leonasj wrote:
gfx100/s same sensor,same details...
I wasn't claiming the 100s doesn't take detailed shots. I've owned it as well. Both are incredible cameras. I do prefer the improvements in the 100 II in other areas though.
baumgarten0712 wrote:
I wasn't claiming the 100s doesn't take detailed shots. I've owned it as well. Both are incredible cameras. I do prefer the improvements in the 100 II in other areas though.
leonasj wrote:
gfx100/s same sensor,same details...
the sensor of the gfx 100 ii which is part of the CMOS HS II family has nothing to do with the s then the native 80 iso on the s are not there
Karmal wrote:
Sorry but I don't see the same photo taken with gfx 100s and then what should you see with this photo regarding the angles? Then excuse me Kasson does laboratory tests but then in the real photos he tested this If so with the same perspective? ? And above all how he checked that the gfx100s / II sensor renders equally at the corners.
He know more than any one of us here. Sorry to say but too much Fuji fanboy stuff going on in your replies. Yes GFX100 II is good, I might upgrade but I don't drink Fuji's mkt coolaid either. You talk about the corners, but you haven't posted any side by side with GFX100 II and GFX100s either.
bobby350z wrote:
He know more than any one of us here. Sorry to say but too much Fuji fanboy stuff going on in your replies. Yes GFX100 II is good, I might upgrade but I don't drink Fuji's mkt coolaid either. You talk about the corners, but you haven't posted any side by side with GFX100 II and GFX100s either.
Could not agree more with what you're saying here. I will get out and shoot a side by side with a wide angle in the corner to see if there is anything at all to note but so far there's nothing that screams out to me, pick of the II rather than the S and a lot that yells the opposite. Video, different story. But it takes a long time using the cameras to discover the strengths and weaknesses and a lot of testing and perseverance. Kinda like a couple weeks ago when I posted all those Canon 100-400 samples for Dan. Well, for me and you and everyone else, but Dan is who prompted it.
I did a macro shot in the studio a couple of days ago and I chose the S model because it's sooo much easier to shoot vertically with it tethered and with a remote release, but if you never do that it won't matter. But if you do, you'll discover why I'm saying this.
bobby350z wrote:
He know more than any one of us here. Sorry to say but too much Fuji fanboy stuff going on in your replies. Yes GFX100 II is good, I might upgrade but I don't drink Fuji's mkt coolaid either. You talk about the corners, but you haven't posted any side by side with GFX100 II and GFX100s either.
I don't know more than anyone else, I had a gfx 100 then two gfx 100 s and now I have two gfx100 ii I wouldn't have made the change if there hadn't been an improvement in image quality whoever doesn't see this maybe doesn't have shots of comparison with the same proprietary perspectives. Are they fanboys? Why should I be concerned about what? I could also be Sony since I have three bodies and countless GM lenses.
However, this topic has been opened here specifically for the photos of the gfx00 ii, another specific one should be opened on the differences in the gfx 100 s vs gfx100 II
Here's the full frame first then a screen shot of the corner comparing the GFX100s and the GFX100II with two different wide angle lenses - the Canon 24mm f/3.5 t/s-e and the Fuji GF20-35mm f/4 at 24.5mm which was about as close as I could get it doing a quick comparison. And of course, the framing was to get something with significant detail close to the corners, so it's not level or plumb on purpose.
Both lenses are shot at f/8 and manually focused at maximum zoom through the viewfinder. No sharpening applied at all.
Interesting to see first off that the Canon t/s-e is actually a tiny bit sharper than the Fuji at equivalent focal length. Not a lot, but just enough to see. And secondly, on both wide angles, the GFX100II is a tiny tiny bit sharper in the corners than the GFX100s. Again, not by much. In the real world it'd be unlikely that you'd see the difference, but maybe under certain circumstances. Bigger difference and more surprising between the two lenses.
I did shoot all combos at f/11 as well but the f/8 samples were every so slightly sharper. The f/11 samples were all much closer to one another, so if you tend to shoot landscape or architecture at f/11, there's precious little difference between the cameras but here at f/8 a bit.
Here's the full frame first then a screen shot of the corner comparing the GFX100s and the GFX100II with two different wide angle lenses - the Canon 24mm f/3.5 t/s-e and the Fuji GF20-35mm f/4 at 24.5mm which was about as close as I could get it doing a quick comparison. And of course, the framing was to get something with significant detail close to the corners, so it's not level or plumb on purpose.
Both lenses are shot at f/8 and manually focused at maximum zoom through the viewfinder. No sharpening applied at all.
Interesting to see first off that the Canon t/s-e is actually a tiny bit sharper than the Fuji at equivalent focal length. Not a lot, but just enough to see. And secondly, on both wide angles, the GFX100II is a tiny tiny bit sharper in the corners than the GFX100s. Again, not by much. In the real world it'd be unlikely that you'd see the difference, but maybe under certain circumstances. Bigger difference and more surprising between the two lenses.
I did shoot all combos at f/11 as well but the f/8 samples were every so slightly sharper. The f/11 samples were all much closer to one another, so if you tend to shoot landscape or architecture at f/11, there's precious little difference between the cameras but here at f/8 a bit.
And now that I look at the screen shot jpeg in the browser here, whatever they're doing to the image is obliterating the differences I described, so maybe you'll just have to take my word for it.
Excellent in the writing at the top of the label, the gfx100 ii seems to win but without raf and with different crops it is difficult to understand, it would be useful to post the two raf
Karmal wrote:
Excellent in the writing at the top of the label, the gfx100 ii seems to win but without raf and with different crops it is difficult to understand, it would be useful to post the two raf
It's not difficult to understand at all, but whatever FM does to the images makes it impossible to really see. There is a TINY difference between the two cameras with these two wide angle lenses, but the differences are very small, and they pretty much go away by the time you stop down to f/11, which is where a lot of people shoot out of practical compromise like when I shoot architecture or landscape and often people.
The bigger surprise was that the Canon lens clearly outperformed the Fuji lens in the corners - again, not by a lot, but it's definitely there, which is saying a lot especially when you've got all the folks over at dpr crapping all over that lens but who apparently either have bad copies or more likely, simply don't know how to focus.
The Fuji lens does have a lot of curvature of field, which can be quite useful at times, but since both of these were manually focused near the corner, and you can't get fully into the absolute apex of the corner because you simply cannot scroll over that far when fully zoomed in. In a shot I did a month ago in a house looking down a stairway with the 20-35, I was surprised at how well that field curvature in my favor giving virtually full focus without having to stack.
The bottom line is that I test enough to know how the equipment works, and in this case the claim that the revised micro lenses improving corner focus is correct, but it ain't correct by much, and for most people in the most common situations, you would not be able to tell without looking at the metadata which camera took which picture. And in addition, if you weren't specifically focussing in the extreme corners, the chances are even greater that then, not being specifically focussed in the corners would further diminish the gains. The focus is that critical.
Peter Figen wrote:
It's not difficult to understand at all, but whatever FM does to the images makes it impossible to really see. There is a TINY difference between the two cameras with these two wide angle lenses, but the differences are very small, and they pretty much go away by the time you stop down to f/11, which is where a lot of people shoot out of practical compromise like when I shoot architecture or landscape and often people.
The bigger surprise was that the Canon lens clearly outperformed the Fuji lens in the corners - again, not by a lot, but it's definitely there, which is saying a lot especially when you've got all the folks over at dpr crapping all over that lens but who apparently either have bad copies or more likely, simply don't know how to focus.
The Fuji lens does have a lot of curvature of field, which can be quite useful at times, but since both of these were manually focused near the corner, and you can't get fully into the absolute apex of the corner because you simply cannot scroll over that far when fully zoomed in. In a shot I did a month ago in a house looking down a stairway with the 20-35, I was surprised at how well that field curvature in my favor giving virtually full focus without having to stack.
The bottom line is that I test enough to know how the equipment works, and in this case the claim that the revised micro lenses improving corner focus is correct, but it ain't correct by much, and for most people in the most common situations, you would not be able to tell without looking at the metadata which camera took which picture. And in addition, if you weren't specifically focussing in the extreme corners, the chances are even greater that then, not being specifically focussed in the corners would further diminish the gains. The focus is that critical.
...Show more →
Ok I was asking you for the raw also for another reason I see that the wb is very well controlled on the gfx 100 ii while on the gfx100s I see magenta (which I noticed when I had it) and furthermore the 24 ts canon again on the gfx100s has some ac too much it is enough to see the top edge of the roof but it is difficult to give opinions on these clippings, it would be useful to see the extreme edge at the top left, I think there is a white sheet with a writing, or post the raw and in any case we are sure that the 24 mm of the TS correspond 100% to the 24 mm of the 20 35, to do these tests you should put the 20 35 on the gfx100s and on the gfx100 ii to see if the history of the microlenses is true
JFC, that's exactly what I did. Both cameras. Both lenses. Whatever. Go do your own tests. As I've now mentioned more than once, not a whole lot of diff at f/11 and a tiny bit at f/8 but since we commercial photographers tend to shoot at f/11 anyway for a variety of reason, well I shouldn't have to explain this to you. And then you have the clusterfuck of ports on the left side which makes shooting tethered vertically, while not impossible, a jumble of adapters that are just a mess.
To remove any doubt we need the rafs of the 4 shots I no longer have a direct comparison with between gfx100 s and gfx 100 II because as soon as I got the new ones I gave away the old ones
