Forgot that this little still life/product/macro shot was indeed shot on a GFX100II camera, not that it would look any different on either of the two other GFX100 bodies. 172 slices of focus. Helicon Focus and about a week's worth of cleanup on aisle six.
5/8ths x 27tpi thread cutting die
GFX100 IIContax 645 120/4 lens120mmf/11.01/2s80 ISO0.0 EV
Slightly out-of-topic because it is primarily an image thread - sorry! - but I have a question. For ultimate detail (if that's what you're aiming at), and because IIRC the 102-MP sensor is diffraction-limited at f/6.3 or thereabouts, isn't it better to shoot the frames at f/8 or even f/5.6? Or is f/11 "very good enough" for your needs, perhaps with careful sharpening, also sparing you having to make a few dozen extra shots?
I'm asking this because I plan on doing focus stacking with my 100S.
Florent Chouffot wrote:
Great work with the painful focus stacking Peter.
Slightly out-of-topic because it is primarily an image thread - sorry! - but I have a question. For ultimate detail (if that's what you're aiming at), and because IIRC the 102-MP sensor is diffraction-limited at f/6.3 or thereabouts, isn't it better to shoot the frames at f/8 or even f/5.6? Or is f/11 "very good enough" for your needs, perhaps with careful sharpening, also sparing you having to make a few dozen extra shots?
I'm asking this because I plan on doing focus stacking with my 100S.
Thanks!
Great question Florent. It's the difference between theory and real world experience. One of the biggest problems with macro focus stacking is that you have to have focus overlap with every frame and even at f/11 the depth of field in a single frame at this distance, which averages just under 1:1, is still incredibly small.
I have done similar shots at f/5.6 and f/8 and, yes, there is the tiniest amount of greater detail, but not enough to warrant shooting several hundred 582 mb tiff files that have to go into Helicon or Zerene. The depth shooting at 1:1 or greater at f/5.6 is so shallow that you need even more shots than you'd think to have a successful focus stack.
When you start doing your own focus stacking, you'll soon understand what I'm talking about. Are you giving up some detail at f/11? Yeah, you are, but it's so small and it really facilitates the rest of the process which is hard enough as it is.
bobby350z wrote:
Do people really see diffraction at f6.3, f8, f11?
Yes, if you look closely enough you can see the smallest amount of fine detail missing at f/8 vs. f/5.6 and just a bit more loss at f/11, but as I mentioned, when you're doing things like focus stacking, architecture, landscape, portraiture and who knows what else, often times you'll make and even better image by stopping down to f/11 even if it's missing a small amount of detail. And your final output will also affect whether it makes a difference or not.
Peter Figen wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Are those the same film simulation or color profile? The biggest difference I see is the color of the bricks and I like the 100s better.
cbass wrote:
Are those the same film simulation or color profile? The biggest difference I see is the color of the bricks and I like the 100s better.
Not sure how your post ended up here in a completely different thread, but no, I don't use film simulations. Never have and never will. There was a slight difference in how the bricks were rendered but that was the difference between the Canon lens and the Fuji lens, not between the two Fuji cameras. They are in fact, identical in their color response within Capture One but the color was absolutely not the point of what I was looking for, it was detail and nothing else, so you're getting hung up and distracted by the wrong thing.
Peter Figen wrote:
Not sure how your post ended up here in a completely different thread, but no, I don't use film simulations. Never have and never will. There was a slight difference in how the bricks were rendered but that was the difference between the Canon lens and the Fuji lens, not between the two Fuji cameras. They are in fact, identical in their color response within Capture One but the color was absolutely not the point of what I was looking for, it was detail and nothing else, so you're getting hung up and distracted by the wrong thing.
If someone else is more interested in colors than detail, it's not "the wrong thing". And asking questions isn't "getting hung up and distracted". Your attitude isn't very nice, FYI.
Makten wrote:
If someone else is more interested in colors than detail, it's not "the wrong thing". And asking questions isn't "getting hung up and distracted". Your attitude isn't very nice, FYI.
Sorry, but it is the wrong thing as it's not relevant to the conversation.
Peter Figen wrote:
Sorry, but it is the wrong thing as it's not relevant to the conversation.
So a conversation is not allowed to change direction if one participant is interested in some other aspect of the test than you are? And only you decide what is "relevant" to ask questions about?
I have not changed my mind regarding your attitude. Very strange.
Edit: Looking at your next reply below, you seem to see reasonable questions as personal insults. WTF?
Peter Figen wrote:
Not sure how your post ended up here in a completely different thread, but no, I don't use film simulations. Never have and never will. There was a slight difference in how the bricks were rendered but that was the difference between the Canon lens and the Fuji lens, not between the two Fuji cameras. They are in fact, identical in their color response within Capture One but the color was absolutely not the point of what I was looking for, it was detail and nothing else, so you're getting hung up and distracted by the wrong thing.
I am not sure what you mean. I responded to comparison pictures that I saw in this thread. Based on the pictures I saw the GFX 100II and the GFX 100s pictures grouped together; one using the canon lens and the other the Fuji lens. The GFX 100II and GFX 100s color difference was obvious to me even with different lenses and I preferred the 100s color. That's why I asked if they were processed differently or had a different color profile or simulation. For me color and contrast matters more than minor differences in detail. You can see color in all print sizes. Detail differences only start to become apparent in very large prints, which are rarer. Sure, you can adjust color in post processing, but I would rather start from a better starting point. The less I have to do in post processing the better from a time and output perspective. Either way what I was seeing was not large differences in detail, but I was seeing more significant color differences between the samples you posted.
cbass wrote:
I am not sure what you mean. I responded to comparison pictures that I saw in this thread. Based on the pictures I saw the GFX 100II and the GFX 100s pictures grouped together; one using the canon lens and the other the Fuji lens. The GFX 100II and GFX 100s color difference was obvious to me even with different lenses and I preferred the 100s color. That's why I asked if they were processed differently or had a different color profile or simulation. For me color and contrast matters more than minor differences in "sharpness". You can see color in all print sizes. Sharpness differences only start to become apparent in very large prints, which are rarer. Sure, you can adjust color in post processing, but I would rather start from a better starting point. The less I have to do in post processing the better from a time and output perspective. Either way what I was seeing was not large differences in sharpness, but I was seeing more significant color differences between the samples you posted.
I don't know what to tell you. The differences I see are mostly from Canon vs Fuji lenses and in the bricks. The neutrals are all very very close to one another. I've shot both cameras under a wide variety of circumstances and there is no difference between the two. In extremely wide angle images, there is an RCH bit of an improvement in the 100 II, but only at f/8 and wider which pretty much disappears at f/11 where so many images are taken at anyway. That's the only thing I was comparing here. I'm really sorry that you can't get beyond a very minor color difference in bricks. You are more than welcome to shoot your own comparison.
