gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Lifeinpictures wrote:
I have a similar conundrum. I have been a Sony FE photographer since the first generation. Fujifilm was never something I considered.
This changed when I purchased a X-H1. I loved the body, handling and the colors. I moved on from this experience after a couple of years, but really missed the colors and and the body.
I purchased the X-H2S last year and consider it an almost perfect camera. I have also tried a Fujifilm GFX100S with a 80mm 1.7 lens at a Fuji event and loved the images.
I have been mulling going the X/GFX route and trading my extensive Sony system. One of the reasons I haven’t done it as yet is because of the library of lenses that cover a significant part of my various photographic interest......Show more →
As a fellow prevaricator (I’ve watched the miniMF developments for a LONG time without moving to it), the lens issue has been the main one for me. That is not the case for everyone, but for some of us it very much is.
I continue to use a 50MP full frame system from another manufacturer. I mostly use this system for tripod-based landscape photography but also for some wildlife (migratory birds) photography during part of the year. I like long lenses for some of my landscape photography, so in the field I rely on 16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm, and 100-400mm lenses, plus a 1.4x TC, a 100mm macro, and occasionally a Pentax medium format 80-160mm on a Mirex TS adapter.
I know what works for me, and while I’m willing to adapt a bit around the edges I am not willing to give up basic functionality that I rely on in a significant way.
Hence, for me, the most significant issue that has kept me from moving to miniMF is that Fujifilm’s line-up of (very good) lenses doesn’t cover my needs, especially for long zooms. I could adapt my EF 100-400, but that isn’t a perfect solution. As you allude to, typical FF systems provide pretty much any lens option we might need — and it is either impossible to come close to replicating that on miniMF or it requires some functional compromises.
(This, of course, doesn’t apply to folks who rely on exactly the kinds of lenses that Fujifilm supplies for the GFX system.)
There’s a second issue, too. It is not subject to debate to say that the miniMF format can achieve higher IQ specs than a smaller format, all else being equal. However, the real questions are “will the spec difference make a significant positive difference in the quality of the photographs that I produce?” and “is any potential improvement in IQ of more significance in my work than other compromises that I may have to make to get it?” In a world where contemporary FF systems are truly excellent, those are pretty serious questions.
Photographers can and do come to different conclusions about this. I’ve been hanging onto my Canon 5DsR system for now, even though (or perhaps because) Canon moved to a new R system with RF lenses — so updating my Canon system would inevitably lead to replacing body and lenses. (Yes, I know about adapters.) This means that all brand options are on equal footing financially as I consider the possibilities: Canon, Sony, Nikon, Fujifilm GFX.
If Fujifilm made the lenses I need it is almost certain that I’d go ahead and move to GFX.(I would continue to pair it with my Fujifilm APS-C system.) But it doesn’t, and there are some other minuses regarding things like AF performance and camera speed, plus weight/size and price, of course. I’ve been looking more closely at Sony recently. The cameras are excellent, of course, and just about any lens option is available. Image quality is very good. There are some interesting camera-size options, too, even among their high-MP FF cameras.
Regarding “Fujifilm colors,” I’ve been using the x-trans cameras for about a dozen years now. Unless it is the simulations that give you the “colors” you like (and you can’t get there in post on your own with other systems), I haven’t found anything that special about the colors. Basically, I can get the colors I want from any system by applying appropriate post-processing settings, many of which I save as presets for starting points.
Is GFX a great system? It certainly is for a number of photographers whose work fits its particular strengths and aesthetic. I also think that those of us who are very attracted by the idea of a larger sensor (and I’m in this group) have to try to be pretty rational and objective about our own photographic needs and what system(s) best meet(s) them overall.
For example, I haven’t seen anything in the posts from our OP to suggest that the GFX is a rational choice for him or that it will improve his photography in the way he hopes. I get it that if one has enough money, wants to “scratch an itch,” and feels like trying something, it is fine to give it a try. But when the question is about the functional value of the choice I also think that we can make some pretty good estimates of the pluses and minuses of a system before doing that.
YMMV.
- - -
Also, sad to see what happened to this thread. Parts turned into a mini troll war, (by the usual mini trolls?) and another is a debate about engagement rings. ;-)
Edited on Oct 01, 2024 at 06:05 PM · View previous versions
|
