p.71 #1 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
I was going to mention that Silkypix Pro 7 latest does support GFX RAW's but I really do have a problem with the flow of this program. Nothing is intuitive! I have exported the TIFF files into Lr CC/PS but I can barely notice the difference from the Jpegs. I will wait for the updates to Lr/PS before I will compare the RAW's.
p.71 #2 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yes that will make a good trio and I expect that a 35mm will be among the next set of lenses announced. Fuji did such a good job in the roll out of the x series lenses, I have some faith that they will do the sensible thing here. I do have one niggle, however, and it is most obvious with the 63. I wish they were calibrating the focal lengths to FF 35mm using the 4 X 3 aspect ratio instead of the diagonal. Using the diagonal they are 28, 50, and 87, but using the 4 X 3 aspect ratio they are the not so nifty 26, 46, and 80. As I will probably shoot the majority of the time 4 x 3 or squarer I would actually prefer a 40, 70, 120 trio, which have FF 35mm equivalents of 29, 51, & 88 if shooting 4 X 3 or squarer. I know this isn't a big deal as what Fuji has designed will not be that far off, but it is a niggle. I know in particular I would have a slight preference for a 70, which would be just a bit longer than a 50mm equivalent (like most 50s for 35mm) when using the native 4 X 3 ratio.
These choices for native lenses mean less to me that most, because I am not even sure if I will get any of the native lenses. I am going to start out with all adapted lenses, and with that in mind, genji, would you settle for an adapted Pentax 645 35 f/3.5 A. It is both fairly inexpensive and very highly regarded among Pentax shooter. I am pretty sure you could pick one up and use it until Fuji makes a 35 and then sell it with very little out of pocket cost. You could also consider the Zeiss C/Y, Olympus OM, and Canon FD 35mm shift lenses as they all should cover the image circle quite well and be adaptable to the camera. Again I think you could buy any of these and sell them when Fuji comes out with a 35 with very little cost....Show more →
That's an excellent suggestion, Steve, thanks! The Pentax 645 35 f/3.5 A certainly seems like a viable stopgap if Fuji announces a native 35mm for release some time in 1918. Based on Charles's pictures I'd like to think I'd be content with the 63/2.8 for a while at least. Yet I strongly suspect that, once I saw images made by FM members with the 110/2, I wouldn't be able to resist.
p.71 #3 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
genji wrote:
That's an excellent suggestion, Steve, thanks! The Pentax 645 35 f/3.5 A certainly seems like a viable stopgap if Fuji announces a native 35mm for release some time in 1918. Based on Charles's pictures I'd like to think I'd be content with the 63/2.8 for a while at least. Yet I strongly suspect that, once I saw images made by FM members with the 110/2, I wouldn't be able to resist.
It appears there are two versions of the Pentax 35 F3.5. Is one significantly better performing than the other?
p.71 #4 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
dmward wrote:
It appears there are two versions of the Pentax 35 F3.5. Is one significantly better performing than the other?
There are three versions: SMC Pentax-A 645 35/3.5, SMC Pentax-FA 645 35/3.5 and Pentax-D FA645 35mm f/3.5 AL . The -A is manual focus and the -FA & -D are autofocus. All have manual aperture rings. I have used the -A 35/3.5 on Canon full frame, and it's very similar to the Mamiya 645 C 35/3.5 N that I use with a Mirex tilt-shift M645 to EOS adapter. FM member Mike Broomfield ( @mcbroomf ) has extensively used the -A on a Mirex P645 to EOS T-S adapter.
p.71 #5 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Raw Support now available from Iridient Developer:
The Iridient X-Transformer beta 3 release adds support for the Fujifilm GFX50S, X-T20 and X100F. This is the first X-Transformer beta to support macOS and this update brings several bug fixes and improvements to the Windows version as well.
p.71 #6 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
iammikie wrote:
Raw Support now available from Iridient Developer:
The Iridient X-Transformer beta 3 release adds support for the Fujifilm GFX50S, X-T20 and X100F. This is the first X-Transformer beta to support macOS and this update brings several bug fixes and improvements to the Windows version as well.
p.71 #7 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yikes, that is pretty high cost, but I really like the Cambo Actus products. I am glad they gave me a heads up that this was coming and I can just get the Actus GFX and interchangeable mount bracket. I am really looking forward to getting this set up. Thanks for the advice on this Rich.
They are pricey, but when you compare them to what you pay for good perspective control lenses, I think the price is easily justified.
p.71 #8 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Here is a link to image resource comparing the GFX, Pentax 645, 5DS-R and A7rII in a lab comparison. The higher ISO test shots with the GFX compares well to what I have seen so far with GFX OOC Jpegs.
p.71 #9 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
iammikie wrote:
Raw Support now available from Iridient Developer:
The Iridient X-Transformer beta 3 release adds support for the Fujifilm GFX50S, X-T20 and X100F. This is the first X-Transformer beta to support macOS and this update brings several bug fixes and improvements to the Windows version as well.
p.71 #10 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Thanks Charles for posting your images and comments - they are most helpful. I am always concerned with comments from those that get a camera early - I feel they need to say "good" things or else they will not get the next new camera early. So to have someone like you (unbias - well except maybe a Fuji lover) post your observations carries a lot of weight. While I am sure that the Fuji interface is going to be fairly standard across the Fuji line, it was good to hear that the controls are very similar to the T2 - sure makes the learning curve easier. I too would prefer a 35mm lens to the 50mm (35 eq) but it would not be a show stopper. The shots you posted are superb - and I am sure they are better before you had to scale down for the internet.
p.71 #12 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Great shots Charles and as usual, real world information
The ISO performance looks wonderful.
I am trying get and idea of the "exchange rate" between that 63/2.8 and A7rii with a comparable frame.
For example let's take the new FE 50/1.4 which is meant to be great WO.
Imagine that 50/1.4 WO on A7rii where ISO 6400 is needed.
Where would this put the 63/2.8, roughy?
Frame? 63 is more or less 50 (forgive my ignorance on the crop x)
DOF? I'd think the 1.4 will have less, no? If so how far does the Sony need to stop down to equal F/2.8 on the Fuji?
and most important, what ISO will the fuji need in such low light? And how is the noise level going to compare to 6400 on the iii?
I understand we don't know the last really(or do we?), but best guesses appreciated from anyone
I'm excited we will see this new camera in your hands
Mar 04, 2017 at 02:59 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.71 #13 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
uhoh7 wrote:
Great shots Charles and as usual, real world information
The ISO performance looks wonderful.
I am trying get and idea of the "exchange rate" between that 63/2.8 and A7rii with a comparable frame.
For example let's take the new FE 50/1.4 which is meant to be great WO.
Imagine that 50/1.4 WO on A7rii where ISO 6400 is needed.
Where would this put the 63/2.8, roughy?
Frame? 63 is more or less 50 (forgive my ignorance on the crop x)
DOF? I'd think the 1.4 will have less, no?
and most important, what ISO will the fuji need in such low light? And how is the noise level going to compare to 6400 on the iii?
I understand we don't know the last really(or do we?), but best guesses appreciated from anyone
I'm excited we will see this new camera in your hands ...Show more →
Charlie, the 63 f/2.8 will be about like a 45 f/2 lens on FF 35mm format if you want a 4 X 3 or squarer aspect ratio. So you would roughly need ISO 12,800 but it might need a bit more to match the high ISO performance of the A7rII as the Sony has a newer generation sensor than the Fuji.
p.71 #14 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
Charlie, the 63 f/2.8 will be about like a 45 f/2 lens on FF 35mm format if you want a 4 X 3 or squarer aspect ratio. So you would roughly need ISO 12,800 but it might need a bit more to match the high ISO performance of the A7rII as the Sony has a newer generation sensor than the Fuji.
That's definitely right on equivalent FoV / DoF but isn't the issue of equivalent illumination a little different? As in, don't you have to look at whether the increase in number of millimeters sensor area is greater or less than the decrease in illumination per millimeter sensor area? I have no idea how you'd calculate it though.
uhoh7 wrote:
Frame? 63 is more or less 50 (forgive my ignorance on the crop x)
DOF?
Steve is right, but fyi I also made a calculator that can help you find these things
p.71 #15 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
Charlie, the 63 f/2.8 will be about like a 45 f/2 lens on FF 35mm format if you want a 4 X 3 or squarer aspect ratio. So you would roughly need ISO 12,800 but it might need a bit more to match the high ISO performance of the A7rII as the Sony has a newer generation sensor than the Fuji.
If you want the same shutter speed, it will be ISO 25600 on the Fuji.
p.71 #16 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Delatant wrote:
Thanks Charles for posting your images and comments - they are most helpful. I am always concerned with comments from those that get a camera early - I feel they need to say "good" things or else they will not get the next new camera early. So to have someone like you (unbias - well except maybe a Fuji lover) post your observations carries a lot of weight. While I am sure that the Fuji interface is going to be fairly standard across the Fuji line, it was good to hear that the controls are very similar to the T2 - sure makes the learning curve easier. I too would prefer a 35mm lens to the 50mm (35 eq) but it would not be a show stopper. The shots you posted are superb - and I am sure they are better before you had to scale down for the internet....Show more →
Thanks Carl They did not have the 32-64/4 lens available at the time to test. If you are a 35mm FL shooter, then wait for the 45/2.8 later this year. For now I have no interest in the zooms but I can be convinced
The shots as presented OOC Jpegs are superb, and the RAW images I have converted using Silkypix Pro 7 are amazing. We can discuss and compare endlessly with web presentations, but photographers will have to make their own decisions. Now that the GFX is available for testing, try it out!
Personally I am blown away by the superb level of IQ with the GFX. I am comparing to the A7rII and D810/D750 all of which are excellent. But the final decision for many will be based on affordability, larger size and weight, ergonomics, AF speed and dynamic capabilities and do you really need mini MF when FF, APS-C or M43 is perfectly fine.
Having seen the image quality, rendering and look that emulates the feel of a 50 Cron A, I am thrilled. It will not replace my D810/D750 as the functionality is for different areas. I may not be the first adopter, but I am planning to add the GFX and 63mm very soon
p.71 #17 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
uhoh7 wrote:
Great shots Charles and as usual, real world information
The ISO performance looks wonderful.
I am trying get and idea of the "exchange rate" between that 63/2.8 and A7rii with a comparable frame.
For example let's take the new FE 50/1.4 which is meant to be great WO.
Imagine that 50/1.4 WO on A7rii where ISO 6400 is needed.
Where would this put the 63/2.8, roughy?
Frame? 63 is more or less 50 (forgive my ignorance on the crop x)
DOF? I'd think the 1.4 will have less, no? If so how far does the Sony need to stop down to equal F/2.8 on the Fuji?
and most important, what ISO will the fuji need in such low light? And how is the noise level going to compare to 6400 on the iii?
I understand we don't know the last really(or do we?), but best guesses appreciated from anyone
I'm excited we will see this new camera in your hands ...Show more →
Thanks Charlie I see your questions have been answered really well.
As mentioned I will not be one of the first adopters but very soon. Forget all the technical jargon and test the GFX in your hands and see if it excites you or not in terms of the IQ and rendering. Of course we should wait for the updates to LR CC/PS and C1 Pro to fully evaluate the RAW files. So far the comparisons have been to OOC Jpegs and are amazing.
For many photographers who have not used MF, I would err on caution as you can be blown away by rendering and IQ, but ergonomics and workflow may not suit. Personally the size/weight of the GFX with the 63mm is great and very ergonomic for portraits, street photography and landscapes. For dynamic action, portraits and sports the D810/D750 is a better choice and I will keep both.
If you are comparing weight/size:
A7rII is 625gms/127 x 96 x 60 mm
GFX at 740gms/148 x 94 x 91 mm.
Then comparing the lenses although not direct is:
FE 50/1.4 is 778gms/84mm dia x 104mm
GF 63/2.8 is 405gms/84mm dia x 71mm
So from a weight/size perspective there is no so much of a difference with fast FF lenses and the GFX in your hands feels great. I compare the FE 50/1.4 and GF 63/2.8 as both lenses are truly excellent and we often err to the fast FF lenses to achieve smooth isolated look to portraits and images we achieve with slower MF lenses.
p.71 #18 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
uhoh7 wrote:
Great shots Charles and as usual, real world information
The ISO performance looks wonderful.
I am trying get and idea of the "exchange rate" between that 63/2.8 and A7rii with a comparable frame.
For example let's take the new FE 50/1.4 which is meant to be great WO.
Imagine that 50/1.4 WO on A7rii where ISO 6400 is needed.
Where would this put the 63/2.8, roughy?
Frame? 63 is more or less 50 (forgive my ignorance on the crop x)
DOF? I'd think the 1.4 will have less, no? If so how far does the Sony need to stop down to equal F/2.8 on the Fuji?
and most important, what ISO will the fuji need in such low light? And how is the noise level going to compare to 6400 on the iii?
I understand we don't know the last really(or do we?), but best guesses appreciated from anyone
I'm excited we will see this new camera in your hands ...Show more →
Despite what people think... f/stops will be fixed light wise, even on larger sensors. Yes it's true that the 63/2.8 will have similar DOF to an f/2 lens. But the rendering characteristics will be lens specific and the light gathering will stay the same.
So the 50/1.4 FE assuming it's a T/1.4 lens (which I don't find it to be, that or Sony lies about it's ISO, but more on that later).. And assuming the 63 is truly a T/2.8 than that would mean you need two extra stops of ISO.. So it starts to look like the Sony has a clearer advantage in low light just due to the lens selection. Sure people can say bigger sensors let in more light. But it's per-pixel light that matters not total light over an area, so light gathering will not change.
*(off topic but not really). The ISO on the Sony tends to be a full stop of lies ahead of the Leica SL. Basically if you set the Leica and the Sony up with the same shutter and same ISO (A7II, A7sII, A7rII I've tested them all). The Leica SL will be 1 and a bit stops brighter using the same exact lens. This isn't new news, Canon and Nikon don't match either. But Leica has consistently been more correct with their ISO numbers than other companies (from my experience). So if you take this and apply it to the GFX. Perhaps someone should test the true ISO values of both cameras before using inaccurate numbers like ISO settings to determine noise levels. And yes I know this sensor is the same as the one found in the X1D and other MFD cameras. But it doesn't mean Fuji didn't measure the light themselves and set their own ISO values. So even ISO 400 on the GFX might not match the noise of ISO 400 on the X1D keeping in mind the same sensor was used. Also using the same lens helps, as then you get the f/stop lies out of the way.. As f/stops are not t/stops.
To answer the other questions. The 63mm will equal a 50mm lens, but unlike the S-system, this camera has a different aspect ratio. So it's not going to be apples to apples. And you'd need to stop the 50ZA down to f/2 to get a similar DOF. But you're going to get a completely different look. I've noticed medium format lenses at 2.8 tend to have more of a f/5.6 crispness to the in focus subject, and a f/2 bokeh w/bokeh balls that seem the size of an f/1.4 equivalent mm lens. If that makes sense to you.. Of course this is lens specific, but I've used quite a few and this is my general feeling.
Charles.K said that he feels the 63mm is similar to the 50APO. I wouldn't disagree with him, as I find the 50APO to have a very similar feel as medium format. In fact, the 45/2.8 S lens is basically a 35/2 APO on the S-body. Which is why I think I loved both lenses so much. Great rendering. Now if you can get that out of the GFX w/kit prime, that would be stellar. And value wise OMG the whole set is the price of the 50APO
p.71 #19 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Thanks Charles for the update. At almost 10 oz of gold, I will not be making the purchase today either, but I will be keeping my finger on the pulse of reaction by everyone. Our regional Atlanta camera store, Showcase Photo, closed their doors last week (the B&H's gotten 'em I guess) so I will not be able to touch/handle the camera locally - bummer!
p.71 #20 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Gents,
Relating to the Actus discussion, as an Actus user with Sony A7, I'm trying to get my head around the cost/benefit of moving to the GFX as a back vs. using the Sony and stitching.
My primary lenses for archtecture and landscape work are an Actar 24, Zeiss PC-Distagon 35, Rodenstock HR 60/4, and a Sironar Digital 90/5.6. Image circles are 60mm, 63mm, 70mm and 115mm. APO-Rodegon-N 80 and APO-Rodegon-D 1:1 for close-in and Macro work.
At the wide end with these lenses, while they should clear the mount, there's not a lot of shift margin with the Fuji - perhaps a few mm with the Actar, 5-8mm with the Zeiss PC-D, and 10-12mm with the Rodenstock HR 60. Of course the 90 has coverage enough for anything the camera can do.
So, if I am willing to stitch with the Sony - and I understand that isn't always possible - I can utilize the coverage of my lenses already. The pixel density of the two are quite similar - the Sony A7 has about 20% more pixels per square mm than the GFX, so a trivial resolution advantage goes to the Sony and perhaps a slight noise advantage to the GFX. And, while the throat on the GFX is larger, allowing the rear elements of more tech lenses to fit in and still have room for movements, the flange distance is 10mm more.
So, at the moment, upgrading from the Actus/Sony to the GFX version doesn't seem like a huge win. (Note that, at the moment, I'm not looking to go to another full native solution.)
