Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.73 #6 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499) | |
mdemeyer wrote:
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.)
Am I missing something?
Michael
...Show more →
Hi Michael,
Nobody has answered you on this, so I thought I would take a stab at it. My attraction to using the Cambo Actus for the GFX comes down to lenses. If you look at wide lenses in particular, then I am happier with what is available for the GFX. I have on order the Hasselblad CFE IF 40 f/4 (which is made by Zeiss), it will have the field of view and depth of field of about a 28 f/2.8 on FF 35mm if I shoot in 4 X 3 or squarer which I plan to do. It is a very strong performing lens and although expensive is within what I am willing to pay. I do want shift lens capabilities at this focal length and this lens based on 6 X 6 format has about a 78mm image circle which will provide quite decent shift and tilt capabilities for the 33 X 44 sensor in the GFX. And have quite decent shallow depth of field possibilities when using tilt. I also plan to use a 70ish Rodenstock or Schneider larger format digital lens (I still have decided between the Rodenstock 70 f/5.6 Digaron W with a 100mm image circle or the Scheinder 72 f/5.6 APO Digitar with a 90mm image circle). Either lens will basically be a 50mm f/4 35mm FF equivalent on the GFX if I crop to 4 X 3 or squarer and will have loads of room for title and shift. Finally I plan to get a Contax/Zeiss 645 120 f/4 APO Macro. Another fantastic and cheap lens that although it only has a 68mm image circle at infinity, I am betting it is quite a bit larger for close up work. It is a very strong performer and is about a 90 f/2.8 FF 35mm equivalent when cropping to 4 X 3 or squarer. I think all three will be excellent.
I have a harder time putting together the kit I want for the Cambo Actus for the Sony A7r II. Sure I could use the Cambo Actus with the Rodenstock 28 f/4.5 Digaron S; 50 f/4 Digaron W; and 100 f/4 Digaron S, but those three lenses would easily be over $10,000, whereas I should be able to get the lenses for the GFX that I described for about $5,000. That is not a small difference in price and Rodenstock trio might be slightly better, but I am not sure. The Hassy 40 f/4 IF would certainly hold its own against the Rodenstock 28 and is a third of a stop faster and had a stop and third shallower depth of field wide open, and although the Rodenstock 50 is faster than Rodenstock and Schneider 70s there performance is very similar at similar aperture and keep in mind the the GFX gets back the stop ind depth of field. Finally the Rodenstock 100 is among the finest lenses available on any format period, but for the macro work that I want to do I am not convinced it will be better and may not even be as good as the Contax 645 120 APO Macro.
So, for me the difference in price of the lenses that I would like to use basically pay for the Fuji GFX. It will be a bigger system by quite a bit, but performance ought to be on par or close. One other performance related issue is that the GFX should have diffraction kick in a bit later and for this tilt shift work that should not be overlooked.
Now other people might have other use cases, but it is a bit hard to find good lenses to work on the Sony with the Cambo Actus for what I want to do. There aren't any 28mm medium format lenses that can be used on the Actus (Hassy has an H lens that is 28mm and quite good, but it doesn't have an aperture ring and has a leaf shutter and those would need the development of a new adapter to be useable on the Cambo Actus; Mamiya/Phase one have two 28mm lenses--one with a leaf shutter and one without--but neither of them have an aperture ring so they can't work on current adapters either). There are 50mm medium format lenses that would be cheaper, but none approach the performance of the Rodenstock or Schneider ~70mm lenses. Finally although there are lots of good 120 f/4 macros for medium format, f/4 is slower (i.e., has more depth of field) than I would like for some of my macro work. In addition, it is the 28 and 50 Rodenstock lenses that really drive the cost up, so switching out the lovely Rodenstock 100 wouldn't really help much to hold the cost down.
So that is my thinking about the GFX and Cambo Actus. I realize it is pretty personal, but I do think the problem of wide angle with good shift and tilt for the Sony is a pretty general issue and not easily overcome.
|
