bobby350z
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.8 #8 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes? | |
gear-nut wrote:
I have a little more to add after performing an experiment. I recently assembled a small XT5 kit, so had an opportunity to do a "print" comparison between the GFX100s with 32-64 zoom and XT5 with 16-55 zoom.
I shot the GFX at f8 and the XT5 at f5.6 to keep DoF approximately similar without introducing excessive diffraction. I output the file from C1, each at full size with same processing treatment into PS. In PS, I sized both to a 20" tall landscape print. This requires a minor down-size of the GFX file and a more significant up-size from the XT5 file. I then was able to compare them side-by-side at the same net print size.
My first comment is I was actually quite impressed with how well the XT5 up-rezzed -- so good it was difficult to tell I had done it(!) In comparing directly to the GFX file, the differences were admittedly pretty minor. Yes the GFX showed smoother tonality and more micro-edge detail on leaves and twigs, but I basically had my reading cheaters on and was viewing the 20" prints from about a 16" distance. If I was standing back 3 or 4 feet, the difference would probably be very minor to undetectable.
I repeated the experiment with a 24" tall print, which is about at the GFX native resolution if you print out at 360PPI for an Epson printer as I do. Here the difference was more visible, but the XT5 still held up impressively well, especially considering it needs a pretty healthy up-rez to get there, almost 2x linear. If I were 6 feet away from these, I might be able to tell which was which, but probably not. At 2 or 3 feet, the differences will probably be visible to most photographers, but still subtle enough that they probably won't be to most casual observers.
Edit: In reviewing the "print" images, I found a multi-stranded spider web about 40 feet from the camera toward the left edge of the frames -- this was in sunlight so well lit against a medium toned background, so good medium contrast separating the web out. It was visible in both raw files at 100%, but I could clearly see the individual strands in the GFX image at 100%, and only discern there was a spider web in the XT5 image at 100%. In the print images, the web was pretty small in the 20" print, but with my nose in the print I could still discern the individual strands in the GFX image, yet could only tell "there was something there" in the XT5 print. At 40", the GFX print still pretty clearly rendered the individual strands, the XT5 print did not, in fact the web itself was so indistinct it was barely visible and only because I knew where to look. I add this comment simply to give some relevance to the detail differences between the files -- and clearly this is detail at the extreme limits.
Conclusion. If you regularly print to 20 inches off the small side of the frame, the gains from the 100MP sensor will be visible but marginal. If you regularly print smaller than 20" and only occasionally up to 24", then the 100MP benefits probably will not, or perhaps just barely, justify their expense. The GFX files however hold up extremely well with an up-rez to a 40" short side print at the same 360PPI, again so well you can't really tell it's even been done. Hence, if you're printing to 24" or more on a regular basis, the 100MP kit will earn its keep fairly easily...
Hope this helps. ...Show more →
I want to try XT-5 and some comparisons with my GFX. I mostly shoot models and I like what GFX can do. This is my old GFX50s with 110mm f2. From a few shots that I looked when XT-5 was released, I was not impressed but I didn't get a chance to do side by side myself.
 20180301_Model_9604 by Vishi A, on Flickr
 Model_Mya_3086 by Vishi A, on Flickr
|
