highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
gdanmitchell wrote:
It is a deal, but perhaps not as big of a deal as we might initially think. It bothered me, too — and still does a little bit — but a few objective data points relieved me of my concerns.
1. Even after cropping, I can make very big and very good prints from photographs made using my 50MP DSLR system.
2. The difference, in terms of crop factor, as you probably read in my article, is actually a lot smaller than people tend to realize. I believe that many folks think of the miniMF sensor as being quite a bit larger than the FF sensors, but in crop factor terms the difference is much smaller than that between full frame and 1.5x or 1.6x cropped factor sensors. (Details in a chart in the article.)
3. Given that the improvement in the quality of photographs from this difference is, while real, going to be quite small (I've compared prints), the downsides (for me) of moving away from my FF system and the lenses that I rely on outweigh the pluses (real, but not huge) of the current 51MP miniMF systems. As I like to write, YMMV.
On the plus side, it is an inconvenience to deal with my almost-certain 4:3 crop of my 3:2 FF exposures, especially when composing in the optical viewfinder. (The rear display does let me show only the 4:3 area.) For me, as a person who prefers 4:3, a system that works natively in that mode (such as miniMF and micro-four-thirds) does appeal.
What would persuade me to move to miniMF? (Aside from Fujifilm giving me a system? Not that I'd say no! ;-) A few things;
1. A real sensor resolution advantage over the highest resolution full frame systems. That may happen at some point — there have been rumors of a 100MP miniMF sensor, for example.
2. An expanded set of lenses from Fujifilm that come closer to meeting my needs. The current lenses are quite good, from all I've heard, but they don't give me what I need for the sort of photography I do. I need high quality zoom lenses covering the equivalent of around 16mm to at 300mm in angle-of-view terms. And, yes, I understand that this isn't as much of a factor for some. (I probably could come closer to finding what I need for the Pentax 645z or a higher MP successor.)
3. Improvements to Fujifilm's excellent 1.5x cropped sensor mirrorless cameras that get the AF system and system latency into a performance range where I can feel comfortable using them for subjects such as birds in flight.
Dan...Show more →
Not in any particular order:
--> I think 100 MP will be good for reducing moire on these very sharp Fujifilm GF lenses. Me personally, I don't really "need" 100 MP. 50 MP is a nice balance. Heck, even the resolution of the 5D Mk IV would have been fine if they had left off the AA filter (what were they thinking?). Another issue at 100 MP will be the exaggerated effects of camera movement on image sharpness. With the GFX at 50 MP, I have to be careful handholding even the 63mm at 1/125 sec. The GF 110mm is nearly unusable for me without a tripod. Even shutter speeds approaching 1/500 sec can still sometimes have motion blur. The 120 with OS was is much more practical. So if they move to 100 MP, I think putting stabilization into every new lens and every version II of their current GF lenses will be required.
--> Yes. Lens lineup. This was the reason I got rid of my first GFX system and went back to Canon (before coming back when they discounted the GFX systems recently). I'm going to be first in line for the GF 250mm and 1.4x converter, but this still leaves a big gap at 400mm/full frame. The saving grace that brought me back to the GFX was knowing the adapters that supported both autofocus and IS were coming out soon. My Techart adapter should arrive this Friday, and I'm dying to use the Canon 100-400 II on the GFX. I know that from about 150-400 there will be some increased vignetting in the corners (it already vignettes a lot on full frame at the widest apertures), but bumping it to f/8 and cropping just a little should work fine. I love the 100-400 (both versions) and without it, I'm losing half the shots I could be taking. And if for some reason, I'm not happy with it adapted on the GFX, then I'm going to get a cheap 80D body and use it alongside the GFX until the GF 250 is released (or until the 5Ds Mk II comes out).
--> The autofocus performance of the 5DsR is stellar. Those dual-processors really make the 100-400 II lightning fast. It felt much faster on the 5DsR than it did on the 5D Mk IV, but that could have been just my perception.
--> The differences between the 5DsR and the GFX as far as image quality are not so much about how identical images from different-sized-but-same-megapixel sensors look when printed at the same size, it's more the fact that I can make a better-looking image from the GFX RAW files to begin with – an image that is more visually rich and appealing. The GFX sensor is better "film" so to speak. I've never forgiven Canon for failing to match the IQ of the original 5D (stunning color + a weak AA filter) with every subsequent release. The original 5D had what I would describe as a rainbow of colors on demand, and the colors rarely turned to mud even with heavy edits in Lightroom. And even though it's only 12 MP, the files have a stunning perceived sharpness. The 5D Mk IV comes close, but again – that AA filter made it DOA for me.
--> I don't shoot wildlife. And if I shot birds in flight, I don't think I'd be letting go of a Canon body for a very long time.
|
I really feel like Canon will knock it out of the park with the Mk II version. For most 5DsR users, this might be a great reason to avoid the move to a larger sensor system.