HERE is a page where I compare the sharpening possibilities in Lightroom for GFX50s and Sony A7RII images shot of the same subject during the same shoot using similar lenses with the same lighting and camera settings.
And here is one of the images from the comparison.
dmward wrote: HERE is a page where I compare the sharpening possibilities in Lightroom for GFX50s and Sony A7RII images shot of the same subject during the same shoot using similar lenses with the same lighting and camera settings.
And here is one of the images from the comparison.
Excellent comparisons David It clearly illustrates the difference in increasing the sensor size and that the GFX can do this with ease. There many discussions relating to whether the IQ, rendering and sharpness whether it warrants having a MF or mini MF, but only we as photographers can decide as to which system suits us best.
As mentioned before I love the GFX RAW files with the detail, IQ and shadow tonality amazes me from a few hours of testing I did.
Like yourself, I also had the Hasselblad 500 with the 50, 80 and 120 with Fujichrome travelling through Asia, and images just amazed me. There is definitive difference in increasing your format size and we just have to decide what format size suits our needs best
I own both cameras and both lenses. While I agree there are noticeable advantages using the GFX, I don't think this is a very good comparison because I would not compare these two cameras using these two lenses. From what I've seen there is no comparison between the Sony 24-70 GM lens and the Fuji 120. Yes the Sony zoom is much heralded, but I actually have been somewhat disappointed with it. It just is not in the same league with even the Batis and Loxia offerings for the Sonys. To compare it to the 120 Fuji is just not a fair comparison.
What I would rather see is a comparison of images done with the Loxia 85 and the 120. While I don't doubt that the Fuji would once again come out on top, I don't think the difference would be nearly as big.
The 120 against the 90 seems to be a good comparison. I'm very anxious to see how that works out.
I don't own the 90 but I do also own the 32-64 and can honestly say that it's an incredible zoom. I don't see any difference between it and the 63 though I haven't done any formal tests, nor have I compared them wide open. I had originally purchased the GFX with the 63 thinking I would add the zoom for the shorter focal lengths, but after shooting with the zoom, I wonder whether the 63 is even worth owning at all anymore.
Jay968 wrote:
I don't own the 90 but I do also own the 32-64 and can honestly say that it's an incredible zoom. I don't see any difference between it and the 63 though I haven't done any formal tests, nor have I compared them wide open. I had originally purchased the GFX with the 63 thinking I would add the zoom for the shorter focal lengths, but after shooting with the zoom, I wonder whether the 63 is even worth owning at all anymore.
The zoom is incredible but a tad on the heavy side. I think the 63 is much lighter and make it a tad more compact setup and is make walking around or doing street photography with (mini) medium format a breeze. One thing I really like about 63/2.8 though is that you get modern sharp lens that has no evidence of cat eye bokeh ball at all. Off center, it is not perfectly circular but still more round than cat eye. I can't think of another modern lens that is super sharp that does that. Unfortunately, I don't have a good picture with nice bokeh ball to show yet. Just something I noticed while playing around with the lens.
Here is a pic taken last night. This morning may be the last morning I will have decent internet on my vacation for the next 2 weeks.
sunset 5 by Suteetat S, on Flickr
32-64/4@f4, 64mm, 1/125s, iso 5000, velvia film simulation
My GFX 50S came in on Tuesday and I took it out a bit yesterday with a 63 f2.8 and Nikon 105 1.4 and Sigma 35 w/ Fotodiox Nikon adapter. Still getting used to manual focusing for the adapted lenses.
First impressions the DR is quite good on the uncompressed raws, but I'd say not a "huge" step up from a Nikon D810. I love the ergonomics and how the camera feels. It's fun just like the XT2 to use. I've got some more shoots coming up so I'll try to come back to post some more impressions.
Images below processed in Lightroom only. No retouching done....Show more →
Beautiful work. Amazing to see what one can do with the Nikon 105mm f/1.4, — a lens that the Angry Photographer unfairly trashed in several videos.
suteetat wrote:
The zoom is incredible but a tad on the heavy side. I think the 63 is much lighter and make it a tad more compact setup and is make walking around or doing street photography with (mini) medium format a breeze. One thing I really like about 63/2.8 though is that you get modern sharp lens that has no evidence of cat eye bokeh ball at all. Off center, it is not perfectly circular but still more round than cat eye. I can't think of another modern lens that is super sharp that does that. Unfortunately, I don't have a good picture with nice bokeh ball to show yet. Just something I noticed while playing around with the lens.
Here is a pic taken last night. This morning may be the last morning I will have decent internet on my vacation for the next 2 weeks. ...Show more →
Are those artifacts from resizing the image for web or is that some sort of weird noise going on in the sky?
matthewm wrote:
Are those artifacts from resizing the image for web or is that some sort of weird noise going on in the sky?
Sorry for the late reply. I finally has internet access again. Yes, the sky does have some artifact in it. Personally it looked more like noise to me. I was a bit surprise that at iso 5000 sometimes noise level seems quite high. Certainly higher than A7r ii and more similar to d810, i think. Will need to experiment a bit more though. In certain condition, noise level seems really good but sonetimes i am a bit surprise at noise level.
Played a bit with Nikon 105/1.4e at a local mall where they hosted local Comic Con and cosplay. No background really to speak of, it was very crowded. comic con3 by Suteetat S, on Flickr
Just outside the local mall.
Hi Duy. Thank you very much for these comparisons. Personally I prefer the shots with the D810 and 58 G, 105/1.4 G. These Nikon lenses are really well matched with the D810 for portraits so it is not surprising. It comes down to having the lenses well matched for the body as a total system. Of course we are just comparing on a monitor so it hard to compare.
I really love the last shot with the GFX and 105G !!
No problem--I think ultimately it will come down to preference. Cameras/lenses are SO good these days. Personally, I prefer the Fuji files, as it takes much less work to get the colors where I want them. And I think they truly shine when the images are more low-key.
I also think the 58 1.4 is a really magical lens for the Nikon, whereas the 63 for the GFX is basically a "starter" lens for that series. I'm really looking forward to the 110 f/2!
dhp_sf wrote:
No problem--I think ultimately it will come down to preference. Cameras/lenses are SO good these days. Personally, I prefer the Fuji files, as it takes much less work to get the colors where I want them. And I think they truly shine when the images are more low-key.
I also think the 58 1.4 is a really magical lens for the Nikon, whereas the 63 for the GFX is basically a "starter" lens for that series. I'm really looking forward to the 110 f/2!
I totally agree the Fuji files are just amazing and with web presentation hard to pick. When you start to view at 100% the Fuji have amazing details and subtle tones. The 110/2 will be an amazing lens. The 58G feels very much like my old M 50 Nocti f/1.0 and is the reason why I love this lens.
It clearly illustrates the difference in increasing the sensor size and that the GFX can do this with ease. There many discussions relating to whether the IQ, rendering and sharpness whether it warrants having a MF or mini MF, but only we as photographers can decide as to which system suits us best.
