2019, 08:50 PM)obican Wrote:  the 63/2.8 (The first lens I'd buy) has hilariously bad AF. What were they even thinking when they released that thing?

Excuse my ignorance (however at least I recon it) how can a mirrorless lens have focus issues ? Is it spherical aberrations ? Focus shift when stepping down ?
#27
(01-30-2019, 07:24 PM)toni-a Wrote:
(01-29-2019, 08:50 PM)obican Wrote:  the 63/2.8 (The first lens I'd buy) has hilariously bad AF. What were they even thinking when they released that thing?

Excuse my ignorance (however at least I recon it) how can a mirrorless lens have focus issues ? Is it spherical aberrations ? Focus shift when stepping down ?

It is slow and noisy. Sounds and feels like a Canon EF 50/1.8 II. Yet it costs 1500$.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)