gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #9 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes? | |
justandyphoto wrote:
In summary, is the GFX experience worth it for landscape work, despite the extra money invested and weight carried in the kit? The similar color output is what has me thinking primarily about adding the GFX series to the kit instead of another brand (although the additional investment is similar since it's adding an extra set of gear to the kit either way).
I photograph a lot of landscape subjects — it is the largest percentage of my photography. I print. I do not shoot with a GFX system, though I have used one and I’ve contemplated getting one for years. I have photographer colleagues who do use GFX and more who don’t. (If you are aligned with what I might call the “West Coast Landscape School,” you know of the people I’m talking about.)
There is no question that the GFX system can be an outstanding choice for landscape photography. The larger sensor of the miniMF system has the potential produce very high levels of image quality and detail, and it supports printing quite large.
But it has both pluses and minuses by comparison to the option of using a non-Fujifilm full-frame system, and the interplay of those issues is something you should consider in the context of your own photography and from a very objective, practical perspective.
Does the system provide the lens options that you prefer to use? GFX lenses are generally excellent, and Fujifilm has increased the number and variety of them that are available, but do they cover the kinds of photography that you do? A good staring point might be to consider what you rely on with your x-trans system and then look to see how (or if) you would cover those needs with the GFX.
While the image quality potential of the Fujifilm miniMF format is even higher than that of full-frame… full frame is also extremely good. Let’s say that the GFX system has some liabilities for you — potentially price, size/weight, lens availability, slower operation. The question becomes whether the advantages of the GFX — things like extremely high system resolution — will have a more meaningful effect on your photography than those potential downsides.
Let’s say that you are a person regularly selling/licensing quite large prints on the order of 30” x 40”, and that you generally work from the tripod and are a very skillful post-processor, and that you don’t need some of the lens options that are difficult or impossible to find for GFX. The pluses of the GFX system could be significant for you and you may well be among those who find it to be the very best current option.
But let’s say that you don’t primarily and regularly produce/sell such large prints*, or perhaps that you will still need lenses and accessories not readily available for the GFX, and/or that you tend to shoot handheld (thus diminishing the advantages of the very high resolution of the GFX system). It is quite likely that one or another excellent full frame system might be more useful to you and that you’d get truly excellent photographic quality from it. (It is even possible that you would not see a significant advantage from the full frame system over your XH2 for the photography you do. You can make a surprisingly large and excellent print from these 40MP raw files.)
GFX is excellent, but not for all tings. As always with photographic gear, it is more of a question of what works best for the photography that you do than it is a question of what is The Very Best Thing.
Also, the question of whether the “experience” is worth it is going to vary a lot. It is quite subjective once you start trying to analyze the “experience” instead of the more objective pluses/minuses of various options in the context of the photography you do.
Good luck.
Dan
* More on print size. A contemporary full frame system with good lenses and used competently can produce excellent 30”. 40” prints and larger. Used competently, your 40MP XH2 will have no problem producing first-class 20” x 30” prints and can go larger.
One more thing based on your final comments about “overkill” and shooting for a hobby: It is easy to succumb to the combination of “I must have the very best thing” and “I must have the very best thing for every possible photographic subject.” That’s a dangerous road to embark on. No matter what you do (or buy) you will never have the perfect solution for all photographic possibilities… and even if you imagine that you could cover all of those potentials, the mass of gear you’d be carting around would end up interfering and you would lose shots. Most people in your situation might look for a single system that covers most everything they will actually do with good quality. There are, in fact, full frame systems that provide excellent image quality, good speed, reasonable size, an outstanding range of lenses, and which work very well for your landscape photography. If you want a second system that is smaller — for example for travel — rather than jumping on the XH2 (a fine but larger camera) you might consider something smaller and lighter from Fujifilm.
FWIW, my own choice has been to use a Canon full frame system for almost all of my landscape and similar photography, and to use a Fujifilm XT5-based system for photography where smaller and lighter gear is useful. Either system can serve as a backup to the other when I carry both.
Edited on Apr 05, 2024 at 01:27 PM · View previous versions
|
)