Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2017 · Canon 11-24 GFX Surgery

  
 
highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Canon 11-24 GFX Surgery


I’ve given up on adapting lenses. The smart adapters are too expensive and the risk of ruining a nice EF lens by them getting stuck is too great. For me, the best road is a two system setup: GF lenses on my GFX, and for focal ranges longer than 120mm or below 23mm, I’ll use my 5DsR. Completely painless and stress free minus the cost of a $2300 grey market Canon 5DsR. The sensor gains on the GFX are not worth the hassle of adapting for me unless I enjoyed adapting retro glass as a hobby. If Zeiss ever decides to produce native manual focus lenses for the GFX, it would reduce the market for adapting lenses to the GFX to a handful of people.

My only encouragement to Dan and anyone else is that the sensor gains on the GFX using native GF glass will afford you enough of an increase in image IQ to make it worth selling off your Canon glass between (on 35mm-format) 18mm and 280mm (with the GF 250 and 1.4x coming in 2018) and moving to a two camera system - provided you don’t need the autofocus tracking speed of a 5DsR/MkIV/1D. Dan keeps referencing prints from the GFX and 5DsR being similar in quality, but overlooks his own admissions of the gains in image quality in moving from the nice but tired sensor on the 5DsR to the one in the GFX. Who cares if the print quality is equal if the GFX images LOOK better and appear more pleasing to the eye in the first place - not to mention the types of images you can create in a single shot on the GFX that would take the blending of multiple exposures on the 5DsR to even come close.



Dec 11, 2017 at 05:07 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Canon 11-24 GFX Surgery


highdesertmesa wrote:
Dan keeps referencing prints from the GFX and 5DsR being similar in quality, but overlooks his own admissions of the gains in image quality in moving from the nice but tired sensor on the 5DsR to the one in the GFX.


Uh, no. That's not what I wrote at all.

I did stipulate that a system with a larger sensor, all else being equal, has the capability to produce better system resolution, greater dynamic range, lower noise, and so forth. But then I asked some pointed questions about the magnitude and cost of those differences and came to the conclusion that the differences are too small and require too many sacrifices to be make sense for me and my photography at this time.

To put it simply: The real gains in image quality are quite small, especially compared to the excellent quality available from current high MP full frame systems, and the cost for me in terms of access to tools I need for my photography is too great.

While larger is better, I'm not at the point where I see that there is "enough of an increase in image IQ to make it worth selling off your Canon glass," though I do rely on a two camera system: my full frame Canon system (for landscape photography, tripod-based night photography, wildlife photography, and occasionally some other stuff) and my cropped sensor Fujifilm X-Pro2 centered system (street photography, handheld night street photography, travel photography, and occasionally a few other things).

As I've written, at some future time when the Fujifilm cropped sensor system can challenge DSLRs for the wildlife photography and when the range of lenses available for the miniMF GFX system gets closer to what I rely on, I can see moving to an entirely Fujifilm-based two camera system.

Who cares if the print quality is equal if the GFX images LOOK better and appear more pleasing to the eye in the first place - not to mention the types of images you can create in a single shot on the GFX that would take the blending of multiple exposures on the 5DsR to even come close.

Your first clause simply doesn't make sense to me. I do care about print quality, since I regard high quality prints as both my target output and the best real world test of system performance. But how can the print quality be "equal" and the "GFX images LOOK better and appear more pleasing?"

As to your point about single exposures versus blending... I've written before that I virtually never have to resort to blending and other multiple-exposure techniques with current cameras, so that it not a relevant point for me.

As always, YMMV.*

Dan

(Cue up the comments: "You just make boring photos of [some subject] and you don't push your cameras like real photographers do!" ;-) )

* "YMMV" = "Your mileage may vary," indicating my understanding that other opinions are possible, too.

Edited on Dec 12, 2017 at 09:54 AM · View previous versions



Dec 11, 2017 at 05:19 PM
highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Canon 11-24 GFX Surgery


gdanmitchell wrote:
To put it simply: The real gains in image quality are quite small, especially compared to the excellent quality available from current high MP full frame systems, and the cost for me in terms of access to tools I need for my photography is too great...

...But how can the print quality be equal and the "GFX images LOOK better and appear more pleasing?"



To put it simply: you cannot seem to grasp the difference between print quality and image aesthetics.



Dec 12, 2017 at 10:32 AM
highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Canon 11-24 GFX Surgery


Maybe a little show and tell will be helpful, Dan. I'm assuming you can't do this since you don't own a GFX to even being to have explored its capabilities.




© highdesertmesa 2017


GFX aesthetics





© highdesertmesa 2017


Situation where the 5DsR shines





© highdesertmesa 2017


Situations where the 5DsR is challenged and fails





© highdesertmesa 2017


GFX aesthetics




Dec 12, 2017 at 10:47 AM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Canon 11-24 GFX Surgery


highdesertmesa wrote:
Maybe a little show and tell will be helpful, Dan. I'm assuming you can't do this since you don't own a GFX to even being to have explored its capabilities.


Beautiful shots that illustrate what the GFX does well. Although the second shot is lovely and I see nothing to complain about, I do think that the GFX with a lens like the Leica R 180 f/3.4 APO could get you a very similar shot. I am not knocking the 5Dsr, but unless you are talking the use of a special lens I am not sure what it can produce that cannot be produced with the GFX.



Dec 12, 2017 at 01:06 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Canon 11-24 GFX Surgery


highdesertmesa wrote:
To put it simply: you cannot seem to grasp the difference between print quality and image aesthetics.


Hmmm. Honestly, I do have a notion of what "image aesthetics" might mean, but I've never heard it set in opposition to the notion of print quality before. They seem like independent concepts. Print quality, in the context I used it, related to objective quality of a print — the stuff that some folks inspect at nose-length distances and so forth. Image aesthetics, as I would understand the term, would apply to the aesthetic quality or power of an image — and what we might regard as a more subjective evaluation of the effectiveness of a photograph.

About print quality we might ask questions about things like resolution or color and so forth. About image aesthetics we might ask questions about the "power" of the image and how and why it "works" for viewers.

Regarding the former we can clearly identify connections to the characteristics of the camera (and lens, etc) used, post-processing techniques applied, technical aspects of printing, and similar. About the former, these connections seem not so strong — a photograph in any format can have excellent (or not so excellent) aesthetics, as I understand and use the term.

So I don't see where you are going with this.

But please do enlighten me, and explain what you mean when you write "image aesthetics."

It is a serious request.

Thanks,

Dan



Dec 12, 2017 at 02:04 PM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Canon 11-24 GFX Surgery


gdanmitchell wrote:
Hmmm. Honestly, I do have a notion of what "image aesthetics" might mean, but I've never heard it set in opposition to the notion of print quality before. They seem like independent concepts. Print quality, in the context I used it, related to objective quality of a print — the stuff that some folks inspect at nose-length distances and so forth. Image aesthetics, as I would understand the term, would apply to the aesthetic quality or power of an image — and what we might regard as a more subjective evaluation of the effectiveness of a photograph.

About print quality we might
...Show more

Dan,

I am sure highdesertmesa can speak for himself, but to me the differences in his shots are obvious. He is taking advantage of the substantially higher dynamic range of the GFX over the 5DsR. This is creating a look to the files he is showing that is quite beautiful and the 5DsR images sometimes (like in the failed example he shows) just tend to fall apart. This isn't surprising as the differences in dynamic range between the two cameras at base ISO is quite large (over 2 stops--see the measurements here: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm)
You may never shoot images where 2 stops in dynamic range makes a difference, but I don't think it is that uncommon. By the way, because of the weaknesses in the Canon sensor this two stops increase in dynamic range is just as big as the differences between 35mm film and 645 film. That too is about a 2 stop difference. So even though the sensor of the GFX is only big enough that you would expect about a 1 stop difference in dynamic range because it is a more advanced sensor one actually sees a bit more than 2 full stops in increased dynamic range performance. Even by your own reasoning this should be a pretty noticeable difference and it is. I find it hard to believe that you cannot see it in these examples.
One final point, I think it is inaccurate to say that there are not good long focal length alternatives for the GFX. The lenses have to be adapted, but there are some excellent options. They are primes and not zooms, but I would challenge you in your statement on your blog that you, "would have to eschew certain types of photography with such a system." This may be true, but I am skeptical. What exactly would you have to eschew with a 33X44 type system?



Dec 12, 2017 at 05:08 PM
highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Canon 11-24 GFX Surgery


gdanmitchell wrote:
Hmmm. Honestly, I do have a notion of what "image aesthetics" might mean, but I've never heard it set in opposition to the notion of print quality before. They seem like independent concepts. Print quality, in the context I used it, related to objective quality of a print — the stuff that some folks inspect at nose-length distances and so forth. Image aesthetics, as I would understand the term, would apply to the aesthetic quality or power of an image — and what we might regard as a more subjective evaluation of the effectiveness of a photograph.

About print quality we might
...Show more

I think Steve covered it pretty well in his response. I know there is always the risk of confusion when using terms like "quality" and "aesthetics". I meant aesthetics in terms of how a sensor renders an image rather than the aesthetics of the composition or other aspects that depend on the artistic talent of the photographer.

What I'm railing against (perhaps by proxy, and perhaps I am tilting at windmills) is something I read a lot on Internet forums, which is the sentiment that "there is little difference in sensor color/IQ/aesthetic output from various cameras because everything can be adjusted to look like anything else." I will admit that in some cases this can be true, but I find it is most often misused and exaggerated by those looking to justify their current equipment. None of us made this equipment ourselves, and the only reason to posture (and we all do it) would be to justify our ability to pick a winning combination – a poor motive given the power of artistry and composition to override the differences in gear. But despite "a good image is a good image", there are still powerful differences that our gear selection can make in our images. I'm making an argument – and based on the examples provided, I feel it a strong one – that the differences between images that can made with the 5DsR and the GFX are not small nor insignificant. They are substantial. Now if you want to split hairs over the GFX versus the D850, I would give you more leeway due to the advanced sensor in the Nikon (though even Lloyd Chambers agrees in a lengthy subscription post that the GFX still produces higher quality images than the D850).

Maybe this will help:

A.) There are situations where the GFX and 5DsR can render similar images, and these images will print very close to each other in quality.

B.) Conversely, there are images the GFX can render that the 5DsR cannot. In this case we have a GFX image that is pleasing and the 5DsR image that is not, and whether you view them on screen or print them at 40x30", the GFX image looks better.



Edited on Dec 12, 2017 at 06:46 PM · View previous versions



Dec 12, 2017 at 06:22 PM
highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Canon 11-24 GFX Surgery


Steve Spencer wrote:
Beautiful shots that illustrate what the GFX does well. Although the second shot is lovely and I see nothing to complain about, I do think that the GFX with a lens like the Leica R 180 f/3.4 APO could get you a very similar shot. I am not knocking the 5Dsr, but unless you are talking the use of a special lens I am not sure what it can produce that cannot be produced with the GFX.


Thanks! Yes, I only meant to illustrate with the rainbow photo the conditions under which the 5DsR does well – well lit, high contrast images without any backlight.

I know the Leica APO on the GFX would make an outstanding shot of the same scene, but to be fair, I wasn't using a comparable lens on the 5DsR (100-400 II). A more fair comparison might be the 5DsR plus Zeiss 135 f/2 APO (or the Canon 200mm f/2). I think with high quality lenses on both camera bodies, it would be difficult to tell one image apart from the other except for the grain that can been seen with the 5DsR sensor even at ISO 100 when adjustments like Dehaze are used in Lightroom.

Another consideration is image stabilization – I simply would have missed this shot if I needed a tripod (if the motion-blur results I have gotten using the GF 110 are any indication). Scenes like the rainbow example appear and fade away faster than i could move a tripod and get off several shots. Perhaps a monopod with a quick-flip orientation bracket would help.



Dec 12, 2017 at 06:41 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Canon 11-24 GFX Surgery


Steve Spencer wrote:
Dan,

I am sure highdesertmesa can speak for himself, but to me the differences in his shots are obvious. He is taking advantage of the substantially higher dynamic range of the GFX over the 5DsR. This is creating a look to the files he is showing that is quite beautiful and the 5DsR images sometimes (like in the failed example he shows) just tend to fall apart. This isn't surprising as the differences in dynamic range between the two cameras at base ISO is quite large (over 2 stops--see the measurements here: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm)
You may never shoot images where 2 stops
...Show more

Steve: Because you are a smart and serious person, I'm going to take the time to reply in some detail. Others who don't like lengthy writing have my sincere sympathy, and I do not expect them to wade through all of this...

There is no question that, as I have stipulated many times, Sony sensors and larger sensors are capable of recording larger dynamic ranges. [All else being equal — which it never is, of course — most anyone would select it over an otherwise equal camera with less dynamic range. (If you offered to trade me a magical 5DsR with 2 stops more dynamic range than the real one I use, I think I'd get some guarantees that it was otherwise identical... and then I'd make the trade. ;-)

Let me also stipulate — again! — right at the start that I'm coming from the perspective of my own photography, my subjects, the ways I work, and the output I create. A person with a different perspective can come to different conclusions that are equally valid for them.

The real questions are whether "all else actually is equal" and how these potential IQ improvements affect our individual work.

In the past I've described three scenarios that might help us think about the comparisons between cameras with different DR capabilities.

Scenario 1: We photograph a scene in which both Camera A and Camera B possess sufficient dynamic range to produce an excellent image. This is, of course, by far the most common circumstance.

Scenario 2: We attempt to photograph a scene with an extraordinarily large dynamic range — lets say that it includes important shadow details and the sun itself — and neither Camera A nor Camera B have sufficient DR to capture the full range.

Scenario 3: We photograph a scene in which the dynamic range is one that cannot quite be captured by the lower DR Camera A but can be captured by the higher DR Camera B. This can occur, but it is a small subset of all of the scenes we might attempt to photograph.

So, what actually happens in Scenario 3? It isn't a binary where Camera A can't do it at all and Camera B does it perfectly. In the real world, both cameras are stretched (with low S/N at the dark end or blown highlight potential at the high luminosity end of the scale) but Camera B's performance is measurably better. In other words it is a matter of degree in this least likely circumstance, not typically a yes/no binary. (However, it is accurate to state that Camera A will arrive at the point at which the image is too degraded before Camera B does.)

This leads to a few more questions.

1. What do we do with photographs made in this third scenario? In both cases, the recorded dynamic range will exceed what we can reproduce without post-processing to bring up the shadow details. (In fact, this is even the case with images that have a wide dynamic range but which can be well-captured by Camera A and B in scenario 1.) The extremes of DR capture exist to allow us to recover detail in post so that it fits within the display DR of paper prints or typical monitors.

We often hear — it came up in this thread — that folks with cameras that have less (but still quite a bit of) dynamic range will have to resort to multiple exposure blends in order to produce a good image from high dynamic range scenes. This used to be the case more often when camera noise was more of an issue, when we worked with lower MP files that tended to show noise at smaller enlargement sizes, and so forth. In my own experience, this is rarely the case with any of today's cameras. Years ago I used to use exposure blending fairly regularly, but I do not think I have ever had to use it with my 5DsR, even with some very wide dynamic range scenes.

I've written about this and shared examples more than once. A few of them:

- An example of a photograph in which pre-visualization and awareness of DR challenges led me to "underexpose" with the knowledge that I would have sufficient detail in the file to produce the print I had in mind in post:
https://www.gdanmitchell.com/2015/08/17/a-photograph-exposed-technique-and-interpretation-in-post

- An example of a scene where I thought I might need to blend exposures — still in that mode of thought back then — but discovered that I really did not need to:
https://www.gdanmitchell.com/2012/12/22/post-processing-a-shadow-recovery-example

I have plenty more, but you get the idea.

2. What other plus/minus trade-offs do we make to get the increased DR (and other advantages that a camera might provide), and how do those stack up for our own photography? This has actually been my main point in this discussion from the perspective of my own photography — and I understand that each photographer will value these things differently and may come to a different conclusion. (One of the things that baffles me is the number of people in photography forums who not only believe that their choices are right for them but a) insist that they are right for everyone else and b) are offended when others come to a different conclusion. Note: I'm thinking of posters other than you at the moment.)

While stipulating (repeatedly!) that miniMF systems have greater DR, lower noise levels, potential for higher system resolution, etc., when I look at the whole package in the context of my photography (which I take quite seriously and which, I'm confident, is of pretty high quality, or so I'm told...), I attempt to analyze an economy of pluses and minuses and see what the balance sheet looks like for me and my photography at the conclusion. Note that I'm not claiming that my photography is better than anyone else's, simply that there are certain things that are more or less critical to being successful at what I do.

Also keep in mind that I was initially inclined to move to a miniMF system, and that I'm still interested once certain criteria are met for me. I described them in an earlier post. So for me and my photography I see it this way:

miniMF PLUSES: greater dynamic range, slightly better system resolution potential, lower noise, slightly smaller DOF at a given aperture.

miniMF MINUSES: cost of camera and lenses, availability of the range of lenses I rely on for my work, visible improvement in prints compared to FF not significant below about 30" x 40", larger/heavier system if camera and lenses, not useful for some things I currently use high MP FF camera for, such as bird photography.

Now, for a person who finds that the currently available lenses are just right for them (or who is interested in adapting FF and MF lenses and working with manual focus and aperture in some cases), who works in situations where weight/bulk aren't a concern, who frequently prints at 30" x 40" and larger, and whose FF system is deficient in ways that the miniMF system will resolve... the miniMF system makes sense. I don't quarrel with your/their choice at all. (In fact, I have good friends who are first-rate photographers who use miniMF, along with others who have not. Among them you would find people using just about every film and digital format imaginable. We all get along just fine, by the way, and we even like one another's photography.)

But that's not my scenario.

Again, I actually like these cameras and I'm intrigued by them. As I wrote earlier in this thread, I can envision a time when my own kit might consist of a miniMF system for my landscape and similar work and a more capable smaller mirrorless system for everything from my street photography to bird photography. (Details in an earlier post.) It wouldn't even surprise me if that system is full Fujifilm at that point.

But right now for me, the plus/minus analysis for my photography doesn't point there.

I know that you "won't go there," but I hope that a few other folks who might take the time to laboriously wade through all of this prose can resist the inclination to chalk my point of view — which may not match their valid-to-them POV — to lack of understanding of quality photography or equipment and all the rest of that... and understand that intelligent, talented photographers can come to different conclusions about these things and can even acknowledge the validity of other points of view.

As always, YMMV.

Oh, to answer your specific question about long lenses, a significant amount of my landscape photography is done with long zoom lenses. It is an aspen of my style, if you will. Lenses comparable to the 70-200mm and 100-400mm lenses I rely on are not really available for the GFX system at this point. The availability of such things would be one of the pluses that may change my POV in the future. (I've included a couple of examples below.)

Dan

http://gallery.gdanmitchell.com/gallery/var/resizes/NaturalWorld/TheLandscape/California/Desert/MonoLake/MonoLakeWildfireSmokeLayersDawn20160918.jpg


http://gallery.gdanmitchell.com/gallery/var/resizes/NaturalWorld/TheLandscape/California/CaliforniaCoast/BigSur/BlackAndWhite/BigSurFisherman2BW20080209.jpg



Dec 12, 2017 at 07:50 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Canon 11-24 GFX Surgery


One needs to wonder why someone seems so passionate about a camera that they see no real value in. -


Dec 12, 2017 at 08:50 PM
highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Canon 11-24 GFX Surgery



gdanmitchell wrote:
Steve: Because you are a smart and serious person, I'm going to take the time to reply in some detail. Others who don't like lengthy writing have my sincere sympathy, and I do not expect them to wade through all of this...

There is no question that, as I have stipulated many times, Sony sensors and larger sensors are capable of recording larger dynamic ranges. [All else being equal — which it never is, of course — most anyone would select it over an otherwise equal camera with less dynamic range. (If you offered to trade me a magical 5DsR with 2
...Show more

Do you realize how insulting, arrogant, patronizing, and condescending your first paragraph reads? Why would anyone continue any further?



Dec 12, 2017 at 09:15 PM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Canon 11-24 GFX Surgery


gdanmitchell wrote:
Steve: Because you are a smart and serious person, I'm going to take the time to reply in some detail. Others who don't like lengthy writing have my sincere sympathy, and I do not expect them to wade through all of this...

There is no question that, as I have stipulated many times, Sony sensors and larger sensors are capable of recording larger dynamic ranges. [All else being equal — which it never is, of course — most anyone would select it over an otherwise equal camera with less dynamic range. (If you offered to trade me a magical 5DsR with 2
...Show more

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your post. I see a bit more where you are coming from but I am still confused by some of the things you are saying. You discuss Scenario 1, 2, & 3 as if how common they are is a universal fact and does not depend on what people shoot. I think how common 1, 2 & 3 are depends a lot on the shooter and what they shoot. For example, I like to shoot macro (really close up) a lot. For that shooting Scenario 1 is the most common, but Scenario 3 is common enough and Scenario 2 almost never occurs. But in my own landscape photography I like to shoot in the golden hour almost exclusively, so for that shooting Scenario 3 is by far the most common, then Scenario 2, and Scenario 1 is the least common. My father-in-law is a judge at a car show at Pebble Beach every year and I also get to shoot that show. It is midday in typically bright California sun, but there are lots of shadows too. At that car show Scenario 2 is by far the most common, followed by Scenario 3, with Scenario 1 being the least common. So, my view is that even in talking about how common these scenarios are we have to recognize that they differ wildly for different photographers and even for the same photographer from one topic to the next. Your analysis which says that Scenario 1 is by far the most common, in my view, heavily tips the analysis to suggest that dynamic range isn't that big a deal. Well I think that doesn't take different people's shooting styles and topics enough into consideration. For some people it rightfully will be a very big deal. Now if scenario 3 really is uncommon to you, then of course you aren't going to care that your camera has over 2 stops less DR than another camera, but that is certainly a reasonable thing for someone to care about and it might be a big deal to them. I know in my own experience switching from a Canon 5D MK III to a Sony A7 MK II, which is about the same difference in dynamic range, made a huge difference for my landscape photography. So, although you definitely recognize that different people have different needs for their photography, somehow that seems to get lost in your analysis of dynamic range.
The same sort of making general statements without noting that may matter to some and not others creeps into your analysis of plusses and minuses. In this case you talk about things that are objective and apply your own labels rather than noting the objective difference and your evaluation of it. For example, in the pluses you note, "slightly smaller DOF at a given aperture." Well that certainly is one take on the issue, but there is an objective answer here. The GFX at the same aperture has almost a stop shallower DOF if you crop to 4 X 3 or squarer, and about half a stop if you crop to 3 X 2 or a skinnier rectangle. Now to you that may be slightly shallower depth of field, but to others it likely is not. For me it is one of the reasons I shoot a GFX. I think it is noteworthy shallower depth of field. When you talk about an objective difference and only give your subjective interpretation of it, it is easy to get confused and to think you are reporting the objective difference rather than your subjective take on it. A similar thing happens when you discuss minuses. There you say, "larger/heavier system if camera and lenses." Here you seem to be reporting an objective fact, but I don't think it is accurate. Both the Fuji GFX and the Hassy X1D are lighter than the Canon 5DsR, and depending on exactly the lenses you choose it is nowhere near a given that the Canon system will be lighter with camera and lenses. Now it could well be true that with the lenses you would choose the Canon system with lenses would be lighter than the Fuji or Hassy kit with the lenses you would choose, but the way you write here sounds like you are reporting an objective fact when it is actually a very personal evaluation. This misperception is compounded in the paragraph below when you say people, "who works in situations where weight/bulk aren't a concern," might be more inclined to shoot a 33X44 system. But the truth is someone who is concerned with weight/bulk might also prefer a 33X44 system because if they design the system with those concerns in mind they can actually get a smaller kit with the Fuji system or the Hassy system than with a Canon system.
In fact, you also missed that people like me might choose the Fuji system because they can get meaningful to them shallower depth of field across a whole spectrum of lenses than they can get using any FF 35mm system. So, again you acknowledge that people may have different needs and priorities but you cast certain issues in ways that appear to be facts when in reality they are your assessments.
I do think you make clear efforts to understand other people's rationale for using a 33X44 system, but I continue to be surprised how you gloss over things that are likely to be important to some people and describe them in ways that suggests not just to you, but in an objective sense they aren't important. I actually don't think you mean to do that, but it definitely comes across that way in your writing and I think the cause of that is two things. First, at times you don't recognize the diversity in the way people practice photography--a mistake you made in describing scenarios about dynamic range. Second, you do not draw a clear distinction between objective differences and your subjective interpretation of those differences which makes it easy to confuse your subjective statements as statements about objective facts. This you did in your discussion of plusses and minuses.
And just to be clear I have no issue with you picking the 5DsR and your zoom lenses. The 33X44 system means a more expensive camera and unless you pick the lenses very carefully the whole system of camera and lenses is likely to be more expensive and that matters to you as it likely does for a lot of people. You also prefer long zooms and I don't think 33X44 systems will ever have long zooms. Sure a 100-200mm lens could happen, but that is just a 75-150 equivalent with a 4 X 3 or squarer crop. I don't think anything like the 100-400 will happen. That would be a 150-560mm and nothing even close to that was ever made for medium format. You never know, but I would be shocked by such a lens. Nor do I think 33X44 system will any time soon be useful for many people's needs for wildlife--although I do think I will shoot wildlife on it from time to time. I do think the image quality even in prints is noteworthy right now, but I certainly think it is reasonable to have a different take. So, by all means stay with your Canon system. You are producing very nice work and the gear is never the end all an be all. In fact, it is only a tool. Sometimes a nice tool, but the real work is done by the photographer.

Edited on Dec 13, 2017 at 11:23 AM · View previous versions



Dec 12, 2017 at 09:56 PM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Canon 11-24 GFX Surgery


highdesertmesa wrote:
Thanks! Yes, I only meant to illustrate with the rainbow photo the conditions under which the 5DsR does well – well lit, high contrast images without any backlight.

I know the Leica APO on the GFX would make an outstanding shot of the same scene, but to be fair, I wasn't using a comparable lens on the 5DsR (100-400 II). A more fair comparison might be the 5DsR plus Zeiss 135 f/2 APO (or the Canon 200mm f/2). I think with high quality lenses on both camera bodies, it would be difficult to tell one image apart from the other except for
...Show more

Yes, you are right that IS is a very nice feature that is mostly missing from the GFX system (do some of the lenses have IS?). When I shoot with longer lenses I do use a monopod, but there are times when IS is definitely both more effective and nicer. I also totally agree that something like the Zeiss 135 f/2 APO would be killer for that shot, and the 5DsR does handle that kind of setting quite well. Once again all of these shots are superb.



Dec 12, 2017 at 10:00 PM
highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Canon 11-24 GFX Surgery


Steve Spencer wrote:
Yes, you are right that IS is a very nice feature that is mostly missing from the GFX system (do some of the lenses have IS?). When I shoot with longer lenses I do use a monopod, but there are times when IS is definitely both more effective and nicer. I also totally agree that something like the Zeiss 135 f/2 APO would be killer for that shot, and the 5DsR does handle that kind of setting quite well. Once again all of these shots are superb.


Tha GF 120 has IS as will the upcoming GF 250. I only meant to illustrate that adapting manual focus lenses without IS might be problematic for what is half my shooting style and half what is my laziness

Thanks for replying to Dan. His post sent me straight to tequila shots. I do think you are being overly kind and patient in your response considering some of the ridiculous and sweeping statements that were made, including the one about the system weight. I had to laugh because I love how much lighter my GFX system is versus what my Canon setup used to be. One of the points Lloyd Chambers makes in his article about the GFX versus 35mm format (I would quote it, but it’s a paid subscription) is that a gear bag full of the GFX and GF lenses weighs substantially less than the bag full of D850 plus the Zeiss glass required to even come close to GFX image quality. But Dan’s true sin lies not in mistaking the subjective for the objective, it’s in confusing them in light of the fact that he has no practical experience with the GFX at all.

Edit: forgot to mention, if you look at the long list of long lenses that Pentax makes for the 645Z, you can see it’s not unreasonable to want Fujifilm to make some lenses in the 300-500 range for the GFX someday - but whether they ever will is another matter.



Dec 12, 2017 at 10:33 PM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Canon 11-24 GFX Surgery


highdesertmesa wrote:
Tha GF 120 has IS as will the upcoming GF 250. I only meant to illustrate that adapting manual focus lenses without IS might be problematic for what is half my shooting style and half what is my laziness

Thanks for replying to Dan. His post sent me straight to tequila shots. I do think you are being overly kind and patient in your response considering some of the ridiculous and sweeping statements that were made, including the one about the system weight. I had to laugh because I love how much lighter my GFX system is versus what my
...Show more

I think it will be interesting to see how Fuji develops out the system. They might indeed make long lenses, but I think that depends on how the camera sells, which I think depends on the new sensor that Sony is going to have available next year. Here are my guesses (and they are just guesses so take them with a huge grain of salt) of how the GF lenses and GFX cameras will evolve:

2018 - 250 f/4 and 1.4X TC - that is it for next year
2019 - GFX MKII with new Sony 100MP sensor at the end of the year; 30 f/2.8 prime and 50-100 f/4 zoom (this might switch with the next year lenses, however)
2020 - 20-40 f/4.5 zoom; 80 f/1.4 prime
2021 - 100-200 f/4 zoom; 40 f/1.8 prime
2022 - GFX MKIII with 100MP sensor and much better AF; 400 f/4 prime; 2X TC
2023 - 180 f/2.8 prime; 200-400 f/5.6 zoom

At this point it will be a pretty complete system:
Primes: 23 f/4; 30 f/2.8; 40 f/1.8; 45 f/2.8; 63 f/2.8; 80 f/1.4; 110 f/2; 120 f/4 Macro; 180 f/2.8; 250 f/4; and 400 f/4, plus a 1.4X and 2X TC for the long lenses
Zooms; 20-40 f/4.5; 32-64 f/4; 50-100 f/4; 100-200 f/4; and 200-400 f/5.6

Plus a camera with 100MP and great AF. In my view that only happens if the GFX MK II sells well. If it doesn't I would expect Fuji to really slow down and not develop the lenses until there is enough demand to suggest they will sell. The pace here isn't torrid. Just two lenses a year and a camera every three years. After this they could just update one lens a year and fill in needs as they develop. I see it as a very viable system in the long run, but as with everything photography related a lot depends on if the market for photography is stabilizing or if it continues to shrink.



Dec 13, 2017 at 12:03 PM
highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Canon 11-24 GFX Surgery


Steve Spencer wrote:
I think it will be interesting to see how Fuji develops out the system. They might indeed make long lenses, but I think that depends on how the camera sells, which I think depends on the new sensor that Sony is going to have available next year. Here are my guesses (and they are just guesses so take them with a huge grain of salt) of how the GF lenses and GFX cameras will evolve:

2018 - 250 f/4 and 1.4X TC - that is it for next year
2019 - GFX MKII with new Sony 100MP sensor at the end
...Show more

I would really love to seem them produce a 400 or a 200-400 in 2019, then fill in all the rest as they see fit. A 18 or 20 super-wide would be great to see sooner rather than later as well. Hitting the longer end of the telephoto spectrum would really help the GFX function as a full system for my purposes.



Dec 13, 2017 at 05:49 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.