I am just trying to calculate and decide BEFORE shoots without having to cycle through lenses.
The easiest calculation is to use the traditional diagonal measurement. This uses the full image area of both formats being compared. With this assumption, the miniMF systems have a .79 crop factor. (Described the other way around, full frame systems are "1.27x cropped sensor systems" by comparison to miniMF.)
But that assumes the you'd use the 3:2 aspect ratio on full frame and the native 4:3 aspect ratio on miniMF. You might, but you might have other plans.
For example, I already usually use a 4:3 aspect ratio on full frame and would do the same if I used a miniMF system. This comparison is a bit more advantageous to miniMF. With this assumption, the miniMF systems have a .73 crop factor. (Described the other way around, full frame systems are "1.38x cropped sensor systems" by comparison to miniMF.)
There's another possibility, though I suspect it is the least likely one, namely that a full frame shooter who likes the 3:2 aspect ratio might crop the miniMF images to get the same 3:2 ratio. This comparison disadvantages the miniMF system a bit more, and the miniMF crop factor would be about .82. (Described the other way around, full frame systems are "1.21x cropped sensor systems" by comparison to miniMF.)
You can do other comparisons, too. For example, shooting square 1:1 aspect ratio images in both formats. It is also interesting to compare to traditional MF and LF film formats. If you are interested in pursuing these comparisons, you might find this page useful.
Obviously, these data have more than one use. You could use them to do rough focal length conversions for equivalent angles of view in two formats, using the familiar math. You can also use this information to get a sense of the size comparison between formats — for example comparing these factors to the 2X crop factor between full frame and MFT or the 1.5x/1.6x crop factor relationships between full frame and APS-C. (The link above also does this for traditional MF and LF film formats.)
@gdanmitchell do use the "miniMF" to irritate those who bought the GFX? Do you own one? I have not been able to find this term, in regards to photography, anywhere but your posts...lol
Etherton wrote:
@gdanmitchell@ do use the "miniMF" to irritate those who bought the GFX? Do you own one? I have not been able to find this term, in regards to photography, anywhere but your posts...lol
I've been among those using it since the smaller 33x44mm format was introduced. The term "miniMF recognizes that the format is larger than full frame but smaller than the smallest traditional "medium format." (The smallest common MF format was 645. miniMF lies approximately midway between full frame and 645.)
I'm surprised when people take this term as an insult. it isn't. The term recognizes both that the format is larger than full frame (did you know that Fujifilm was calling "super full frame" at one point?) and smaller than the smallest "medium format." The miniMF format has a lot to offer. It currently offers the highest sensor resolution available aside from the extremely expensive Phase One type backs, which to up to 150MP but at an extraordinary cost. The larger sensor size can produce higher system resolution. A given pixel dimension can potentially have a bit better noise and dynamic range performance on miniMF. miniMF just isn't the same size as what we've always called "medium format." (That was the format that I cut my photographic teeth on some years ago, by the way.)
You may already know the following, but it may be useful to those who aren't familiar with film and digital format designations and relative sizes:
Isn't there 6x12?
Seems I have a Graflock type back for my 4x5 Sinar F2 that will "switch" between 6x12 and 6x17.
That, or a wooden pinhole body that does this.
Sooo much stuff, I forget...
buggz wrote:
Heh, I STILL have ALL of those format bodies.
Isn't there 6x12?
Seems I have a Graflock type back for my 4x5 Sinar F2 that will "switch" between 6x12 and 6x17.
That, or a wooden pinhole body that does this.
Sooo much stuff, I forget...
There have been many formats over the years. Omitted from the chart is 6x8 (one of my favorites) and yes, 6x12 a popular wide format roll film back for view cameras.
What makes it even more confusing is that the film sizes are not equal to the sensor sizes on the medium format backs. I believe 645 film has a frame area of 56mm x 42mm where as the typical Phase one or Sony medium format 645 backs are only 54x40mm. The 35 and 45 lenses that I used often on my 645 are not as wide on a Phase back, and even longer on a Fuji GFX.
gdanmitchell wrote:
The easiest calculation is to use the traditional diagonal measurement. This uses the full image area of both formats being compared. With this assumption, the miniMF systems have a .79 crop factor. (Described the other way around, full frame systems are "1.27x cropped sensor systems" by comparison to miniMF.)
But that assumes the you'd use the 3:2 aspect ratio on full frame and the native 4:3 aspect ratio on miniMF. You might, but you might have other plans.
For example, I already usually use a 4:3 aspect ratio on full frame and would do the same if I used a miniMF system. This comparison is a bit more advantageous to miniMF. With this assumption, the miniMF systems have a .73 crop factor. (Described the other way around, full frame systems are "1.38x cropped sensor systems" by comparison to miniMF.)
There's another possibility, though I suspect it is the least likely one, namely that a full frame shooter who likes the 3:2 aspect ratio might crop the miniMF images to get the same 3:2 ratio. This comparison disadvantages the miniMF system a bit more, and the miniMF crop factor would be about .82. (Described the other way around, full frame systems are "1.21x cropped sensor systems" by comparison to miniMF.)
You can do other comparisons, too. For example, shooting square 1:1 aspect ratio images in both formats. It is also interesting to compare to traditional MF and LF film formats. If you are interested in pursuing these comparisons, you might find this page useful.
Obviously, these data have more than one use. You could use them to do rough focal length conversions for equivalent angles of view in two formats, using the familiar math. You can also use this information to get a sense of the size comparison between formats — for example comparing these factors to the 2X crop factor between full frame and MFT or the 1.5x/1.6x crop factor relationships between full frame and APS-C. (The link above also does this for traditional MF and LF film formats.)
A couple of points of clarification. First, anything squarer than 4 X 3 including 4 X 5, 7 X 6 and completely square will have a 1.39X crop factor compared to FF 35mm. The same thing holds for any rectangle skinnier than 3 X 2 including 16 X 9 and panorama. It will have a 1.21X crop factor compared to FF 35mm.
Second when thinking about crop factors you have to keep in mind that crop factors are not linearly related to changes in sensor size. For example the difference between a 1X and a 1.4X crop is the same as the difference between a 1.4X crop and a 2X crop, and in fact the relationship between crop factor and sensor size is exactly the same at the relationship between f-number and size of aperture. So when comparing a 1.21X crop factor to a 1.39X crop sensor that is a lot bigger difference than a 1.39X crop factor compared to a 1.5X crop factor. Just like we know that the difference between an f/1.21 lens and an f/1.4 lens is a lot bigger than the difference between an f/1.4 lens and an f/1.5 lens.
buggz, do you have the Minolta 85mm f1.7? That lens works very well on the GFX 50R.
I agree that the vignetting is there with the focal lengths I've tried that you've already mentioned but it's not terrible.
53/f2
58/f1.2
35/f1.8
The 7.5mm seems to render a whole lot better on the Sony A7r3 but I have a focus ring on the adapter for that lens/body combo. Seems like it should focus completely and utterly without a focus ring but it ain't so. Anyway, it's a crazy lens that requires very specific subject matter.
I have some Kowa 6/66 lenses - quite a few as a matter of fact and I'm working with an adapter guy right now to see if I can get one tooled for the GFX.
In the meantime - I'm working through the shelves of Minoltas to see if there's something I'm going to like more than others.
At some point in the future, maybe I'll invest in a GFX lens but at the moment, I'm willing to wait rather than drop $1500-$2K on a native lens.
It looks like 85mm is the focal length I can get away with so far from my 35mm adapted stash.
I was surprised the Canon (with the Techart Pro) gave me aberrations and the Minolta 85mm f1.7 did not. That issue may not be present with an 1.2 version - idk. This isn't a perfect test - but I'll do another one next week when the Sony A mount to GFX adapter shows up. I just happen to have an 85 f1.4 A mount laying around so what the heck. Battle of the 85mm's.
I tried to keep everything as exact as possible, though my focus points are a hair different. The Canon AF is really handy and I'd probably prefer it for a live subject. Either would work with still subjects, though. The Minolta I wouldn't have to correct the aberrations like I did for the Canon in this shot.
Second shot is the Minolta 85mm f1.7 shot wide open (manual everything - Fotodiox dumb adapter) - same settings as the Canon image. Other than the abberattions I had to correct on the Canon lens version and AF function, I really can't see much difference.
Yes, seems I have two copies of the great Minolta Rokkor 85/1.7, one converted to EOS-EF mount, and one in the native Minolta SR mount.
Both seem to work okay, slight vignette, very workable for me.
I am not famialr with the Kowa6/66, is that like the Pentacon 6?
If so, should work well.
I like going through all my old lenses again, it's like finding buried treasure...
Though, I still want the GFX 23, the 110/2, and the 32-64.
pasblues wrote:
buggz, do you have the Minolta 85mm f1.7? That lens works very well on the GFX 50R.
I agree that the vignetting is there with the focal lengths I've tried that you've already mentioned but it's not terrible.
53/f2
58/f1.2
35/f1.8
The 7.5mm seems to render a whole lot better on the Sony A7r3 but I have a focus ring on the adapter for that lens/body combo. Seems like it should focus completely and utterly without a focus ring but it ain't so. Anyway, it's a crazy lens that requires very specific subject matter.
I have some Kowa 6/66 lenses - quite a few as a matter of fact and I'm working with an adapter guy right now to see if I can get one tooled for the GFX.
In the meantime - I'm working through the shelves of Minoltas to see if there's something I'm going to like more than others.
At some point in the future, maybe I'll invest in a GFX lens but at the moment, I'm willing to wait rather than drop $1500-$2K on a native lens....Show more →
I agree with you about wanting some GFX lenses, it's going to probably wait at least a little while. I do expect to see some difference using medium format lenses, just logically - they are designed to cover that sensor.
I want to guess that "medium format" lenses on the GFX actually cover differently on the mini-MF of the GFX than they would on the film camera medium format. What is your experience?
I don't have much experience with other MF lenses on the the GFX50R.
I have tried all my Mamiya 645 lenses, and they all work great.
I think I'd like to try my Mamiya RZ67 lenses next, if the adapters are affordable...
buggz wrote:
...I think I'd like to try my Mamiya RZ67 lenses next, if the adapters are affordable...
Please somebody make a RZ->GFX shift adapter! The problem is complexity as any adapter needs a built-in helicoid, the manufacturer needs to know how to both design and fabricate it well.
sirimiri wrote:
Please somebody make a RZ->GFX shift adapter! The problem is complexity as any adapter needs a built-in helicoid, the manufacturer needs to know how to both design and fabricate it well.
RZ lenses do work very well on the Cambo Actus and then you don't need a helicoid and you get a great set of movements too. It isn't cheap, but I have the RZ 65 f/4 LA, and the RZ 140 f/4.5 Macro and both work great. I also have a helicoid adapter for RZ, but it doesn't allow movements.
I am new to the GFX 50R and today tried it with the Canon EF TS-E 24/3.5 L II via a KIpon AF adapter. Works fine except I could not engage focus magnification (Focus Check ON). Does anyone know if focus magnification is possible with MF lenses like the Canon TS-E on the GFX with the Kipon adapter?
Not sure about the 50R but it certainly works with that combo on the 100. I toggle every possible dial, switch, and menu setting to manual focus, single point; and the rear dial press zooms to my selected focus area. I use the joystick to move the focus area.
Scho wrote:
I am new to the GFX 50R and today tried it with the Canon EF TS-E 24/3.5 L II via a KIpon AF adapter. Works fine except I could not engage focus magnification (Focus Check ON). Does anyone know if focus magnification is possible with MF lenses like the Canon TS-E on the GFX with the Kipon adapter?
Scho wrote:
I am new to the GFX 50R and today tried it with the Canon EF TS-E 24/3.5 L II via a KIpon AF adapter. Works fine except I could not engage focus magnification (Focus Check ON). Does anyone know if focus magnification is possible with MF lenses like the Canon TS-E on the GFX with the Kipon adapter?
Peter_S wrote:
So, for those who have tried M-glass on the GFX: How are the areas that are fully covered?
Lets say you crop to "FF" format, how does that look compared to the output from an M/SL? I imagine the different sensor stack thickness makes this a compromise at best.
This is just my opinion, but I made the switch from M 240 to GFX50S. At first I thought I will keep My M lenses. I tried Lux 50 ASPH, Lux 75, Summicron-M 28 ASPH, Super-Elmar 21 on the GFX50S. And to be honest all of them are disappointing. They loose the magic and I just didn't like the output no more. Field curvature can also be pretty bad. Eventually sold them all. The thicker filter stack of GFX50S ruins the experience and imho is not worth it. And I am not even talking about the excessive vignetting here and possible need for cropping.. So, the best body for M lenses still is M Leicas.. I guess no surprise there.
That said, there are some Leica lenses which work pretty well on GFXxxx. Most of them are R-mount though. For example, Summilux-R 80 is a beautiful performer.
Tmuussoni wrote:
This is just my opinion, but I made the switch from M 240 to GFX50S. At first I thought I will keep My M lenses. I tried Lux 50 ASPH, Lux 75, Summicron-M 28 ASPH, Super-Elmar 21 on the GFX50S. And to be honest all of them are disappointing. They loose the magic and I just didn't like the output no more. Field curvature can also be pretty bad. Eventually sold them all. The thicker filter stack of GFX50S ruins the experience and imho is not worth it. And I am not even talking about the excessive vignetting here and possible need for cropping.. So, the best body for M lenses still is M Leicas.. I guess no surprise there.
That said, there are some Leica lenses which work pretty well on GFXxxx. Most of them are R-mount though. For example, Summilux-R 80 is a beautiful performer.
Some of the longer M lenses work pretty well too. The Leica M 90 f/2 AA needs to be cropped, but once cropped is lovely on the GFX and it covers the sensor for a 4 X 5 or 3 X 2 crop of the full sensor (i.e., using the full short side and just cropping the long side to get the aspect ratio). The Leica M 135 f/3.4 APO is very nice as well and makes a very nice 100 f/2.5 equivalent. On the GFX that lens has the bokeh and speed that it doesn't have on the Leica M (and it focusses much easier). In general, however, I agree with your assessment that M lenses just work better on a Leica M camera.
P.S. - I just got the Voigtlander 75 f/1.5 in M mount and I hope to test it soon on the GFX. I have pretty high hopes for that lens.
