p.23 #1 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Good job Fuji!!
Liking what they are announcing. Especially since a 23mm is up there. This screams landscape photography and having a good wide out the gate is a must.
p.23 #2 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Why not portriat? The MF dof and math related ot it is superior.
People see more megapix and go ga ga when the megapixel is an illusion of quality.
jhinkey wrote:
Ooohhh, the landscape photographer in me is very interested if it's not too bulky, not too heavy, and possibly can allow adaptation of other medium format lenses.
Cost, well, that's going to be very interesting how they price it to compete.
p.23 #3 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
80mpxl camera to post on the web ballin
naturephoto1 wrote:
The Fuji, like the Hassleblad sound interesting, but as I have mentioned previously, I am waiting for the rumored Sony A7rIII or A9 with the 70-80 MP sensor. It will be interesting to find out how the Medium Format cameras with the 50 MP compare with the FF 70-80 MP sensor for performance.
p.23 #4 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
gdanmitchell wrote:
1. My 51MP full frame system can already produce very, very high quality large prints. Yes, there is a difference between photographs on a full frame sensor system and photographs made on the slightly larger mini-MF sensor cameras, but it is far less than some might think. (I've compared large prints from both, produced by a master printer.)
Dan
You will see around 2.5 stops geater dynamic range from this Fuji (going by what the same sensor does in the Pentax 645z) vs a Canon 5Ds(r). That's a difference that would be noticeable - and usable- to me for landscape use.
p.23 #7 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Matt Grum wrote:
I see this a lot, but what sort of landscape shots are people shooting at 14mm on FF? It seems like you would get a huge amount of the ground by your feet, and the picturesque mountains in the distance would come out tiny!
I do almost all of my landscape photography at 35mm, 50mm or longer!
I shoot almost all my landscapes with 24-105 and I'm usually no shorter than 35mm. But I think that is the nature of the landscapes here in CO. BIG scenes, where if anything you are trying to pull the mountains closer and use something in the intermediate distances for scale and depth. Wider shots are usually to include some framing elements- like trees on the side of a small pond that is reflecting the mountain in the distance. The only time I pulled my 17-40 out and needed it was for a double rainbow over Lake Jackson by the Tetons.
If you are shooting in the woods- streams and trails and with stuff rarely in the background, then I can see the need for wider. I'm usually trying to compress, not extend distances.
That is why the zoom here is wrong for most of what I do. I understand why they did it. A wide zoom is more useful and then longer primes.
ETA: I took a Fielder class and out of 1431 shots with my 24-105, only 230 were below 35mm. The most used FL was 105, though 24mm was a close distant second. I used my 70-200 4x as often as my 17-40. That was shooting around Telluride in the fall.
p.23 #8 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Matt Grum wrote:
I see this a lot, but what sort of landscape shots are people shooting at 14mm on FF? It seems like you would get a huge amount of the ground by your feet, and the picturesque mountains in the distance would come out tiny!
The notion that landscape photography is largely wide angle photography is one of those elements of the common knowledge that is simply quite often not the case. Most of the landscape photographers I know (and most of the landscape photographs I'm familiar with) more typically use lenses (to use a common way of explaining) more like the 24-70mm or 70-200mm range.
I carry up to four lenses when I'm shooting landscape. With my full frame system they are 16-35mm (formerly 17-40mm), 24-70mm (or could be 24-105mm), 70-100mm, and 100-400mm. Of all of them, the 16-35 is by far my least used.
I think that one explanation for the emphasis on ultra wide lenses comes from the classic, icon "near-far" landscape photograph of some intimate subject (a flower, plant, rock) in the foreground with some more distant subject (mountain peak, clouds) in the distance, a subject for which the ultra wide is often useful.
One of my issues (as explained more in an earlier post) for my landscape photography is that the lenses I most use (in the 24-200mm range, but also longer) are simply not easily available for the Fujifilm system at this point — so I could only use it for a small subset of my photography.
That doesn't mean it isn't a very interesting system, that I'm uninterested, that it might be perfect for someone else, or that I think it can't or won't succeed.
Dan
Sep 20, 2016 at 12:42 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.23 #9 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Matt Grum wrote:
Ah but there's plenty of scope to reduce QE (or sensitivity in general, hence if I saw a sensor announced with ISO 12 or 25 I would be sceptical...
Not with the lenses currently available for MF, if you want shallower depth of field for portraits 35mm is better.
Matt if you shoot portraits at an aspect ration of 4 to 3 or squarer (such as 4 to 5 for an 8 X 10 or 16 X 20), then the crop factor for FF 35mm compared to this mini MF is 1.38X. So the Fuji 110 f/2 will be very similar in effective focal length and depth of field to an 80mm f/1.4 lens on 35mm FF. The FF 35mm will still have the slightest advantage, but it may well be within the rounding range of how aperture is reported, and sure there are a couple 85mm f/1.2 lenses for FF 35mm, but the Fuji 110 for portraits will be very very close in creating depth of field for portraits to what you can get on FF 35mm at least if you crop to most typical framing ratios for portraits.
p.23 #11 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
Matt if you shoot portraits at an aspect ration of 4 to 3 or squarer (such as 4 to 5 for an 8 X 10 or 16 X 20), then the crop factor for FF 35mm compared to this mini MF is 1.38X. So the Fuji 110 f/2 will be very similar in effective focal length and depth of field to an 80mm f/1.4 lens on 35mm FF. The FF 35mm will still have the slightest advantage, but it may well be within the rounding range of how aperture is reported, and sure there are a couple 85mm f/1.2 lenses for FF 35mm, but the Fuji 110 for portraits will be very very close in creating depth of field for portraits to what you can get on FF 35mm at least if you crop to most typical framing ratios for portraits....Show more →
Hi Steve,
Now with the announcement of the to be released Fujifilm camera, do you intend to still go forward with your preorder of the new Hassselblad or are you now rethinking this purchase?
p.23 #12 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Seriously don't know what to do here =(. This system looks amazing for one thing, but i know Capture One isn't gonna support it which i use 100% percent of the time. Also there isn't any Leaf Shutters yet.
This system is pretty much a much smaller Pentax 645z which I had the same problem with.
p.23 #13 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
Matt if you shoot portraits at an aspect ration of 4 to 3 or squarer (such as 4 to 5 for an 8 X 10 or 16 X 20), then the crop factor for FF 35mm compared to this mini MF is 1.38X. So the Fuji 110 f/2 will be very similar in effective focal length and depth of field to an 80mm f/1.4 lens on 35mm FF. The FF 35mm will still have the slightest advantage, but it may well be within the rounding range of how aperture is reported, and sure there are a couple 85mm f/1.2 lenses for FF 35mm, but the Fuji 110 for portraits will be very very close in creating depth of field for portraits to what you can get on FF 35mm at least if you crop to most typical framing ratios for portraits....Show more →
The point I was addressing was that "MF offers shallower depth of field" - being close (but still worse) at exactly one focal length, whilst not getting anywhere near at other lengths such as 50mm f/0.95, 105mm f/1.4 doesn't really equate to "better" in my book.
I'm not saying the system is inadequate for portraits, far from it, it's just not "better" when "better" is defined as shallower depth of field.
p.23 #14 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Matt Grum wrote:
I see this a lot, but what sort of landscape shots are people shooting at 14mm on FF? It seems like you would get a huge amount of the ground by your feet, and the picturesque mountains in the distance would come out tiny!
I do almost all of my landscape photography at 35mm, 50mm or longer!
One popular use for a 14mm lens would be night photography and aurora. Utramega-wide gives you dramatic skies and sweeping foregrounds. Every focal length has a use depending on subject and style.
Sep 20, 2016 at 01:10 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.23 #15 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
naturephoto1 wrote:
Hi Steve,
Now with the announcement of the to be released Fujifilm camera, doyou intend to still go forward with your preorder of the new Hassselblad or are you now rethinking this purchase?
Rich
Very good question Rich. I am looking at this Fuji camera closely, so we will see as I learn more about it. Right now the Fuji looks a bit big for my taste and I prefer the built in EVF to an add on one, but how well it functions is really most important. As usual Fuji has put together a strong set of lenses. I think the 23/45/63/110 would make a great set of lenses. That said, I think I would personally prefer the Hassy 90 to the Fuji 63. I like lenses that are a bit longer than normal. I think I would also prefer the leaf shutters with the Hassy system than the focal plane shutter of the Fuji system. A lot will depend on what the Fuji camera weighs. I am guessing about 900g but if it was substantially lighter that may sway me in that direction, and for me I am going to count weight with the EVF attached. I suspect one reason they made the EVF detachable was so that the weight looked lower. I already know I much prefer the form factor of the Hassy, but I will continue to give both of them a serious look.
p.23 #16 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
One potential advantage of a larger format (though everyone needs to keep in mind that "mini MF" 33mm x 44mm is not that much larger than full frame!) is that it can provide a greater range of usage aperture options and potentially more control of DOF. (Note that "more control of" is not the same as "more.")
While acknowledging that in many cases the maximum aperture available may be smaller with larger format system lenses, one can use smaller apertures with less effect from diffraction blur in the final print at a given size. So while you might avoid using, say, f/22 on a full frame system in most cases, you could use it with less concern on a mini MF system.
(Many reading this will already understand, but others should be cautious about extending this to be equivalent to things said about "real" medium format systems, which typically were larger-to-much-larger than mini MF.)
Dan
Matt Grum wrote:
The point I was addressing was that "MF offers shallower depth of field" - being close (but still worse) at exactly one focal length, whilst not getting anywhere near at other lengths such as 50mm f/0.95, 105mm f/1.4 doesn't really equate to "better" in my book.
I'm not saying the system is inadequate for portraits, far from it, it's just not "better" when "better" is defined as shallower depth of field.
p.23 #18 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
gdanmitchell wrote:
One potential advantage of a larger format (though everyone needs to keep in mind that "mini MF" 33mm x 44mm is not that much larger than full frame!) is that it can provide a greater range of usage aperture options
While acknowledging that in many cases the maximum aperture available may be smaller with larger format system lenses, one can use smaller apertures with less effect from diffraction blur in the final print at a given size.
You can use a smaller aperture on the MF system before diffraction becomes apparent but you gain less from stopping down in terms of depth of field, so ultimately you end up back where you started - there's no advantage to a larger sensor when it comes to diffraction.
If your 0.7x crop medium format lens goes from f/2.8 to f/32 and your 135 lens goes from f/2.0 to f/22 you have the same range of apertures, and the same DOF options.
p.23 #20 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
Very good question Rich. I am looking at this Fuji camera closely, so we will see as I learn more about it. Right now the Fuji looks a bit big for my taste and I prefer the built in EVF to an add on one, but how well it functions is really most important. As usual Fuji has put together a strong set of lenses. I think the 23/45/63/110 would make a great set of lenses. That said, I think I would personally prefer the Hassy 90 to the Fuji 63. I like lenses that are a bit longer than normal. I think I would also prefer the leaf shutters with the Hassy system than the focal plane shutter of the Fuji system. A lot will depend on what the Fuji camera weighs. I am guessing about 900g but if it was substantially lighter that may sway me in that direction, and for me I am going to count weight with the EVF attached. I suspect one reason they made the EVF detachable was so that the weight looked lower. I already know I much prefer the form factor of the Hassy, but I will continue to give both of them a serious look. ...Show more →
Hi Steve,
I also wonder about the possiblity of the 100 MP sensor for each platform and whether both companies will offer such a camera. I think that someplace in this thread that Fuji had suggested such a camera in the future. Whether that were to come to pass and also whether Hasselblad might do the same would cause someone toput in even more thought. However if either or both do offer such a camera in the future, making a decision based upon such a future camera would force someone to sit on the sidelines for sometime.
ballin