p.83 #2 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
RyanFlynn wrote:
Thanks Charles. I saw that it's supported, but what from I've seen/heard, LR/ACR don't do a great job in general, and especially at higher ISOs. Smeary details, etc. So I was wondering if there was a better option right now.
Ryan, Lr CC/PS is excellent and further back I did a comparison of the detail that can be extracted with RAW files now with Lr CC. You may be confusing the XTrans RAW conversions, which is now resolved with Iridient Xtrans with Windows. There is a whole thread in this forum on this topic.
p.83 #3 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
flash wrote:
Really? Even with a bayer sensor?
LR certainly has no problems with the near identical 645Z files.
Gordon
Honestly I'm just going off hearsay and a few examples I've seen in the GFX Facebook group at the moment. My adapters aren't here till tomorrow so my GFX is just a shelf ornament. But the examples I've seen show LR rending the files noticeably different/worse.
charles.K wrote:
Ryan, Lr CC/PS is excellent and further back I did a comparison of the detail that can be extracted with RAW files now with Lr CC. You may be confusing the XTrans RAW conversions, which is now resolved with Iridient Xtrans with Windows. There is a whole thread in this forum on this topic.
I remember the XTrans discussion, I think your examples were why I picked up Iridient. I've just seen a few examples in the GFX Facebook group that show LR doing some funny stuff, especially at high ISO. When my adapters get here and I can actually *use* my GFX, I'll do some testing.
p.83 #5 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
RyanFlynn wrote:
Honestly I'm just going off hearsay and a few examples I've seen in the GFX Facebook group at the moment. My adapters aren't here till tomorrow so my GFX is just a shelf ornament. But the examples I've seen show LR rending the files noticeably different/worse.
I remember the XTrans discussion, I think your examples were why I picked up Iridient. I've just seen a few examples in the GFX Facebook group that show LR doing some funny stuff, especially at high ISO. When my adapters get here and I can actually *use* my GFX, I'll do some testing.
Then XTrans RAW files with high ISO shots 3200 and above I find Lr CC/PS is the best still But for normal ISO shot with landscapes/seascapes foliage with high frequency detail XTrans is superb.
p.83 #7 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
What the XTrans experience in LR taught me is that every camera sensor needs to have its own input sharpening settings.
I spent a while today working on a useful input sharpening parameter for GFX files. Which are significantly different than the input sharpening parameters I use for A7RII files, which are significantly different than the input sharpening parameters I used for XT-1 files, which were significantly different than the input sharpening parameters I used for Canon 5DIII files.
When I got the parameters close to where I thought they should be the images were spectacular on a 27 inch retina display.
It's designed with the Canon TS-E tilt and shift lenses in mind. The adapter controls aperture. It does not pass lens EXIF data to the camera, nor does it AF.
p.83 #9 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
My reaction to that Cambo adapter is "...maybe we should email Metabones again, y'all."
Seriously all that size just to have a little actuator dial, we don't even get to control the aperture from camera or get EXIF?
I thought Cambo was at a higher level of sophistication than this. Is this on Fuji? If the lens protocol is designed such that this is the most that's possible, that'd be a shame.
p.83 #10 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Lee Saxon wrote:
My reaction to that Cambo adapter is "...maybe we should email Metabones again, y'all."
Seriously all that size just to have a little actuator dial, we don't even get to control the aperture from camera or get EXIF?
I thought Cambo was at a higher level of sophistication than this. Is this on Fuji? If the lens protocol is designed such that this is the most that's possible, that'd be a shame.
I use my TSE lenses on an A7RII via the Metabones IV and it works well.
I agree that it shouldn't be that difficult to get an adapter built that would do similar functions with the GFX 50s.
It obviously requires reverse engineering the lens to camera electronic communications. Maybe that's a Metabones skill not a Combo skill.
p.83 #11 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
dmward wrote:
It obviously requires reverse engineering the lens to camera electronic communications. Maybe that's a Metabones skill not a Combo skill.
Actually Metabones outsourced that work to a Canadian company called Conurus. Cambo could do the same.
p.83 #12 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
It seems Cambo did a quick spin of their Actus controller for Canon lenses. Remember this contains its own battery, which accounts for some of the bulk. Consider the Redrock Micro LiveLens, which was similar in concept and, I suspect, size when the external battery pack is included
Give the market time to mature. This is a time-to-market solution. It trades time for capabilities by reducing the engineering to a mechanical task. If you prefer to wait for a potentially more elegant solution, give it time and see how the market matures.
My $0.02
Michael
Matt Grum wrote:
Actually Metabones outsourced that work to a Canadian company called Conurus. Cambo could do the same.
Mar 26, 2017 at 04:36 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.83 #13 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Lee Saxon wrote:
My reaction to that Cambo adapter is "...maybe we should email Metabones again, y'all."
Seriously all that size just to have a little actuator dial, we don't even get to control the aperture from camera or get EXIF?
I thought Cambo was at a higher level of sophistication than this. Is this on Fuji? If the lens protocol is designed such that this is the most that's possible, that'd be a shame.
If you want EXIF data with the Cambo I think you are going to be disappointed. I don't think anything that is shot on the Cambo is going to have EXIF data. The camera attaches to one end of the bellows and as far as I know no lens that is used with it (which attach to the other end of the bellows) has a electronic connection to the camera. So no lenses on the Cambo are going to have EXIF data. Canon lenses are no different in this way that Nikon lenses, Hasselblad lenses, or large format lenses. The difference is the lens adapter for Canon is bigger and more expensive. It is bigger because the lens adapter has to control the adapter and needs a battery. It is more expensive because? Well, I think the price is pretty outrageous, but perhaps I am not being fair, but at half the price of the view camera itself that Canon adapter is quite pricey I don't want to use Canon lenses enough to get it, but that is just me. For those who want ultra wide the 17 f/4L TSE will be about as wide as it gets and the 24 3.5L TSE ought to be pretty outstanding as well--although that competes with the native Fuji 23 f/4 that is coming. So, I can see why people would adapt these lenses, but I don't care to shoot as wide as the 17 and I have a different solution at 24--the Hassy HCD 24 f/4.8, so I am not in the market for the Canon lenses.
p.83 #15 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
mark1958 wrote:
I would be really interested to see if anyone has tried the GFX with a Nikon adapter. I would love to use my Nikon PCE lenses on the GFX
Jim Kasson has so far tried several Nikon-mount lenses with his GFX and a Fotodiox adapter, but no PCE lenses.
p.83 #17 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
I got my adapters today. Unfortunately I got home after dark so it is not really possible to do any reasonable testing beside shooting walls. But my very early impression is very good. There tend to be some vignette with 35mm lenses which is not surprising.
Those that have minor vignette, not enough to make me worry and for portrait, I would not even worry about cropping and may require little to no vignette correction in post, would be Leica 50/2 apo, Leica M 90/2 apo. A bit more vignette but very tiny would be Contax Zeiss 85/1.2 60th anniversary (on adapter to M then M to GFX) and Zeiss 135/2 apo sonnar (ZF.2 version),and tiny bit more on Nikon 105/1.4e.A tiny cropping may be required. Konica Hexanon 60/1.2 and Noct Nikkor 58/1.2 does have small, a bit distracting vignette that most likely will require a little bit of cropping. The only one that has quite a bit of vignette and will require quite a bit of cropping would be Noctilux 50/.95 .
PS I tried Noct Nikkor file, keeping 4:3, after correcting vignette in PS which did not quite disappeared completely, I had to crop down to about 8024x6018 to get rid off vignette completely so I am left with about 48mp.
Zeiss 135/2 apo sonnar, after correcting with PS, there is very little vignette left that is not really distracting and for portrait, I would not bother cropping.
PSS I was shooting at near minimal focusing distance, using external flash, I don't know if vignette might change with distance or not. Will try to get some shots tomorrow during the day.
p.83 #18 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
If you want EXIF data with the Cambo I think you are going to be disappointed...
You're right of course with regard to the Actus, and I wouldn't expect any different for a bellows system especially with interchangeable mounts, but my post actually referred instead to the CA-GFX, the direct EF to G adapter Cambo more recently announced.
It has bulk and external controls and presumably its own battery similar to the Actus EF adapter. Given that Fuji mentioned lens adaptability some themselves, I figured the G protocol was going to be more open than the X and allow Metabones-EF-to-E-level integrated smart adapters. But it's very early, so it'll be interesting to see what happens.
p.83 #19 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Opps, I spoke too soon about some lenses using adapter. First of all, these pictures are not as well focus. With Leica SL and A7r ii, focus magnifier gives better magnification and I could focus the building on the horizon very easily. For some reason, focus peaking is not as easy to see on GFX and focus magnification is also not quite enough. I will need more practice with GFX so sorry about the focus. But the pictures should be adequate enough about showing vignette.
50/2 apo did not really play well with GFX. There is some vignette which is cleared up
in post processing just fine but there is a strong field curvature/smearing which is not the case with A7r ii at all and is quite disappointing.
50/2 apo, @f2, no correction. @f8, vignette is a little less but does not go away.
After some post processing. Probably I could clean up vignette more but due to field curvature/smearing, I would not bother with this lens for landscape for sure. It should still be ok for some portrait work though.
With Zeiss 135/2 apo sonnar @f2, just a little vignette which cleaned up in PS nicely.
Leica R 80/1.4 seems to be the best of the bunch so far. No correction was applied.
p.83 #20 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
^ Suuteetat, thank you for the test.
If the Lux R 80 works at infinity then it should work at any distance. It would be great if you can share some portraits (or picture at portrait distance) taken with the Lux R 80; especially around f2-f2.8 ? Thanks.
I saw that it's supported, but what from I've seen/heard, LR/ACR don't do a great job in general, and especially at higher ISOs. Smeary details, etc. So I was wondering if there was a better option right now.
I will be a later adopter and just watch everyone with envy!
