p.74 #1 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Makten wrote:
But, it would be really silly to buy such an expensive camera just because of that.
Would it? I'd think that's the perfect reason to consider it. Format preferences are a big deal, I think. And the GFX is agile enough that it could replace most smaller format cameras with ease, except for long lenses and action work.
And the mini MF sensor makes the A7 series sensors look positively fragile....
Gordon
Mar 07, 2017 at 05:14 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.74 #2 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Matt Grum wrote:
You can't make a FF sensor for a DSLR any taller without using a taller mirror, which would then hit the back of the lens. You could of course with a mirrorless camera, but then it would be more expensive to manufacture the sensors and wouldn't necessarily be compatible with lenses designed for 36x24mm sensors.
Matt,
There is no reason somebody couldn't make a mirrorless 34.5mm X 26mm sensor (this is 4 X 3 format) that would use FF 35mm lenses. It would have the same image circle (about 43mm as the traditional 2 X 3, i.e., 24mm X 36mm, FF 35mm) so the lenses would work just fine. I have a strong preference for the 4 X 3 format over 2 X 3 and it is part of what makes the Fuji attractive to me. Since it has roughly the same area as a FF 35mm sensor it is only the volume that would affect the cost. So, if they sold well I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work.
p.74 #4 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
I have updated Adobe Lr CC/PS and I am finding the RAW conversions with Lr CC are better than with IXT.
Below I have attached a previous shot, post processed in Lr CC with Classic Chrome profile(favourite for street portraits), default sharpening 25/1.0 and minor highlight/shadow adjustments.
I have added the 100% crop, as the finger print details are now fully visible. The difference before with IXT RAW conversion was that only the outer detail of the finger print was visible before. It would appear that with Lr CC the more subtle details are now visible.
p.74 #5 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
alundeb wrote:
I downloaded the high res images and was pleased to see that in the details comparison, the vertical angle ov view was aligned between the 5DS R and the GFX. As expected, the detail from the GFX was excellent, but it was even better than expected relative to the 5DS R.
I also downloaded the detail comparison images and am somewhat puzzled as to how the 5D4 is SO much better than the 5Ds! Based on those images, I'd buy the 5D4. The Fuji is only slightly better. However, I can't believe the 5Ds is so much worse than both!!! ?
p.74 #6 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
charles.K wrote:
For portraits the GFX is going to be a lot of fun I have found a photo from FB with the GFX and adapted Nikon 58/1.4 G lens. This lens is one of my favourites!
Where did you find this! If it's possible, that would make me SO happy. The 58G is one of my all-time favorites, easily. I think it could be pretty cool on the GFX.
p.74 #7 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
charles.K wrote:
I have updated Adobe Lr CC/PS and I am finding the RAW conversions with Lr CC are better than with IXT.
Below I have attached a previous shot, post processed in Lr CC with Classic Chrome profile(favourite for street portraits), default sharpening 25/1.0 and minor highlight/shadow adjustments.
I have added the 100% crop, as the finger print details are now fully visible. The difference before with IXT RAW conversion was that only the outer detail of the finger print was visible before. It would appear that with Lr CC the more subtle details are now visible.
That's probably why they decided to go with a bayer CFA. No tool chain issues to achieve max IQ.
p.74 #8 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Matt Grum wrote:
I would doubt that very much as you will be getting 4x the light per unit area with an f/1.4 lens on the A7R vs the GFX at f/2.8, and the GFX sensor is only 1.68 times the area, so the A7RII is getting 2.38 times more light.
Based on what Fuji have said about their microlenses (they traded light gathering efficiency for corner performance, i.e. they are less aggressively optimised than on other sensors) I would expect the A7RII to be slightly ahead at equivalent apertures when measured.
You need to do a side by side test with the same lighting and shutter speed - looking at a single image can be misleading as you can easily have two ISO 12800 images with very different levels of noise....Show more →
I can agree with this. But I'm fairly certain they're not to far off just from first glance.
p.74 #9 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Alpha_Geist wrote:
I've been seriously thinking about getting the GFX over the M10 that I am still waiting from my preorder. The catch is, I wouldn't be buying any native GFX lenses, however, I do have a bevy of Pentax 67 lenses that I'd love to try it out on. I'm not sure how the Pentax SMC Takumar 67 lenses would render on this "digital back" as I've only used the lenses on my 6X7 and 67II with Tri-X and Portra 120 film. Also, the weight of the 67 lenses are no laughing matter. I'm guessing the lenses are heavier than the GFX body. That 300/4!
I'm just waiting until I can actually try out a GFX in-store demo and when the Pentax 67 to GFX mounts become a reality. For now, I'll gladly keep an eye on this thread for more photos (to come) and user feedback. ...Show more →
The X1D looks way sexier. If you're trading a slick looking M10 for a GFX that's kinda sad
EDIT: One more reason why I'm annoyed with the X1D. No built in shutter.
p.74 #10 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
alundeb wrote:
imaging-resource.com are usually quite good at this, they state that the lighting used is accurate within 1/6 Ev.
The GFX at ISO 12800 uses 1/1000 sec at f/8.
The Sony A7r II and Canon 5DS R both use 1/1600 sec at f/8.
The Pentax 645Z is in between with 1/1250 sec at f/8.
The Sony A7s is the most conservative here, using 1/2000 sec.
So it seems Fuji is about 2/3 to 1 stop of lies ahead of Sony, and I will add, as usual
The upside is that the expanded ISO 50 may actually be close to 32 or 25, and maybe this is a high FWC sensor as there was some word on. ...Show more →
Perhaps. When I mentioned the Sony was "lies" it was based on the difference between the A7II and SL. I've not tested the GFX so I couldn't comment on how it does against Sony.
p.74 #11 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
RyanFlynn wrote:
Where did you find this! If it's possible, that would make me SO happy. The 58G is one of my all-time favorites, easily. I think it could be pretty cool on the GFX.
Hi Ryan, if you check FB GFX group there are a number of people that have tested adapted lenses. Two who have used the 58G. My real interest would be the 105/1.4 G for portraits
In Australia the GFX's are still about 2-3 weeks away so I look forward to everyone's first thoughts!
p.74 #12 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
rbf_ wrote:
That's probably why they decided to go with a bayer CFA. No tool chain issues to achieve max IQ.
I agree The subtlety in detail that can be achieved with GFX RAW files with Lr CC is now amazing. Of course this detail and subtlety may not be needed for many intended presentations, but it just adds a dimension and depth to images and so much feel.
p.74 #13 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
adamdewilde wrote:
The X1D looks way sexier. If you're trading a slick looking M10 for a GFX that's kinda sad
EDIT: One more reason why I'm annoyed with the X1D. No built in shutter.
I just purchased an Art Di Mano half case for the M10 that I don't even have yet. I decided to stick with the M10 (whenever it arrives) since:
- I can use my existing stable of M lenses (in color!)
- It would compliment my Monochrom
- Getting the GFX would mean a 3rd different camera system that would be larger and heavier (not forgetting to include the Pentax 67 to GFX adapter with the 67 glass) than my other systems
- not being so easily swayed by the next shiny new thing
If, or rather, when a digital 6X7 medium format camera finally comes to fruition is when I will buy into the MF system. Until then, I will force myself (dammit, lol!) to be happy with what I have
... but that doesn't mean I still won't check out the awesome photos people will make with the GFX.
p.74 #14 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Matt Grum wrote:
You can't make a FF sensor for a DSLR any taller without using a taller mirror, which would then hit the back of the lens. You could of course with a mirrorless camera, but then it would be more expensive to manufacture the sensors and wouldn't necessarily be compatible with lenses designed for 36x24mm sensors.
As long as the camera would automatically limit the image circle to say 46 mm for various aspect ratio modes, it would be a problem only for the few lenses with internal baffles, and for petal shaped lens hoods. For example, the Zeiss Distagon 15/2.8 with fixed hood can't be used for the full image circle and would need surgery to be used on the GFX for square 33x33 mm.
Personally I find the vertical ratio of 1.375 between 33mm and 24mm image height tight enough for different systems. For taking the step up I am more concerned about functionality when adapting lenses, like electronic aperture control and loss of AF. Otherwise I could live with a weird hybrid solution, like a DSLR camera with a 36x33mm sensor that would be cropped to 36x24 in the OVF.
p.74 #15 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
wlpelzmann wrote:
I also downloaded the detail comparison images and am somewhat puzzled as to how the 5D4 is SO much better than the 5Ds! Based on those images, I'd buy the 5D4. The Fuji is only slightly better. However, I can't believe the 5Ds is so much worse than both!!! ?
Thanks for the notion. I didn't check thoroughly. All images are downsampled to about 8 MP. Hence they are worthless for assessing detail. Sorry, guys, the test is useless.
p.74 #16 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Random question here guys...anyone know if the CY 35 1.4 will work on the GFX? I see the Nikon 58G shot Charles posted...a slightly wider CY 35 1.4 with that rendering. Oh man.
p.74 #17 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Matt Grum wrote:
You can't make a FF sensor for a DSLR any taller without using a taller mirror, which would then hit the back of the lens. You could of course with a mirrorless camera, but then it would be more expensive to manufacture the sensors and wouldn't necessarily be compatible with lenses designed for 36x24mm sensors.
Don't understand why you are talking about mirrors when both the mentioned GFX and a7 are mirrorless.
The only reason for incompatibility with other aspect ratios would be if certain lenses have rectangular shrouds that restrict the use of the full image circle. Which of course could be the case.
Edit: Yikes, that image was larger than I expected!
flash wrote:
Would it? I'd think that's the perfect reason to consider it. Format preferences are a big deal, I think. And the GFX is agile enough that it could replace most smaller format cameras with ease, except for long lenses and action work.
And the mini MF sensor makes the A7 series sensors look positively fragile....
Yes, formats are a big deal. But 7000 Euros is just too much for an amateur like me who doesn't even print images. "FF" gives me the quality I want, but there is a bit of a void when it comes to "true" normal lenses; especially if you crop to 4:3.
MFT comes almost close enough, but my experience with them is that all of the cameras are too optimized for low noise, hence giving dull colors. That's even true for many FF cameras.
p.74 #18 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Random question here guys...anyone know if the CY 35 1.4 will work on the GFX? I see the Nikon 58G shot Charles posted...a slightly wider CY 35 1.4 with that rendering. Oh man.
Probably not since performance seems quite low at the corners already on the intended sensor/film size.
p.74 #19 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
There is no reason somebody couldn't make a mirrorless 34.5mm X 26mm sensor (this is 4 X 3 format) that would use FF 35mm lenses. It would have the same image circle (about 43mm as the traditional 2 X 3, i.e., 24mm X 36mm, FF 35mm) so the lenses would work just fine.
That's assuming that all lenses project a circular image. This is not the case (hence why I said you wouldn't necessarily be able to use the same lenses).
Steve Spencer wrote:
I have a strong preference for the 4 X 3 format over 2 X 3 and it is part of what makes the Fuji attractive to me. Since it has roughly the same area as a FF 35mm sensor it is only the volume that would affect the cost. So, if they sold well I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work.
Volume is exactly the reason why it wouldn't work. A large part of the price difference between the Sony 44x33 sensor and their 36x24 offerings is actually the volume rather than the number of sensors per wafer. I believe Sony are now using 300mm wafers so you're talking roughly 54 full frame sensors per wafer, vs. 30 MF, so the MF sensors should be less than double the price (yield will be slightly lower for the 44x33 sensors, but not by much).
The market is very price sensitive so the relatively small demand for full frame size 4:3 sensor cameras gets smaller, which in turn pushes up the price, which makes demand smaller etc. I imagine the price would end up halfway between the A7RII and GFX, and you wouldn't be gaining anything in sensor real estate.
It's fine to prefer the 4:3 format, I personally prefer to crop wider than 3:2 a lot of the time, unless I'm shooting portrait orientation. However the fact that computer displays have steadily got wider over the years and the millions of 3:2 cameras sold each year means that people either prefer the 3:2 format, or don't care enough to look elsewhere, in which case they would be unlikely to pay $1000 premium for a 4:3 camera with no other advantages.
alundeb wrote:
As long as the camera would automatically limit the image circle to say 46 mm for various aspect ratio modes, it would be a problem only for the few lenses with internal baffles, and for petal shaped lens hoods. For example, the Zeiss Distagon 15/2.8 with fixed hood can't be used for the full image circle and would need surgery to be used on the GFX for square 33x33 mm.
Makten wrote:
The only reason for incompatibility with other aspect ratios would be if certain lenses have rectangular shrouds that restrict the use of the full image circle. Which of course could be the case.
It's true that lens compatibility would be a minor issue, however which manufacturer would announce a camera body which was compatible with "most" of their lenses, with no simple way of determining which lenses would not work.
If you were creating a new system from scratch like Sony did with the A7 then you could do it, but then it would come back to the fact the sensors would be way more expensive.
alundeb wrote:
I could live with a weird hybrid solution, like a DSLR camera with a 36x33mm sensor that would be cropped to 36x24 in the OVF.
Such a thing would be so niche and low volume that it'd be cheaper to get a GFX and use the selectable VF crop.
p.74 #20 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Matt Grum wrote:
If you were creating a new system from scratch like Sony did with the A7 then you could do it, but then it would come back to the fact the sensors would be way more expensive.
Why would they be more expensive if the volume is the same? I don't think the demand would be lower. The only reasons for 3:2 are historical, because of the width of 135 film.
Just look at MFT. With your argument the demand for such cameras would be very low. And if photographers demanded 3:2, why do almost all MF cameras use 4:3?
?
I have found a photo from FB with the GFX and adapted Nikon 58/1.4 G lens. This lens is one of my favourites! 
