p.43 #1 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Schlotkins wrote:
That is a great shot - I guess for me I'd want something wider than the 25mm to shoot with. that's only 20mm on FF. I which there was a 20mm for that system and I'd get that, the 25mm, and the 28mm-45mm zoom.
I think Pentax said it was 19mm. But then they discontinued it........ Leica make a sweet 24mm for the S system but I don't think it's worth 10K for a 19mm equiv. I'll just stitch with the 30-90.
With the Fuji you *might* be able, eventually, to adapt a Canon 17mm TSE (if there's an auto diaphragm adaptor made. That and the 24mm would solve the wide angle issue. I'm not exactly sure if an adaptor will fit.
For the Pentax, I have a nodal slide and stitch. Unfortunately the nodal point on the Pentax lenses is almost at the front element so the camera hangs back a long way. And that's a long, long way with the humungous 28-45.
I've just been looking at the size comparisons posted on Fuji Rumors. Although very deceptive (leaving the hood and large eyecup on the Pentax but not the Fuji) the do illustrate the size difference quite well. I can get a 21.5-70mm equivalent with my Pentax using two zooms for 4kg plus accessories. Add the 120mm for another 780g and I've got 22-100 completely covered plus a macro for 5kg. I could carry an 80-160 but it needs to be stopped down to f11 before it's great in the corners.
It looks like the Fuji will save me 1.5 inches in length and 750 grams in weight for the body. No savings for the 120mm, which looks a bit bigger than the Pentax. The standard zooms look the same 25-50 vs 45-85 but I get a more useful 28-45mm.
there's already talk about heat issues with the Hasselblad. I'm concerned enough that I'm loosing a bit of excitement for it and the Fuji. Heat will certainly kill the IQ advantages of the larger sensor. And I know the Pentax doesn't suffer from heat issues. I don't always need long exposures but there's something nice about knowing there's not many limitations imposed by the camera.
A two shot nodal stitch using the 28-45mm lens. Auto stitched by Lightroom.
p.43 #2 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
sflxn wrote:
Wholeheartedly agree. It's a lot of money for the incremental improvements. I had a Hassy digital system before and got rid of it because I saw the rate of improvements in the Sony FF sensors. Now that MF are also using Sony sensors, it changes the calculation, but I still think the rate of change in the FF sensors will exceed the MF sensors, given the low volume. On balance, I still think the overall feature and quality of FF mirrorless will appeal more to me. While I want the Fuji, it doesn't make sense for me to maintain both systems simultaneously. The only thing lacking in the FF Sony right now is more speed and improved video, and I'm betting that's in the wings, maybe as soon as next year....Show more →
This is going to be a general issue for a lot of folks as I ran into it as well on MF limitations. It's going to be hard to get to one system like this(obviously depends on needs of course) as if you kind of shoot a lot of different subjects like if your a really wide shooter or long shooter. We will get limited by what lenses are out there so adapters will help. I had a 300 4.5 Mamiya lens that was pretty good but that was like a 190mm in 35 land , so not really long. Speed , AF all are going to play a role and you almost have to keep a 35 around. At least I do and financially that be kind of tough. I still need some kind of Sony for that kind of shooting. So I do think you have to think long and hard here if you do a lot of different style of shooting. So whatever the investment here is we may have to have that second system around as well. Which is going to limit a lot of us. Some folks not a worry as this may just fit on what they do. These are also not the easiest systems to shoot, although this Fuji looks pretty nice compared to the monster I had. I'm going to try and find my Credo 50 tests Raws and load them up with the same scene on my A7rIi. They are shot at completely different times but maybe give folks a idea as they are darn close. I know I have a standing shot of Big Bronco building to compare. I'll load them up in the morning, I'm doing my grandpa duties today. Lol
p.43 #3 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
True - could pano head it. But honestly, one could get a a7r II and put a Canon 17mm or 24mm TSE on it shift both ways to make a pano. With 10mm shifts horizontally with the camera in the vertical direction that would an equivalent sensor size of 44mm x 36mm. With full shits that would be 48mm x 36mm, which would yield the same noise and dynamic range benefits and resolution of 84mpx. Of course you'd lose some IQ on the edges but....
On the Nilkon, you'd probably end up with even more DR given whatever secret sauce Nikon came up with at ISO64.
I think for me, that is probably the way to go for now.
Chris
p.43 #4 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
You lose a lot on the edges though. It is only barely acceptable if stopping down to f/16 but then diffraction creeps in..
Schlotkins wrote:
True - could pano head it. But honestly, one could get a a7r II and put a Canon 17mm or 24mm TSE on it shift both ways to make a pano. With 10mm shifts horizontally with the camera in the vertical direction that would an equivalent sensor size of 44mm x 36mm. With full shits that would be 48mm x 36mm, which would yield the same noise and dynamic range benefits and resolution of 84mpx. Of course you'd lose some IQ on the edges but....
On the Nilkon, you'd probably end up with even more DR given whatever secret sauce Nikon came up with at ISO64.
I think for me, that is probably the way to go for now.
Chris ...Show more →
p.43 #6 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Schlotkins wrote:
Oh for sure I don't doubt that. I am definitely open to the Fuji option if the 23mm is good but for now that works for me.
Chris
I would be interested in their 23/4 and perhaps the TS-E 17/4 (as a 14mm equiv.) without using drastic movements. Perhaps +/- 3mm shift and/or 1 degree tilt. The other issue with the TS-E 17/4 is field curvature so we have to watch out for that.
p.43 #8 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
GMPhotography wrote:
That's exactly the question you have to ask yourself. Is it worth the extra 10,20,30 percent increase in IQ and do you need it or will in my case clients appreciate it. Plus add in the limitations . I'm a big fan of MF but you gotta need it folks. It's a big black hole. I have harder time saying yes you should get it. Things are closer than they ever where.
Depending on your final format (i.e. 1:1 or 4:3, etc.) you could be talking more than 30 percent increase (depending on how you define IQ).
p.43 #9 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Thank you Fred for the link. What i love about the GFX is the ability to customize the configuration. If you wish to have low/light profile just take off the view finder. The 50mm equivalent lens is small and relatively light so a great to go combination
p.43 #10 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
RustyBug wrote:
Depending on your final format (i.e. 1:1 or 4:3, etc.) you could be talking more than 30 percent increase (depending on how you define IQ).
I do like both 1:1 and 4:3 and the penalty for using them with a 3:2 sensor is significant. I like 3:2 as well but more flexibility is so nice. I really love this camera system and format for so many reasons You could basically say I'm going to shoot 1:1, 4:3 and 3:2 with little regard for anything but composition and have great results and I don't really feel that way on current 3:2 sensors. You give up a lot.
p.43 #11 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
charles.K wrote:
Thank you Fred for the link. What i love about the GFX is the ability to customize the configuration. If you wish to have low/light profile just take off the view finder. The 50mm equivalent lens is small and relatively light so a great to go combination
I'm almost certain they'll make a hybrid OVF/EVF VF for it eventually as well Given how well received and sold the 35/1.4 50 equiv was on X series and I'm sure this 63/2.8 should be something special too
p.43 #12 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Schlotkins wrote:
True - could pano head it. But honestly, one could get a a7r II and put a Canon 17mm or 24mm TSE on it shift both ways to make a pano. With 10mm shifts horizontally with the camera in the vertical direction that would an equivalent sensor size of 44mm x 36mm. With full shits that would be 48mm x 36mm, which would yield the same noise and dynamic range benefits and resolution of 84mpx. Of course you'd lose some IQ on the edges but....
I've done that test, in a totally non-scientific way and regardless of what any site like DXO might say the 645Z has at least a stop more DR than the A7R2. Maybe more. The A7R and A7R2 files are positively fragile next to the 645Z files which I have real trouble breaking. I expect Fuji will also be able to extract some goodness as Fuji is the only one who comes close to the Pentax in colour niceness as far as I'm concerned.
I don't know how they do it. But when I've shot the A7R2 and Pentax 645Z side by side the larger sensor just has better colour retention, graduation and DR than the smaller chip. This includes vertical stitch shots with the Canon 24mm TSE on the Sony to get the same sensor size. That test cost me 17 grand.
p.43 #13 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
rbf_ wrote:
I'm almost certain they'll make a hybrid OVF/EVF VF for it eventually as well Given how well received and sold the 35/1.4 50 equiv was on X series and I'm sure this 63/2.8 should be something special too
How do you expect they'll add an OVF to a camera with no mechanism for it? It'll be a hotshot finder maybe.
p.43 #14 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
flash wrote:
How do you expect they'll add an OVF to a camera with no mechanism for it? It'll be a hotshot finder maybe.
Gordon
It might be possible to arrange an OVF/EVF accessory finder, something like the hybrid VF on the X-Pro. The RF would have to be electronically linked instead of mechanically, but I think that's how the X-Pro works as well. I'm not sure it would be comfortable, though, since the back of the camera sticks out considerably behind the top plate. And for it to be comfortable, it would have to be excessively large.
p.43 #15 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
flash wrote:
How do you expect they'll add an OVF to a camera with no mechanism for it? It'll be a hotshot finder maybe.
Gordon
That's exactly what I meant, in the hotshoe just like the EVF. In fact due to form factor constraints they needed to make the EVF smaller than the X-Tx in the X-Pro camera's but with a modular external interface would be free of that restriction They also have to make a fixed angle of view in a camera internal OVF and it's set at 16mm which makes the bright line box very small at longer focal lengths. I still find the OVF/EVF very useful at longer focal lengths myself particularly when the subject is moving and easy to lose track of so I don't always use it in the more traditional way. With an external VF they could make different choices depending on the uses people find for it. I could see it being useful in the studio, for low light events and for fast moving subjects with longer lenses myself
Note, I don't come from a rangefinder background myself. Fuji X series is the first exposure to rangefinders I've had so I may have non standard views regarding their usage.
p.43 #16 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
I'd like to see an OVF / EVF ... but, I think they've already made their bed on this one and it'll be EVF all the way.
+1 @ tonality / gradation for larger pixels.
While very arcane by today's standards of higher ISO, etc. the colors / files of the SLR/C especially when used with the relaxed (rates of transition) optics of MF glass have had a diff that I've liked. In that regard, it may not be ONLY the larger sensor / larger pixels, but in concert with the optical projection associated with the larger image circle / distance to the film plane that render the files diff. Kinda like raising / lowering the head on an enlarger.
I tend to think that folks focus exceedingly on the pixels, sometimes forgetting the impact of the glass (and distance to the film plane @ closer vs. farther) @ the quality of the optical projection. For tonality / gradation ... relaxed and more distant glass seems to hold some benefit to tonality / gradation while faster transitioning and closer glass can yield the more contrasty vibe.
In your comparison of the Pentax 645 to the Sony A7R ... did you ever get a chance to use the same glass (i.e. adapted Pentax glass) on each?
p.43 #17 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Schlotkins wrote:
On the Nilkon, you'd probably end up with even more DR given whatever secret sauce Nikon came up with at ISO64.
ISO 64 with an accompanied increase in dynamic range can mean only one thing: increased well depth (number of photons a pixel can receive before becoming saturated). The well depth is an intrinsic property of the sensor, it's not like Nikon found some clever way to tweak it for extra performance, so the credit belongs to Sony.
It sounds like the d810 sensor is a generation 4 Exmor:
"With the first [three] generations of Exmor technology addressing the pixel/sensor noise issue, it only seemed natural that the fourth generation Exmor technology addresses the NIR sensitivity by introducing deeper pixel wells to help capture these longer wavelengths. Not only do deeper pixel wells provide a higher dynamic range of pixel values that can be achieved, i.e. could capture and hold more electron data before saturating, it also increased the chances of detecting longer wavelength photons in the deep red to NIR range"
Whereas the A7RII sensor is a generation 5 Exmor R, which was based on generation 3:
"When Sony created their first sensors with the Exmor R technology, they based it on the third generation’s pixel well depth. Though these sensors showed a dramatic improvement in sensitivity and responsiveness in the visible spectrum, they did not have the same performance in the NIR spectrum as was previously seen with other Exmor fourth generation based sensors."
p.43 #18 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
RustyBug wrote:
I'd like to see an OVF / EVF ... but, I think they've already made their bed on this one and it'll be EVF all the way.
Difficult for me to imagine that they'd go through the trouble to create a modular VF, hotshoe interface and protocol for communicating with the camera body and then not innovate and release new accesories that use that interface after version 1.0 product. Particularly with regard to hybrid OVF/EVF that they pioneered... And that is partly the engineer in me speaking but also how I feel after using the OVF/EVF in the XP2. For me after using the XP2 OVF/EVF it would be a very big feature. I don't view the OVF/EVF as being only useful for under 90mm traditional candid photography as some associate it with. I'm finding it useful in a variety of ways myself I also don't view the OVF/EVF as something that needs to be wedded to the rangefinder style body, I think it's useful in it's own right as a VF
I think it might be even more useful with that 44x33 sensor that would at least encourage me to try and shoot in 1:1, 3:2 and 4:3 with less worry about sacrificing too much image quality. An OVF would be useful for analyzing the scene and choosing a composition if one were trying to think in different aspect ratios. A different take on 'seeing outside the frame' perhaps... maybe it would be modified to 'seeing outside the frame(s)'
p.43 #19 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
flash wrote:
I've done that test, in a totally non-scientific way and regardless of what any site like DXO might say the 645Z has at least a stop more DR than the A7R2. Maybe more. The A7R and A7R2 files are positively fragile next to the 645Z files which I have real trouble breaking. I expect Fuji will also be able to extract some goodness as Fuji is the only one who comes close to the Pentax in colour niceness as far as I'm concerned.
I don't know how they do it. But when I've shot the A7R2 and Pentax 645Z side by side the larger sensor just has better colour retention, graduation and DR than the smaller chip. This includes vertical stitch shots with the Canon 24mm TSE on the Sony to get the same sensor size. That test cost me 17 grand.
p.43 #20 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
freaklikeme wrote:
It might be possible to arrange an OVF/EVF accessory finder, something like the hybrid VF on the X-Pro. The RF would have to be electronically linked instead of mechanically, but I think that's how the X-Pro works as well. I'm not sure it would be comfortable, though, since the back of the camera sticks out considerably behind the top plate. And for it to be comfortable, it would have to be excessively large.
Since they already have a hotshoe communication protocol for talking to the modular EVF I think they could do the same thing. The could perhaps put a loupe on it to have it extend back like on the EVF. I would like to see this myself
You could basically say I'm going to shoot 1:1, 4:3 and 3:2 with little regard for anything but composition and have great results and I don't really feel that way on current 3:2 sensors. You give up a lot.
In your comparison of the Pentax 645 to the Sony A7R ... did you ever get a chance to use the same glass (i.e. adapted Pentax glass) on each?