Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.60 #5 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499) | |
Matt Grum wrote:
I've finally caught up on this thread, here's my current thoughts on the GFX.
Firstly it's a great price for a 44x33 sensor, but still a pretty tough sell all in all. For example when upgrading from APS-C to 35mm you get:
The same flexibility (shooting/AF speed, sync speed, features, choice of lenses and accessories)
More depth of field control
Greater sensor resolution
Larger sensor
However when moving from 35mm to the new Fuji GFX you get
Less flexibility
Less depth of field control
The same resolution
Larger sensor
So all you're getting is a larger sensor, and you have to make some tradeoffs to get there. Not only that but the increase in sensor height/width is modest compared to going from APS-C to 35mm:
1.22x - 1.38x (depending on your preference for aspect ratio) compared with 1.5x - 1.6x.
When talking area you're potentially getting 156% more area when upgrading from APS-C but as little as 49% more upgrading from 35mm.
I also think too much is being made of the sensor size. In theory a larger sensor offers greater resolution (but only if the sensor is up to the job) and reduced lens aberrations, but I don't believe there is any sort of special look that kicks in when you move past 36x24mm - an excellent lens for 35mm ought to produce an image that is preferable in every way to a poor lens on medium format.
Try this thought experiment: what happens if you don't like the composition of your Fuji GFX image and you crop 10% of each side. Does the "medium format look" promptly vanish, because you are using an area of the sensor no larger than 35mm?
If sensor size really was the be-all and end-all then you could get a complete PhaseOne P45+ outfit (camera, back and lens) for less money than the Fuji GFX kit and then you'd have a larger sensor (as well as the 16 bit RAWs people yearn for so they can record the read noise with greater accuracy).
---------------------------------------------
Having said that if you can afford it and none of the cons apply to you then why not. It ought to produce the best image quality of any camera in that price range (albeit not by that much).
I'm still following with interest, as I could afford it if there was some compelling reason other than sensor size. Maybe the EVF is awesome, or they come out with a particularly desirable lens. Adapting to a technical camera sure seems attractive, and then there's the possibility of adapting Canon tilt-shift lenses (I did some calculations earlier in the thread and you should still be able to get a reasonable amount of shift (again the sensor is not that much larger) using only the area used by 35mm sensors, and a really useful amount of shift if you make full use of the reported 67mm image circle of the TS-E 24mm f/3.5 II)....Show more →
Matt, there are two big reasons and one smaller reason I am interested in miniMF. I think the biggest thing that miniMF offers that FF 35mm does not is the ability to have fast sync speeds with leaf shutters. The Hassy X1D clearly has this for all the lenses the are currently compatible--all the H lenses and the three new X lenses. The Fuji will be able to use the H lenses as well--albeit without AF and with "only" 1/800th max flash sync. Neither of those are too big of an issue for me, so I am becoming my interested in the Fuji. There really isn't nearly that capability with anything for FF 35mm.
The second big reason is using the camera as a technical view camera. It looks like you will be able to use the Fuji and the Cambo Actus or a 4 X 5 view camera to set up a nice technical view camera with lots of movements and extensions. For me this is important as I want to add movements to expand my macro and landscape work. And here I might even get some added depth of field flexibility. For example, I think I have a not unreasonable hope, that my Zeiss Milvus 135 f/2 APO will cover the image circle of the the Fuji GFX with good quality into the macro range (at least 1: 2). If it does, and I crop 4 X 3 or squarer (as I almost always do for macro), then it will be basically the equivalent of a 100mm f/1.5 on FF 35mm with what is likely to be excellent sharpness, micro contrast, and color correction. Now I can shoot this lens on the Cambo Actus as a 135mm f/2 with the Sony A7rII as the camera, and it will still be excellent as a macro lens, but I think I will get a bit more out of it with the Fuji and have some capabilities I don't have. It might not hold up as it covers the wider image circle and it might deteriorate with the close focus I am thinking about, but I think my hope is not unreasonable that it might be excellent. Similarly, people like Lee who has a Leica R 180 f/2 APO might be really interested in using that lens on the Fuji GFX at portrait distances. Again I think it is not unreasonable to hope for full coverage of the image circle with a lens that long and again cropped to 4 X 3 or squarer a 135 f/1.4 equivalent sounds mighty interesting.
For landscapes, I am imagining a kit with the Rodenstock 23 f/5.6 Digaron (19 f/4.6 equiv, assuming skinnier rectangle aspect ratio), the 35 f/4.5 APO-Sironar (29 f/3.7 equiv), the 55 f/4.5 APO-Sironar (45 f/3.7 equiv), the 105 f/5.6 APO-Sironar (86 f/4.6), the 210 f/5.6 APO-Sironar-S (173 f/4.6 equiv), and the 480 f/8.4 APO-Sironar-S (395 f/6.9) large format lenses and pairing those lenses with the Cambo Actus or a 4 X 5 view camera (you would need a long bellows for the 480). That is pretty good coverage from the equivalent of 19mm f/4.6 to 400 f/6.8 and all with movements and lots of room for tilt and shift, and this kit isn't that heavy because these large format lenses are for their focal lengths tiny (e.g., the 105 f/5.6 APO-Sironar weighs just 170g). Again, you could shoot these on the Cambo Actus with the FF 35mm camera, but they lose some of their mojo. Here even the modestly bigger sensor size I think will be noticeable.
My third smaller reason for preferring the miniMF is a personal preference. Except for landscapes, I prefer the 4 X 3 aspect ratio for most of my shooting, and even for landscapes (especially for the kit above, it is easy to get a 3 X 2 or even a bit skinnier by taking two 4 X 3 shots side by side using shift. Not everyone will share my preference here, but it does factor into my thinking.
So, if we return to your characterization. It is definitely true that the miniMF will have less flexibility as you call it. For not and the foreseeable future miniMF is likely to be slower in operation and AF and fps, and lens availability than FF 35mm (although with leaf shutters it will have much better flash sync speed). If you want a camera to capture action, then miniMF probably won't be for you now or in the foreseeable future. Depth of field control, I think is much more debatable. The Fuji will have a native lens with pretty much the capability of a 85 f/1.4 when shot in a 4 X 3 or squarer aspect ratio. I think some 135mm (FF 35mm) lenses will be useable on the Fuji and they will provide ultra fast 100mm equivalents. The 180/200mm (FF 35mm) f/2 lenses will likely be useable as ultra fast 135mm lenses, and even something like the Olympus OM 250 f/2 would provide some great depth of field control. It is likely the 80 f/2 lenses for medium format will even work on the Fuji giving a (58 f/1.4 FF 35mm equivalent). It is only when you get wider than normal that FF 35mm will get noticeably better depth of field control than miniMF. That is provided you can be happy with manual focus lenses. If you can I don't think it is correct to say that you have more depth of field control with FF 35mm, if anything there is a slight advantage to miniMF. Next you won't get much greater sensor resolution than the Canon 5Ds(r) or even the Sony A7rII (and FF 35mm might leapfrog miniMF), but you either get a bit more resolution than the Sony, a bit more yet than a Nikon, and a bit more yet than a Pentax (unless you can use pixel shift). Canon is a special case, where you don't get more resolution, but you do get I suspect quite a bit more dynamic range. So, miniMF if you consider both resolution and dynamic range the miniMF is still going to be on top, for now at least. So, I wold rate miniMF (in comparison to FF 35mm) as having:
Much inferior flexibility as you call it.
At least as good depth of field control, if you are fine with manual focus, but really better depth of field control for longer than normal lenses and worse depth of field control for normal and wider than normal lenses.
A better sensor in terms of resolution or dynamic range or both with at least as good of resolution and dynamic range as the best FF 35mm in either category.
A larger sensor size, which allows some advantages especially with movement on a technical camera.
|
