I have no skin in the game, but how long do you suppose it takes Sally Mann to make just one of her images? This may not be the right kind of comparison.
I think it varies a lot. In her book, she describes the making of the photograph of her son Emmett with his hands resting on the water of a river in which he is standing. She used an 8X10 set on a tripod in the middle of the river. She had six film holders that held two sheets each. She would make two shots, then swim the holder to the shore and swim back with another. They made twelve shots a day and repeated this for seven or eight days until she got a shot she was satisfied with. So, seven or eight days before printing.
Certainly it would have been easier with an A1 or Z9 or whatever. Not the look she wanted. She did all this before she was well-known.
I don't shoot with GFX. My personal opinion is that people should do what they want to do! Shoot what you want with whatever you want. But Mann has a completely different process and set up. She also has to determine locations, and lug a ton of equipment to the site, etc. So, it's a very long process. I didn't read every post in this thread and I certainly wasn't being dismissive. I'd love to rent a GFX sometime just to see what I can do.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Your replies will make more sense if you actually read and understand the posts you reply to first.
I did not make the Sally Mann point, so whatever your point s about condescension, it is irrelevant to what I wrote.
And, of course, asking if the OP is doing something similar to what Sally Mann (and the other mentioned photographers) does is relevant if the point (made by the poster to whom I was replying) had suggested that using a miniMF system for photographing the family makes since because Sally Mann uses a large format.
I did not argue that one “shouldn’t” use miniMF for pictures of the family. I argued for asking whether or not that is the best option for the particular use by this poster. If a poster asks for advice, it is reasonable to offer it....Show more →
Read what you wrote: You described posts about using medium format for family photographs as motivated by "GAS," which of course is dismissive.
chiron wrote:
Read what you wrote: You described posts about using medium format for family photographs as motivated by "GAS," which of course is dismissive.
Yes. Read what I wrote.
I did not say that any use of miniMF for photographing families is GAS. I raised the possibility that this particular person might be motivated in part by it. (I also acknowledged circumstances in which using this format for such things might make sense, and I pointed out that this would be an extremely small percentage of those making family photographs.
What part of that do you disagree with?
You don’t hold that anyone or even most people, should use miniMF for this kind of subject, do you?
Just because a Stradivarius is the right tool for some people, it does not follow that a Strad is necessary or right for everyone.
I did not say that any use of miniMF for photographing families is GAS. I raised the possibility that this particular person might be motivated in part by it. (I also acknowledged circumstances in which using this format for such things might make sense, and I pointed out that this would be an extremely small percentage of those making family photographs.
What part of that do you disagree with?
You don’t hold that anyone or even most people, should use miniMF for this kind of subject, do you?
Just because a Stradivarius is the right tool for some people, it does not follow that a Strad is necessary or right for everyone.
Sharona wrote:
I don't shoot with GFX. My personal opinion is that people should do what they want to do! Shoot what you want with whatever you want. But Mann has a completely different process and set up. She also has to determine locations, and lug a ton of equipment to the site, etc. So, it's a very long process. I didn't read every post in this thread and I certainly wasn't being dismissive. I'd love to rent a GFX sometime just to see what I can do.
Sometimes she goes to a location that requires lugging gear, and many of her Southern landscapes required that. In some of her more recent images, I think the ones shot in swampy areas, she took a small digital camera to make the initial image because working with a tripod was impractical, and then re-photographed the digital image with a view camera and glass plates in her studio. But many of her most famous images were made in her home. The photograph of her son Emmett in the river was at her home.
I think she also sometimes works very quickly in a way that is not very different from how medium format permits one to work. I think the title of her book "Hold Still" in part comes from what she would sometimes tell her children (or other subjects) as she rushed to get her tripod and camera and film into position to capture the shot.
One of the things I try to learn from her is that often you have to work very hard to get the picture. And sometimes you don't.
How does Tracking Autofocus work on the GFX100 II?
For example, with fullframe cameras, I like to have a center tracking point, so that I first focus using the center point and then recompose while the object first selected is tracked. Will the GFX100 II do anything like that?
A quick look at the manual seems to indicate that tracking is only available with a wide focus area? Is that correct?
chiron wrote:
How does Tracking Autofocus work on the GFX100 II?
For example, with fullframe cameras, I like to have a center tracking point, so that I first focus using the center point and then recompose while the object first selected is tracked. Will the GFX100 II do anything like that?
A quick look at the manual seems to indicate that tracking is only available with a wide focus area? Is that correct?
Yes, tracking does not work with all 400+ AF fields. It only works in wide mode, with 117 fields. You can combine it with object recognition. So it is not exactly like my Sony cameras, but it does work pretty well, and is significantly better than any other MF cameras implementation. I just set the AF zone to "all". Then you can hit the joystick button, and it gives you a view where you can freely scroll through all the possible AF zones, with one of them being "wide/tracking".
vineyard wrote:
Yes, tracking does not work with all 400+ AF fields. It only works in wide mode, with 117 fields. You can combine it with object recognition. So it is not exactly like my Sony cameras, but it does work pretty well, and is significantly better than any other MF cameras implementation. I just set the AF zone to "all". Then you can hit the joystick button, and it gives you a view where you can freely scroll through all the possible AF zones, with one of them being "wide/tracking".
Thank you, that is very helpful and is exactly what I wanted to know.
How did you learn the GFX100 II's controls and idiosyncrasies? Trial and error in combination with the manual? Or is there a better source?
chiron wrote:
Thank you, that is very helpful and is exactly what I wanted to know.
How did you learn the GFX100 II's controls and idiosyncrasies? Trial and error in combination with the manual? Or is there a better source?
I also have a 100s, which isn’t that much different. And before that I had rented different GFX cameras too. Usually I simply configure new to me cameras the way I like, and only go in depth with the manual if there are new features, or stuff works completely different. For the 100II I’ve yet to consult the manual. If I was completely new to Fuji, I would probably read that first. And I generally use new cameras for a couple weeks for non critical work only.
chiron wrote:
How does Tracking Autofocus work on the GFX100 II?
For example, with fullframe cameras, I like to have a center tracking point, so that I first focus using the center point and then recompose while the object first selected is tracked. Will the GFX100 II do anything like that?
A quick look at the manual seems to indicate that tracking is only available with a wide focus area? Is that correct?
A bit late I guess. I shoot like you do (center tracking point/recompose). I think the tracking in the 100II is perfectly usable. And that’s a real understatement. It works very good. Just do not compare it to Sony A1/A9, which are made for this very fast kind of shooting. Could it be faster on the 100II? Maybe/ probably, but not like the Sony A1 or A9, I think….at least not yet.
But then….I’m a slow shooter anyway and who knows what possible firmware upgrades can do.
Rand47 wrote:
That’s pretty much a perfect world, I’d say!
Rand
Yes. I played with few MF, but I waited till the 100ii came out to have something with a good a balance or AF, size and resolution. Still very happy and I am about to do a trip without a nikon body even.
OP
You might do better just renting any GFX for a week or so.
I have recently decided to get the 100S because it is a BSI sensor, 100MP (plenty for my landscape photog), and is hand holdable with the assistance of IBIS. Not that large so hand holds easily and right now the 100S is on sale at $4400 versus $7500 for the 100 II. The better EVF does not interest me since I use and love the 5.76mdot EVF in my SL3, the tiltable EVF does not interest me since the 100S LCD tilts and most believe the BSI 100MP sensor is the same in both cameras. There are more differences, but none seemed important to me. That savings of $3k can get you some very nice GF lenses. Just my 2 cents.
stgrove wrote:
OP
You might do better just renting any GFX for a week or so.
I have recently decided to get the 100S because it is a BSI sensor, 100MP (plenty for my landscape photog), and is hand holdable with the assistance of IBIS. Not that large so hand holds easily and right now the 100S is on sale at $4400 versus $7500 for the 100 II. The better EVF does not interest me since I use and love the 5.76mdot EVF in my SL3, the tiltable EVF does not interest me since the 100S LCD tilts and most believe the BSI 100MP sensor is the same in both cameras. There are more differences, but none seemed important to me. That savings of $3k can get you some very nice GF lenses. Just my 2 cents....Show more →
Just FYI, the EVF in the 100s is 3.6 mdot. The original GFX 100 has 5.7 mdot. So the delta from 100s to 100 II, at 9.4 and 1.0 magnification, is HUGE.
Rand47 wrote:
Just FYI, the EVF in the 100s is 3.6 mdot. The original GFX 100 has 5.7 mdot. So the delta from 100s to 100 II, at 9.4 and 1.0 magnification, is HUGE.
Rand
And yet (owning two 100s's and one 100 II) there is precious little difference in actual use. When I switch between cameras neither one stands out as better or easier to focus than the other and if you're shooting with strobes in the studio then the newer, higher res, "better" viewfinder in the II is decidedly worse, so bad in fact that shooting people I only use the 100s. But, as they so, what the eff do I know and your mileage could vary.
