gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.4 #15 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes? | |
First, congratulations on creating a post almost as long as mine. ;-)
Second, you are correct. Too many people have a hard time with this truth, namely that today’s cameras (and lenses, in many cases) are so much better than what we worked with in the past that the differences are both real… and most often invisible — except in edge cases and/or specific use cases.
This is extremely relevant to the initial question in this thread — about whether a specific user should move to a GFX system to photograph “landscapes.” Two or more things can be simultaneously true in this regard:
1. A larger 33x44 100MP sensor camera is capable of recording more detail than a camera with a smaller sensor and/or fewer sensor photo sites. It may also be capable of handling a larger dynamic range with aplomb.
2. The difference between the photographs created with two systems (say miniMF and FF) is objectively quite small and is unlikely to be visible in one’s final output (be it print or screen) unless the images are presented at very large sizes approaching the (subjective) limits of reproduction size.
3. For a photographer whose primary need is to be able to produce highly detailed and extremely large that can be a bit larger than FF-sourced images, the miniMF format can be just the ticket, especially if their work process and ancillary equipment needs are compatible with the larger format systems.
4. For many photographers producing quite large and detailed work the image quality pluses of the larger systems are outweighed by the pluses of smaller systems: excellent image quality, somewhat more portable gear, availability of a wider range of lenses and other accessories, lower costs, etc.
The main I problem folks seem to have is from trying to determine the “best” option using one-dimensional criteria, combined with a notion that if one thing is “better” than another that them absolutely must get the better thing, whether or not the ways that the “better” thing is superior have any substantial effect on their photography.
If the real incremental image improvement from a larger format will change your photography in ways that are, on balance, positive… then go for it. On the other hand, if one aspect is better in ways that aren’t going to make a difference in your photographs but may impede other aspects of your photography, put the brakes on.
No format is “better” than any other format in a generalized way. Every format has pluses and minuses. If that wasn’t true we’d see lots of people doing sports photography with 8x10 view cameras.
Dan
- - -
Unrelated to your post — and addressing a different person in this thread — I see another person has again posted absolutely gigantic files into this FM thread. Please don’t do that. It is a waste of everyone’s time. Virtually no one is looking at FM discussion threads on a screen that it big enough to display those images as posted.
I work on photographs on a system with two 27” monitors… and I cannot see those images in full there. I usually do my non-photographic work on a laptop or an iPad Pro… on which I probably can’t see more than 5% of those gigantic images. (I just checked. I see less than 1/30 of each image on my screen. In other words, to see the whole thing I must scroll vertically 5 1/5 times and horizontally more than six times.)
It is entirely unnecessary to post such humongous images here. If the point is to demonstrate detail or something else that is only visible at high magnifications, please respect other FM users enough to crop the damned files to something approaching a normal screen size. If you believe that a few people might actually want to inspect your monumental files, just give both of them a link to download it.
And, to the same poster, you still have not answered my very basic question — and your images don’t address it either — regarding what is meant b the claim of a 10% better image in your earlier post. Answering that should be simple and take no more than one sentence of a short paragraph.
Needless to say, this kind of “participation” in the thread warranted a click on the “hide” link.
Geoff D F wrote:
It's funny that you mention this as I own both a quite old 16mp M4/3 camera and a FF 43mp Sony A7Riii. And my conclusion is that for many use cases the results from the M4/3 camera will look just as good as the FF Sony. To take an extreme example, if one shoots large format 10x8 film and 35mm and then prints both to cheap 6x4 paper, apart from possible depth of field issues you probably won't notice any difference because the smaller format has not been stretched to the point where its limitations are visible in any way.
We are kind of at the point now with digital sensors. I suspect most people are viewing on at most 4k screens, which display around 8 mp, or not printing above 13x19 at which size M4/3's limitations are not going to be apparent. I've done tests myself shooting the same subject with 16mp M4/3 and 43MP FF Sony and then viewing on my 4k 28inch screen and couldn't really see any difference. Curiously in the past I had assumed I could see some difference, but I attribute that to bias in that when I saw an image I liked that was shot on FF I attributed it to the format, whereas images that I didn't like so much I had attributed to bad technique, but was applying the reverse bias to M4/3 - where I saw a shot I liked I had attributed it to technique and where I didn't like it for whatever reason I attributed it to the format.
Sure differences will apply if you are stretching the limits, but how many people have a large 8k screen (which displays around 33mp) or printing above 24x36 inches, where well shot M4/3 might be starting to tap out?
I think most people who own cameras in multiple formats, will point to issues such as depth of field, dynamic range, options to severely crop or desire to print very large as possible reasons to go one way or another. But I don't think any of them claim that larger formats are better for the average photographic use case - that is, screen viewing, normal print sizes, posting to social media, etc.
...Show more →
|
