p.1 #2 · Jim Kasson on PetaPixel discussing GFX 100 II sensor
He's been posting his findings both on his blog and over at DPReview. Having both versions of the cameras, I see zero difference in image quality, even in blacks between the two. There are definitely ergonomic reasons and video reasons for liking the new body, but the overall image quality seems to be functionally identical at all ISO's I've used from 50/100 through 6400 on the S and at 80-6400 on the SII.
p.1 #3 · Jim Kasson on PetaPixel discussing GFX 100 II sensor
This is basically a 100s tweaked to different trade offs which are visible under the microscope, plus few nice changes and a finally useable AF.
In all fairness also Jim states that for as surprising it might be, in the end the engineering choices will have rarely any noticeable effect on IQ.
To me the 100ii is the first MF worth buying because of the AF.
p.1 #7 · Jim Kasson on PetaPixel discussing GFX 100 II sensor
Jeffrey wrote:
Uh, isn't it the same sensor as the 100 and 100s?
Yes, it's basically the same sensor but apparently there are new micro lenses and then at ISO 40 and 80 only, Fuji is doing a dark field subtraction which cuts off half the noise bell curve at the zero black point. This, according to Jim, used to be done a lot but not so much anymore, and is really sort of a sleight of hand trick to make it look like there's less noise in the shadows than the previous sensor, but that's not really the case, plus it's only at those two bottom ISO's. In addition, the faster readout claims by Fuji only happen under one specific situation (and I'd have to refer back to the video for that) and that also is only in 12 bit output, so it's a bit of advertising b.s. from Fuji.
p.1 #8 · Jim Kasson on PetaPixel discussing GFX 100 II sensor
With some tweaking yes. The main difference is the AF combined with a plethora of small things that makes is a better camera, but probably not worth it for most 100s owners.
p.1 #9 · Jim Kasson on PetaPixel discussing GFX 100 II sensor
Fpessolano wrote:
With some tweaking yes. The main difference is the AF combined with a plethora of small things that makes is a better camera, but probably not worth it for most 100s owners.
Yes, there are many small things that add up to a substantially better experience with the camera, but I think the major thrust of Jim's section in the video was how Fuji misrepresented what it claimed about specific improvements and how those were calculated and what a narrow scope it was where they actually applied. For most users there will be no actual difference in real world imaging other than improved ergonomics. As they say, whoever they is, "It's the little things"... well, actually a pretty good song by Robert Earl Keen with that title so maybe they is him.
p.1 #10 · Jim Kasson on PetaPixel discussing GFX 100 II sensor
It's just fluff from both sides. No company actually tells the WHOLE truth (*world fastest autofocus* or *8 stops of IBIS*) and pixel peepers like to pick stuff apart like it's the start of a new world crisis. Where, exactly did people think this newer faster sensor came from? All of the press releases are full of * because they all do this stuff. Some announced and some not.
I bought the GFX100II because it's an objectively better camera than any other Fuji MF camera made. the AF is better. The EVF is sublime, which was my major gripe with the GFX100S, usability wise. Did I think because they added an AI chip (whatever the fuck that is) that now I had the same AF as an A7R5 or even an XH-2? Nope. Not for a second did I think that. And sometimes it still grabs the eyebrow and not the eyeball... Shock and horror!!
Anytime you hear the words *30% better* or *twice as fast* in any electronics, it's bullshit. Same as the range on an EV (I have one) or the battery life of a laptop.
Fuji should have been more upfront about this. Yes, all the details are in the Sony specs but they've played the game and been caught out. Same with the black point fudge. They should have spun it like a pro. It doesn't really matter to IQ or file output but now someone who's found it has published it's now a shit storm.
The sad bit is this shit is going to follow the camera forever, now. And it'll come up in every thread about the GFX100II used by dickheads who have no idea what it actually means, to justify some other camera they bought on special at Costco. Objectively, there is no better image making machine in this class. We're not going to talk about all the stuff it does really really well. That's a shame. The medium format forums are going to get real boring, real quick. Mind you most of them already are. Too many *scientists*. Too few photographers.
I would not use these words, but I agree.
Still lot bla bla was die when the z9 came out and had marginally worse DR of the z7 and other things ... who falls for internet blah blah will never enjoy such fine cameras.
p.1 #13 · Jim Kasson on PetaPixel discussing GFX 100 II sensor
It's definitely good to know when the hype is hype and when and how much truth there is and then the user can decide if you need to counteract in any way. For me, it's worth it just for the viewfinder and the adjustable adapter for it but there are lots of other things that make it a worthwhile purchase, y'know, other than having the first one crap out on me. Jim Kasson is a pretty good photographer in his own right but happens to be more data oriented than I might be and he is very clear to say that probably these things won't matter but that we, as end users should know about them. For him and for myself, it's the lack of transparency where you expect a lot more than you got, which was none and how their major marketing points were simply not true except in the narrowest of conditions. That's what Jim was not happy with and neither am I.
And to be sure, there are some of us who are quite technical and pretty damned good photographers at the same time. You can have it both ways.
p.1 #14 · Jim Kasson on PetaPixel discussing GFX 100 II sensor
Peter Figen wrote:
It's definitely good to know when the hype is hype and when and how much truth there is and then the user can decide if you need to counteract in any way. For me, it's worth it just for the viewfinder and the adjustable adapter for it but there are lots of other things that make it a worthwhile purchase, y'know, other than having the first one crap out on me. Jim Kasson is a pretty good photographer in his own right but happens to be more data oriented than I might be and he is very clear to say that probably these things won't matter but that we, as end users should know about them. For him and for myself, it's the lack of transparency where you expect a lot more than you got, which was none and how their major marketing points were simply not true except in the narrowest of conditions. That's what Jim was not happy with and neither am I.
And to be sure, there are some of us who are quite technical and pretty damned good photographers at the same time. You can have it both ways. ...Show more →
I should have been more clear. I'm not having a dig at Jim Kasson. He IS an actual scientist. He appears to do methodical and rigorous testing. It's an objectively good thing to have Jim doing what Jim does. It's the next level down. The psuedo scientists. The ones that use P2P or DXO Labs in isolation as empirical evidence. The ones who can read about half of an MTF graph and assume that every lens conforms to that specification. Anyone who gives an exact number where diffraction cuts in.... The ones that think a lens is resolution limited.
Here's what's going to happen. A hundred wannabees are going to use PART of the information JK has found and use that as a basis of fact to make rubbish claims about the GFX. Likely the same type of dipshits who make snarky comments on any new Leica announcement at DPR, without having ever owned one. And they'll all leave one bit out. The part where it'll likely make little difference to most people most of the time. They'll jump up and down, accusing Fujifilm of withholding the whole truth while doing exactly the same thing themselves.
We're all here talking about what the GFX 100II doesn't do. That's a real shame because what it can do it epic. I'm here so I'm guilty of it. Maybe I'm tired. I just feel that there's so much of this crap on all photography forums. FM does really well here. There's a bit of it but relatively little to most other places. It's supposed to be fun. Getting out with a camera is fun. Even after 30 years as a working photographer. Fun. And I have nothing against talking about gear or photos or technique or image quality. But this shit is so far down the list of what contributes to image quality that it's sub-terranean.
p.1 #15 · Jim Kasson on PetaPixel discussing GFX 100 II sensor
I wonder if that means a potential firmware update could have offered all the benefits (sans card format, build quality, EVF and other nice-to-haves) to the GFX100 and 100S.
Primarily, is it a function of the new CPU in the camera which has sped up AF? Or is it superior algorithms? I guess we'll never know.
Can I clip the black point in post without other issues? I wonder.
p.1 #16 · Jim Kasson on PetaPixel discussing GFX 100 II sensor
None of this really matters and very few people will know about this or care. Kasson is not to blame nor are any intermediaries who might not understand. It all falls on Fuji and they deserve any criticism they get. We all have to sift through the good info online and the crap for everything we're interested in buying these days. You know the difference. I know the difference. No one else really cares. I'm busy pushing the limits of what I can do with the cameras and knowing about the black field subtraction is a good thing.
p.1 #17 · Jim Kasson on PetaPixel discussing GFX 100 II sensor
For me personally, as an aging amateur photographer, there were three features that sold me on the original GFX 100: the price was <$10,000, it had 100mpx, and it had the tilt finder. The GFX 100s lacked the tilt finder capacity, so I never had to agonize about replacing the GFX 100. Now the used-price of the GFX 100 is low enough I can keep it and relegate it to "studio macro."
The extra function buttons on the GFX 100 II keep me from having to dive into the tiresome menu system and the really dumb Q-menu (available options mostly pertain to JPGs); the grip is an option rather than welded on as in my old GFX 100; the view through the finder is much improved.
The marketing rhetoric is deplorable but fully expectable. As my best friend recently wrote in another context: "It is what it is. I hate that expression."
p.1 #18 · Jim Kasson on PetaPixel discussing GFX 100 II sensor
thrice wrote:
I wonder if that means a potential firmware update could have offered all the benefits (sans card format, build quality, EVF and other nice-to-haves) to the GFX100 and 100S.
Primarily, is it a function of the new CPU in the camera which has sped up AF? Or is it superior algorithms? I guess we'll never know.
Can I clip the black point in post without other issues? I wonder.
The main thing about the new sensor is read out speed which is clearly noticeable when focussing the camera and shooting faster moving objects with Electronic shutter.
p.1 #19 · Jim Kasson on PetaPixel discussing GFX 100 II sensor
MaTiHH wrote:
The main thing about the new sensor is read out speed which is clearly noticeable when focussing the camera and shooting faster moving objects with Electronic shutter.
In the video, Kasson explains how the readout speed is only faster in a very limited set of parameters and in the way that most users seem to be using the camera, there is no improvement in readout speed. It sounds like you're parroting Fuji's marketing material.
p.1 #20 · Jim Kasson on PetaPixel discussing GFX 100 II sensor
Peter Figen wrote:
In the video, Kasson explains how the readout speed is only faster in a very limited set of parameters and in the way that most users seem to be using the camera, there is no improvement in readout speed. It sounds like you're parroting Fuji's marketing material.
No marketing, just using th camera, seeing and experiencing the differences.
or *8 stops of IBIS*) and pixel peepers like to pick stuff apart like it's the start of a new world crisis. Where, exactly did people think this newer faster sensor came from? All of the press releases are full of * because they all do this stuff. Some announced and some not.