p.30 #1 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
naturephoto1 wrote:
Hi Brad,
I am just going to have to make due with my lowely Rodenstock 50mm f2.8 Apo Rodagon N and Rodenstock 55mm f4.5 Apo Sironar lenses on my A7r/Cambo Actus since I do not have the Rodenstock 60mm HR lens at the present.
p.30 #3 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
freaklikeme wrote:
How's the 55 working out, Rich?
Hi Brad,
I have only run some tests on the 55 at f8 and f11 primarily out my Kitchen backdoor for distance shots and in my kitchen for much closer images. Once I get my focus nailed, the lens looks to be extremely sharp pretty much across the board both at distance and relatively close up. Obviously there is some loss as you shift the lens but even shifted as much as 20mm left and right at distance the lens looks good.
I have to get out and do some shooting now with the whole set-up now that it is starting to cool down and we are not into those 90 to 95 degree days at least as much.
Also, Cambo was able to modify my Cambo Actus Leica R lens board (at no charge) so that I can now use my Leica R 28mm f2.8 Super Angulon PC lens. Cambo now knows how to modify the lens adapter for anyone else using this lens. Again this lens requires precise focus and I have to test the lens more in the shifted postion to find out the extent of the reported CA and how much Pin Cushion (I believe) distortion that some have noted. The lens should be used at f11 for this usage and I need to remember to adjust the lens focus depending upon the approximate focus distance due to the FLE.
p.30 #4 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
rscheffler wrote:
My feeling looking at Fuji Jpegs over the years is there is a lot going on in-camera...
Given this camera and its target audience, I wonder how many will shoot Jpeg-only? It's the only way to take advantage of the in-camera LMO feature (or convert raw files in-camera). Admittedly, of all the brands, Fuji's Jpegs are some of the best...
Considering also that this camera appears to be non X-Trans CFA, is it possible Fuji is expecting users will be more likely to rely on 3rd party raw converters in their workflow...?
I've been shooting raw+jpeg exclusively, one to each slot so I can share photo's quickly with friends and develop the raw's when I have time. But you don't have to you can always create jpeg's later from the raw's using the in camera raw converter and it's the same as if you had shot just a jpeg, you get LMO and all that stuff. Ideally these new algorithms would make it into raw converters proper so you could have the best of both worlds but that's probably going to take a business agreement between Fuji and the software vendors.
p.30 #6 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
gdanmitchell wrote:
For my part, I think that moving away from x-trans if probably just fine. I don't have any issues with the x-trans sensors on my other Fujifilm cameras, but in my experience the advantages are not really significant. It may have some effect on diminishing the potential for visible aliasing effects, but frankly I don't have a problem with that using non-x-trans sensors either. (I shoot another system that also does do AA filtering and that has a traditional Beyer design.)
Considering the reasons that almost everyone cites for their interest in miniMF systems like this one, it is difficult to imagine that any significant number of folks will forego shooting in raw mode.
You can actually create the jpeg's after the fact from the raw using the in camera raw converter and get the same effects. I didn't realize that with my XE1 because I was shooting raw only because the camera was a bit slow and I was using smaller slower cards at the time. It's actually pretty neat when you want a quick jpeg to share you can just create one or more on the fly in camera
p.30 #8 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
rbf_ wrote:
Specifically a Canon EF mount adapter?
No, I can't see any reason to think that Canon lenses, designed for full frame coverage, would be that useful. I'm thinking more of existing MF lenses from other manufacturers. I already have one Pentax MF lens that I use on FF with a Mirex adapter.
p.30 #9 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
I think the EF mount adapter was largely referring to targeting the TS-E lineup with its larger image circle.
But also, even though the image circle of many FF may not go to fully cover 44x33 in many cases, it would still go closer to 33 x 33, since it covers 36 x 24. Much better to have 33 x 33 (or even 30 x 30) than 24 x 24 to get 1:1.
That puts it somewhere between the old 127 (30 x 30) and Super 127 (38 x 38) slide format capability.
That said, holders of MF glass (I've got my share of 645 lenses) are poised to enjoy their fav glass on the larger sensor.
This is the camera i have been looking for if i can mate the tse lenses that i have.
Great link !! This answers many questions I had and it just gets better I like the fact that you take off the EVF and just use the LCD if you want a low profile body.
p.30 #11 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
gdanmitchell wrote:
No, I can't see any reason to think that Canon lenses, designed for full frame coverage, would be that useful. I'm thinking more of exiting MF lenses from other manufacturers. I already have one Pentax MF lens that I use on FF with a Mirex adapter.
Dan
A crop may be useful?? I wonder how System V Hasselblad lenses will work with this system...
p.30 #14 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
The more information that becomes available on the GFX 50s, the more I realise Fuji have embraced what photographers want at least in this miniMF format.
I think what is so exciting is the design/style and feel resonates with so many photographers.
p.30 #17 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
My general feeling is the one gets miniMF because he/she wants better image quality of one sort or another. For this reason, I don't quite get the idea of considering the use of FF lenses that may compromise resolution and/or light transmission near the corners of the 33 x 44 frame.
p.30 #18 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
only until we tried to know. I know 80mm summilux will cover this sensor, and by judge OTUS corner performance and vignette profile, it mostly will cover as well. The big merit of FF lens is speed.
If we were solely talking about MF lens, then I'd just buy OEM ones as they are way smaller and faster or about same speed most likely with better performance.
gdanmitchell wrote:
My general feeling is the one gets miniMF because he/she wants better image quality of one sort or another. For this reason, I don't quite get the idea of considering the use of FF lenses that may compromise resolution and/or light transmission near the corners of the 33 x 44 frame.
p.30 #20 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
It seems like the Zeiss 135mm f/2 has a chance. According to a bit of info I found on Diglloyd, the 135mm vignettes less than 1 stop at 33x44mm sensor's corner at f/5.6.
