fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              71              73              85       86       end
  

Archive 2017 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)

  
 
Lee Saxon
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.72 #1 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


adamdewilde wrote:
But it's per-pixel light that matters not total light over an area, so light gathering will not change.


Yes, it's per-pixel light that matters, which means light gathering will not change between two different-sized sensors with equal pixel size/density. But isn't that exactly why light gathering will change between two different-sized sensors with (roughly) equal pixel counts (different size/density). The A7r II vs GFX is the latter case.

Also, you're definitely right about "creative calculations" of ISO value. DXO charts confirm it. I just looked back to refresh my memory: Nikon started it with the D3; the D2x is dead accurate. The SL though is only as good as the D3 - it's just that everyone else is even worse.

But I'm skeptical the same is happening with f-stops. Most lenses I've looked at on DXO have tested T stops within 0.1-0.4 stops of their f-stop, which I think is within a pretty reasonable range of transmission loss.



Mar 04, 2017 at 09:44 PM
adamdewilde
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.72 #2 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


Lee Saxon wrote:
Yes, it's per-pixel light that matters, which means light gathering will not change between two different-sized sensors with equal pixel size/density. But isn't that exactly why light gathering will change between two different-sized sensors with (roughly) equal pixel counts (different size/density). The A7r II vs GFX is the latter case.

Also, you're definitely right about "creative calculations" of ISO value. DXO charts confirm it. I just looked back to refresh my memory: Nikon started it with the D3; the D2x is dead accurate. The SL though is only as good as the D3 - it's just that everyone else is
...Show more

Yes, but the lens still doesn't let in more light. The quality of the readout will improve, but that's also dependant on the tech that goes into the sensor. Thus the light gathering ability of a f/2.8 lens (transmission aside) will be equal to that of a f/2.8 lens from a different lens even with a bigger image circle. So you can't really say a 63/2.8 lens lets in the same light as a 50/2 lens.

Yes, Leica isn't exact, but more so than other companies. Canon's ISO floats based on lens design BTW

Speaking of Canon, the 50L was pretty bad for this T-stop wise (I don't know if Canon somehow secretly corrected this on newer lenses. I doubt anyone ever pays enough attention to element coating updates during the lifespan of a lens design). A few other lenses are bad as well. For the most part 1/2 a stop is usually the max deviation though. I guess people forget an F-stop is just a calculation of physics. Whereas a T-stop is actually a measurement of light not a calculation based on design. So a lens designed as a 2.8 is a f/2.8 no matter how bad the transmission of light is.



Mar 05, 2017 at 10:50 AM
adamdewilde
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.72 #3 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


BTW, is anyone shooting with the GFX yet? Like with the M10 and the X1D, I'm going to hold off on being an early bird as I don't want to get burned again (Leica has made me wary).

I'm curious how it stacks agains the X1D. I've used the X1D several times now, with all sorts of different firmwares and I still don't think it's market ready. Hence my curiosity about Fuji's GFX firmware.

(Charles I know you've used it. It was also in Melbourne while I was there a few days ago, but I didn't bother testing it.)



Mar 05, 2017 at 10:58 AM
relms
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.72 #4 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


I received notification from Amazon this morning that my GFX 50S and 63mm lens are shipping today from an order I placed February 1st. I will be anxious to see how the Fuji setup compares to the Leica S system.


Mar 05, 2017 at 11:02 AM
adamdewilde
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.72 #5 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


relms wrote:
I received notification from Amazon this morning that my GFX 50S and 63mm lens are shipping today from an order I placed February 1st. I will be anxious to see how the Fuji setup compares to the Leica S system.


I'd love to know how you feel about it as well!!



Mar 05, 2017 at 12:03 PM
relms
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.72 #6 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


adamdewilde wrote:
I'd love to know how you feel about it as well!!


Adam,

I will definitely keep you posted. As you know, I have been in the Leica camp for quite some time, and I occasionally step away, only to find myself returning. To date, even with all the support issues I have had with Leica, I have not found another system that competes with the shooting experience, the quality of images, and (dare I say it?) the pride of ownership I get with Leica. Will this time be different? Soon to be determined.

Best,
Robert



Mar 05, 2017 at 01:14 PM
mark1958
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.72 #7 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


I am still getting used to ON1 and trying a bit with Silky Pix..
Went to the coast (near half moon bay) for a couple of hours.






Edited on Mar 05, 2017 at 01:40 PM · View previous versions



Mar 05, 2017 at 01:38 PM
mark1958
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.72 #8 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


Another example resized and 100% crop
Note the 100% crop is showing up at 200% on my screen so you may need to download to see that it is not over sharpened












Mar 05, 2017 at 02:23 PM
Matt Grum
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.72 #9 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


adamdewilde wrote:
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.


It's light per image that really matters, higher pixel densities may have more noise per pixel but will look the same when printed or when resized to view on screen.

adamdewilde wrote:
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


Lee Saxon wrote:
Also, you're definitely right about "creative calculations" of ISO value.


Actually no-one is correct, and the camera manufacturers are not being "creative", ISO standard 12232:2006 permits five different ways to determine ISO values for digital sensors.

Edited on Mar 05, 2017 at 04:02 PM · View previous versions



Mar 05, 2017 at 03:50 PM
Matt Grum
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.72 #10 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


Lee Saxon wrote:
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.


It's actually not too complicated, if you match depth of field then total light gathered is the same, therefore in theory low light performance should be identical. You will need to use a different ISO number, but that is irrelevant as noise is related to light gathered, not ISO numbers (which are rarely even the same between (or sometimes within) manufacturers).

If you are not DOF limited then the 35mm system will gather more light due to the larger entrance pupil (50/1.4 = 35.7, 63/2.8 = 22.5).

That's just the theory. In practice there are other factors, e.g. the A7RII sensor has the dual gain amplifier whereas the GFX sensor does not so it should be better in low light

However the differences will be small and the GFX will be fantastic in low light like the majority of modern cameras are.



Mar 05, 2017 at 03:51 PM
charles.K
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.72 #11 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


Mark, congrats on the GFX


Mar 05, 2017 at 05:26 PM
charles.K
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.72 #12 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


adamdewilde wrote:
BTW, is anyone shooting with the GFX yet? Like with the M10 and the X1D, I'm going to hold off on being an early bird as I don't want to get burned again (Leica has made me wary).

I'm curious how it stacks agains the X1D. I've used the X1D several times now, with all sorts of different firmwares and I still don't think it's market ready. Hence my curiosity about Fuji's GFX firmware.

(Charles I know you've used it. It was also in Melbourne while I was there a few days ago, but I didn't bother testing it.)


Hi Adam, the GFX is not available yet in Australia. I may go back and test the GFX some more. Personally I am very comfortable with the GFX and the firmware updates with Fuji are second to none. I know comparisons have been done with the A7rII and FE 50/1.4, but I have the D810 with the 50 Art the IQ from this combo is superb. Will the GFX be that much better? At a price point I have been able to get the D810(used) and 50 Art for 1650 USD total, so there is a point of diminishing returns. Personally I would be opting for the GFX for 50 Cron AA look, smoothness and DR. The Jpegs are superb so I do expect a lot from the RAW's.



Mar 05, 2017 at 08:00 PM
rbf_
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.72 #13 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


charles.K wrote:
Hi Adam, the GFX is not available yet in Australia. I may go back and test the GFX some more. Personally I am very comfortable with the GFX and the firmware updates with Fuji are second to none. I know comparisons have been done with the A7rII and FE 50/1.4, but I have the D810 with the 50 Art the IQ from this combo is superb. Will the GFX be that much better? At a price point I have been able to get the D810(used) and 50 Art for 1650 USD total, so there is a point of diminishing returns.
...Show more

Wow! What a bargain of a price on the D810 + Sigma Art Nice!



Mar 05, 2017 at 08:11 PM
rbf_
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.72 #14 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


mark1958 wrote:
Another example resized and 100% crop
Note the 100% crop is showing up at 200% on my screen so you may need to download to see that it is not over sharpened


That's some amazing detail in that crop! Enjoy your new GFX



Mar 05, 2017 at 08:12 PM
charles.K
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.72 #15 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


I downloaded IXT for windows this weekend and I have converted GFX RAW files into DNG using IXT defaults and then imported into Lr CC. Of course you just have the adobe default color profile as there is no support yet for Lr/PS so the Fuji profiles are not yet available.

I attached the DNG files imported in Lr CC, with no sharpening just the Adobe profile, with minor highlight and shadow adjustments.

I am truly impressed with the RAW files are they are super smooth yet the detail is all there. At 100% the fingerprints are clearly visible in #1. Of course you can push the files to suit your style but I find the default conversions excellent and are very natural in look

#5 is 100% crop of #1.



























Mar 05, 2017 at 08:35 PM
uhoh7
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.72 #16 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


adamdewilde wrote:
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
...Show more
TY Adam, love to get your considered take

I very much appreciate all the replies, very interesting.

I pick ISO 6400 on the A7rii, because that is pretty useable to my eye, while higher is not so nice.

So it sounds like ISO 12.5K will get the Fuji into the same light with the 63/2.8 as the A7rii with 50/1.4 WO at 6400, correct? Wait alundeb says 25K? Looks like the Fuji might be better at 12.8K than Sony at 6400, but it's a bright shot....go dim and an ISO that looks usable can get uglier....

Ballpark, how does 12.5K on the Fuji compare to noise on r2 @6400? Charles' high ISO shot looked very clean to me.

I would guess the 50/1.4 will have a slimmer DOF, no?

Sorry I'm sure these answers were inferred, but my aging brain.....

I guess the next logical question is: what if I want big DOF?
Consider the 50/1.4 at F/11. Where do I need to go on that 63/2.8 and is diffraction gong to be better or worse at that point? Maybe F/16 would make it?

Lee, cool calc, but where is one that has the fuji sensor pre-pluged or which MF rig will be identical for DOF? ahh 645Z.

I can use the 645D which is a little bigger sensor. Way tighter DOF for the FF, wow, at 63/2.8 vs 50/1.4. And the MF is not far behind at the other end, really. You don't need to go all the way to F/16 to get FF at F/11

Edited on Mar 06, 2017 at 01:26 AM · View previous versions



Mar 06, 2017 at 12:52 AM
philber
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.72 #17 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


charles.K wrote:
Mark, congrats on the GFX


+1!




Mar 06, 2017 at 01:01 AM
charles.K
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.72 #18 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


uhoh7 wrote:
TY Adam, love to get your considered take

I very much appreciate all the replies, very interesting.

I pick ISO 6400 on the A7rii, because that is pretty useable to my eye, while higher is not so nice.

So it sounds like ISO 12.5K will get the Fuji into the same light with the 63/2.8 as the A7rii with 50/1.4 WO at 6400, correct? Wait alundeb says 25K? Looks like the Fuji might be better at 12.8K than Sony at 6400, but it's a bright shot....go dim and an ISO that looks usable can get uglier....

Ballpark, how does 12.5K on
...Show more

Hi Charlie. It is difficult to compare ISO's particularly when you have for instance IBIS on the A7rII. I have had MF in the past and the rendering and look tends to be smooth and very understated sharp detailed look. Of course this is very lens dependent. The GFX noise level at higher ISO's is amazing which I was not expecting.

Testing some of RAW files in Lr CC/PS, I do think that the GFX has raised IQ to another level. You mention when want greater DOF, there are many web shots with the 63/2.8mm at f/11 or f/16 and there appears no issues in a practical sense with diffraction.

I find with FF, I often opt for a fast lens like a f/1.4 or in the past 50 Nocti f/1.0 to get that unique look, but with a lens like the 63/2.8 it is smooth and really no need to have a faster lens. Later I am sure there will be more options.

I have attached a shot at 12,800 ISO IXT converted RAW file with all the defaults set to NONE. Instead I used Lr CC, Luminescence amount 5, and colour amount to 5.











100% Crop




Mar 06, 2017 at 02:28 AM
Matt Grum
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.72 #19 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


uhoh7 wrote:
I guess the next logical question is: what if I want big DOF?
Consider the 50/1.4 at F/11. Where do I need to go on that 63/2.8 and is diffraction gong to be better or worse at that point? Maybe F/16 would make it?


The calculations are very simple. First choose your crop factor (1.222 if you prefer to shoot the slightly wider 3:2 ratio, or 1.375 if you prefer the taller 4:3 ratio, and 1.271 if you're not sure).

Then you multiply the f-number by the crop factor, so considering the 50/1.4 at f/11, you'd need to shoot the 63mm lens at f/13.4, f/15.1 or f/14.0 depending on the crop factor you chose above.

Diffraction will be exactly the same relative to picture size (width, height or diagonal respectively according to the crop factor you chose).

It's all part of "equivalence", or as I prefer to call it (since the E-word tends to spark arguments), "how lenses work". It goes like this:

Same field of view, same entrance pupil = same depth of field, same background blur, same total light gathered, same amount of diffraction - regardless of format size.

The only things that aren't the same are the focal length, f-number and the ISO number. This is however fine since the absolute ISO number is meaningless (one camera can be worse at ISO100 than another at ISO800), the focal length is a measure of how far behind the lens parallel light converges, and is no more meaningful than that, and the absolute f-number by itself is meaningless in terms of DOF and total light gathered. The absolute f-number does matter when it comes to correcting aberrations, which is one area where things aren't equal for all format sizes.

uhoh7 wrote:
So it sounds like ISO 12.5K will get the Fuji into the same light with the 63/2.8 as the A7rii with 50/1.4 WO at 6400, correct?


For the ISO setting multiply by the crop factor squared, so the equivalent ISO is either 9560, 12100 or 10339 depending on your crop factor. But don't get hung up on the ISO numbers, firstly manufacturers measure ISO sensitivity in different ways, but ultimately light gathering is the same, thus photon noise in the midtones and highlights is the same save for small differences in the QE of the sensor. Shadow noise at high ISO depends more on the electronics and the A7RII will have the edge here with it's second gain stage that kicks in at ISO640 and above.


Bottom line if you're looking for the absolute best low light performance then medium format is not going to be it - but at the same time low light performance isn't going to hold back the GFX in any way.



Mar 06, 2017 at 06:43 AM
alundeb
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.72 #20 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)


Matt Grum wrote:
The calculations are very simple. First choose your crop factor (1.222 if you prefer to shoot the slightly wider 3:2 ratio, or 1.375 if you prefer the taller 4:3 ratio, and 1.271 if you're not sure).

Then you multiply the f-number by the crop factor, so considering the 50/1.4 at f/11, you'd need to shoot the 63mm lens at f/13.4, f/15.1 or f/14.0 depending on the crop factor you chose above.

Diffraction will be exactly the same relative to picture size (width, height or diagonal respectively according to the crop factor you chose).

It's all part of "equivalence", or as I
...Show more

Thanks for taking the time to line out this again, Matt!

The concept that light gathered follows DOF only for the "same picture" (same perspective, field of view and exposure time) is so beautiful both in theory and practice



Mar 06, 2017 at 08:34 AM
1       2       3              71              73              85       86       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              71              73              85       86       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account