dhp_sf wrote:
A couple of photos from a recent test comparing D810 and GFX.
For my tastes, and what we can see from the small image web presentation, I prefer the Fuji files. I like the colors way more because they look more accurate.
This comparison also seems to support, to some degree at least, a conversation I had today with a gentleman at a local camera shop. He is / was a master printer and is very knowledgeable about files resolution, color theory, differences in technology, etc. He told me that after conversations with some Fuji engineers the conclusion was essentially that you have to jump 2 or more sensor sizes/categories to really notice an appreciable difference. So, APC-c to 50S would be noticeable, while full frame to 50S might not be as noticeable. Other factors of course come into play. This theory is in part why Fuji didn't go to a traditional "full frame" and instead went to the bigger sensor. Furthermore, he told me he would put this body up against any medium format digital on the market today. That's saying a lot considering this includes things like the 100 megapixel Phase One gear.
All that said, after holding one today with the 63mm I'm thinking of all the ways this very versatile machine can be put to use. It's been added to my wish list for sure.
If I understand what is being said, maybe what the Fuji engineers were really saying was that a leapfrog over FF was the only way to produce and sell a larger format in a crowded market. Surely, they were not targeting APS-C users with MF.
I own the Pentax 645z and after I compared it to my D800E, I had no qualms selling off the Nikon. If one is even a moderate Pixel Peeper or someone who crops a lot, the additional resolution alone is enough to appreciate the difference. Comparing it to my 5DsR, the noise and DR differences are quite noticeable. I kept the 5DsR because I do not foresee any MF company releasing some of the lenses in Canon's line-up. Plus, I am finding macro to be easier with FF.
Even at these small sizes, the GFX is a clear winner over the D810 when a native lens is used on the Fuji.
GFX with Otus 85/1.4@f2 (I think, could be 2.8), iso100, 1/2700s.
The picture was cropped a tad as the picture was a tad tilted so I had to rotate the picture a touch. With Otus 84/1.4, there is a slight vignette in the corner, small but obvious especially if you have sky in the corner but easily corrected.
16 by Suteetat S, on Flickr
GFX with Zeiss 135/2 apo sonnar ZF.2, F4 or 5.6 somewhere around there , iso 100, 1/1400, EV-2/3
cropped to get rid off a few distracting things in the peripheral that I could not avoid otherwise I would fall off a pier Tiny bit of vignette in the corner that is easily getting rid off with no cropping required in 4:3 format. I was having dinner with a few friends from high school days and they were willing to post for me!
skyline1 by Suteetat S, on Flickr
with Zeiss Hasselblad 120/4 Makro-planar CFE, f8, 1.7s, iso100 . I actually prefer this lens over Fuji's own 120/4 macro at least for tele landscape type shot. Much better star burst pattern as well but have not compare both at portrait or macro distance yet.
Just spent 2 days playing with a friend's new GFX - was really impressed! Took an image of him about 10' away with the 63 lens (50 mm eq) - it showed him from the knees to above his head - on the computer, enlarged the photo to where a shirt button was almost full screen - could read the writing on the button (1/4" round) and see individual threads holding the button on clear as anything - I was really amazed at the detail of this camera!! (Will try to post some images later.) I was sure the camera/lens would be sharp (Fuji!) - but was kinda surprised by how much detail was available and how much one could enlarge the jpeg file without pixelation occurring. Shot the same shot with the T2 and the 35/1.4 lens (50 mm eq) - button area pixelated quickly.
, iso 100, 1/1400, EV-2/3
