p.27 #1 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
rbf_ wrote:
It also revealed some not as well stated drawbacks in sensor readout speed, obviously file size and maybe fps.
Yes, FPS is likely tied to readout speed. I mean, if a file takes 1/3 second to readout, it's kinda hard to do more than 3 FPS on that sensor. Kick it down to 14 bit, and you get 1/6 second, so maybe you can bump the FPS to more than 3 FPS, but not by much. Certainly can't be the speed demon of 14 bit files that are reading fewer bands, or those that are kicking down to 12 bit to bump the FPS even more.
p.27 #2 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
tsdevine wrote:
I missed the $500 off on the 32-64. If I continue further down this path, the 35-70 will still make a nice smallish lens to carry about.
It gives me a little time to get used to the camera, and decide what route to take in terms of lenses.
I guess I'm diving into the deep end . . . today, I also picked a Pentax 645 75/2.8 with adapter. Small and compact and up there in IQ. I wanted a chance to play with some MF like I do with my Leica.
p.27 #3 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
rbf_ wrote:
I think there's some confusion here. The testing of 16 bit mode vs 14 bit mode revealed some small improvement in DR under extreme inspection. But several photographers reading it noticed that one was obviously better. It also revealed some not as well stated drawbacks in sensor readout speed, obviously file size and maybe fps. Some people have been hearing about the 16 bit color advantage for longer than others. I think getting the data out there just helps photographers make a choice depending on what they are doing at the time and is a good thing. It's some pros and cons that a photographer needs to weigh to make a choice about which mode he wants to be using. It has some drawbacks as well. I view it as a "Good Thing" for photographers to know them. But using it is at the end a valid photographs choice....Show more →
Not familiar with the particular comparison you refer to, but was it done as a double-blind test, where neither the person presenting the images to be compared nor the persons asked to compare them knew what was different about them or the nature of each image in the compared samples?
p.27 #4 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
Not familiar with the particular comparison you refer to, but was it done as a double-blind test, where neither the person presenting the images to be compared nor the persons asked to compare them knew what was different about them or the nature of each image in the compared samples?
There were a lot of threads and discussions about it. This is the test I'm recalling.
p.27 #5 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RustyBug wrote:
And, that's kind of a faulty logic perspective, in your "appeal to authority" ... since there are plenty of knowledgeable people who indicate otherwise.
But, you go on believing there is no difference ... I mean, how many people on the Fuji forum alone (and have done so for years) have heralded how much greater the color is in the GFX systems than other (FF / APS-C ... both of which are 14 bit vs. GFX 16 bit), and continue to use the GFX ... I mean, if there's truly no difference.
How long did you say you've been shooting with both 16 bit and 14 bit systems in your bag at the same time ... for real world shooting / pp? Or, are you just parroting others who are pitching their perspective, and agreeing with them. I suppose there's no difference between 14 bit and 12 bit either, or 12 bit and 10 bit. Heck just shoot jpg's 8 bit, there's no difference between that and 10 bit, since it's all PR.
Do you really think that the Fuji GFX system and the Hassy system has sustained itself on a "ruse" of PR marketing?
That, and IF there truly is no difference ... then, why in the world would they incur the 1/3 sec readout for 16 bit, when they could just stick with the 1/6 sec readout for 14 bit?
Just "PR razzle-dazzle" is non-sequitur.
I have been using Hasselblad and Fuji MF cameras since they were launched. I did some controlled testing between 16 and 14 bits and could not find any relevant difference in noise, colors, and post-processing.
I will gladly change my opinion if you can provide concrete examples of where 16 bits matter, even if it goes against any technical considerations. The theory, based on measured read noise data, is clear. My experiments confirm the theories.
16-bit output is apparently a great PR element, and you are not the only one believing in its relevance.
If you shoot MF cameras with less than 14 bits (Fuji's high-speed mode is 12 bits), you will lose DR. On the other hand, 12 bits is plenty for m43 sensors. Bit size matters, but there is a limit above which it does not benefit. A 128-bit MF camera will not be better than a 14-bit camera.
p.27 #6 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RustyBug wrote:
16 bit math, edited ... still capable of exceeding 8 bit outputs, after math operations.
You guys are missing the point that where you start ... gives you more latitude ... en route to where you end (staying north of 8-10 bit, etc.).
14 bit has less "wiggle room" than 16 bit. To Dan's point "edge cases" for some. Yet, appreciated for others.
I do not see how 16 bits can give more "wiggle room" than 14 bits. Both raw formats are processed at the same bit size (16 bits?). In one case (16), the two lower bits are random data (noise), in the other case (14), they are zeroed out.
If you're not going to consider the 16 bit difference of value to your files, then why even bother with MF ... more $$$, more weight, more bulk, slower lenses, etc. Might as well drop the premise of the GFX 100RF being of any value over the X100VI for consideration ... oh, wait 100MP for cropping down to a 60mp or 40mp files (same as FF or APS-C, options).
MF has real benefits, e.g., more DR and higher resolution, independent of 16 vs. 14 bits.
p.27 #7 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Rusty, you need to believe SrMi, me and every other GFX shooter I know... The 16 bit is getting you nothing extra. I don't know what you think you are seeing, but you are not really seeing it. So do yourself a favor. Shoot EFCS, 14 bit & compressed lossless. You and everybody else here.... We all went through this in excruciating detail many years ago.
I talked to some Fuji reps about this a long time ago and told them they were full of it and asked them what the deal really was with that 16 bit bit.... They all chuckled and said.... I know .... Don't ask....
So, you can shoot however you want. If you want 200MB raw files vs 100 MB that gain you absolutely nothing extra, have at it. Storage is cheap and new computers are fast.
But I wanted to try to save a few of the new guys here who will start shooting GFX with his new fixed lens GFX camera some learning curve.
p.27 #8 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Nothing wrong with that. More just that my pool of funds is a little shallow right now, so I had to wade in.
I had a Mamiya 120/4 macro lying around, so I’m picking up an adapter for that. Don’t have huge expectations but might be fun to play around with.
rji2goleez wrote:
I guess I'm diving into the deep end . . . today, I also picked a Pentax 645 75/2.8 with adapter. Small and compact and up there in IQ. I wanted a chance to play with some MF like I do with my Leica.
p.27 #9 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
tsdevine wrote:
Nothing wrong with that. More just that my pool of funds is a little shallow right now, so I had to wade in.
I had a Mamiya 120/4 macro lying around, so I’m picking up an adapter for that. Don’t have huge expectations but might be fun to play around with.
I'm usually in a similar situation fund wise, but I sold my Sony 600/4, picked up 200-600 and used the leftovers for this system! I'm done buying for a while . . .
p.27 #10 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
rji2goleez wrote:
I guess I'm diving into the deep end . . . today, I also picked a Pentax 645 75/2.8 with adapter. Small and compact and up there in IQ. I wanted a chance to play with some MF like I do with my Leica.
That's a very good lens. It's going to be an old lens now, but if it's in good condition you should get excellent performance on gfx cameras. Once you close down a stop or two. You will find that it is on the soft and glowy side wide open. But that is typical of that era.
p.27 #11 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
SrMi wrote:
I do not see how 16 bits can give more "wiggle room" than 14 bits.
If you don't understand digital processing from 0-1 and the fact that all edits are mathematical operations of additive / subtractive (n) , multiplication / division (x) , exponential (n^x), I can understand where folks don't follow this. When you combine operations, the math of sequential exponential operations holds up better / longer with less artifacts / banding / etc. developing as a result of the computations when you start with 16 bit increments, than if you start with 14 bit increments.
I'm clearly not going to sway folks, here.
As I stated before ... if you don't KNOW that you need / want 16 bits, then you probably don't. But, when you do know, there is a difference (edge, if you like) that is available to be harnessed. If you don't want it / need it ... general use won't present a discernible difference. I get that folks are saying everything they have, pertains to those who can't discern the difference in 99.99% use case. I've given credence to that ... but, such credence isn't being reciprocated to the other 0.01%.
From what I read in that thread (underexposing by 6 stops and the micro-inspecting high magnification crops), it does not sound like it was anything like a double-blind test… though the person doing the testing concluded that the difference is meaningless.
I’m interested in tests that eliminate possible bias and bias confirmation. If you believe that a 16 bit file will be better (or even if you just accept that it is “better” on paper) there is a good chance that your assessment will confirm that prior belief.
What I’m interested in is whether anyone can actually see a difference when assessing real world output that doesn’t give them clues about what they are looking for.
(I first became sensitized to this decades ago from a sample in the world of high end audio… way back in the days of compact disk players. Someone did a test of super cheap and super expensive players that was set up this way, and it revealed that, for all the claims to the contrary, test subjects including several who were experts in audio, could not reliably distinguish the outputs.)
p.27 #13 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
From what I read in that thread (underexposing by 6 stops and the micro-inspecting high magnification crops), it does not sound like it was anything like a double-blind test… though the person doing the testing concluded that the difference is meaningless.
I’m interested in tests that eliminate possible bias and bias confirmation. If you believe that a 16 bit file will be better (or even if you just accept that it is “better” on paper) there is a good chance that your assessment will confirm that prior belief.
What I’m interested in is whether anyone can actually see a difference when assessing real world output that doesn’t give them clues about what they are looking for.
(I first became sensitized to this decades ago from a sample in the world of high end audio… way back in the days of compact disk players. Someone did a test of super cheap and super expensive players that was set up this way, and it revealed that, for all the claims to the contrary, test subjects including several who were experts in audio, could not reliably distinguish the outputs.)...Show more →
It wasn't that kind of blind testing. More like testing and then sharing the results online and having a bunch of people who follow the blog review and discuss (and every now and then find errors to correct). But it(16 bit vs 14 bit test) was done I think on a bunch of different models.
p.27 #15 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
As an "aside" to the 16 bit dialogue ... I took out my M10R (no IBIS) and mounted up just the 24mm lens (not 28, I know) for a walkabout. Part of the intent was to shoot everything "in context" of the limits of an f/4, fixed lens > crop in post as needed.
This wasn't meant to be an identical comparison, but as a regard to my mindset (bugged me vs. didn't bug me) when doing so.
As mentioned before, I've got a few bodies on my radar, and the 100RF has entered that realm of potential, so rather than working off the Q2 (with OIS and faster lens), I went with the slower f/2.8 ... which I mostly shot around 4.5 - 6.3. There were a couple times I bumped ISO to 800 (heavy overcast day) in some darker shadow places. But, certainly 800 is not a concern in today's realm.
Granted, this didn't take me into interiors or night work. But, working down to 1/30 sec wasn't a big deal (dusting off some good technique cobwebs) with the lack of gear stabilization. Keeping in mind that the 100RF is leaf shutter vs. M10R is focal plane, I could see getting along with the f/4 and no IBIS for a fixed lens and cropping (for story telling), if needed that I couldn't get my feet where I wanted them in the timing of the moment. Landscape and closer work is cropped a lesser amount for rotation / comp
Here's one such example (spirit of the concept), where my crop is pretty steep. No IQ prize (post crop), but the moment progressed (relative to the comp with the signage) as we were walking toward each other. Does the story hold up? Am I okay with the IQ hit from a deep crop?
Again, this is meant as an exercise in the approach that an f/4, fixed lens camera instills. This isn't meant to "prove" anything ... only sharing. Rather than bench jockey the discussion, I took a walk with the "closest" thing I had to emulate the 100RF experience to see how it fit in my head space.
p.27 #16 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Similarly I was out and about yesterday with the gfx100s + 32-64. Found myself inside an old railway station, f4 @ 1/8, single shot, handheld, with IBIS, so should equate to about 1/25 without ibis, perfectly sharp...
p.27 #17 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
robsonj wrote:
Similarly I was out and about yesterday with the gfx100s + 32-64. Found myself inside an old railway station, f4 @ 1/8, single shot, handheld, with IBIS, so should equate to about 1/25 without ibis, perfectly sharp...
IBIS for holding the beasty rig with focal plane shutter, no IBIS for holding the pocket rocket with leaf shutter ... horses, for courses. . The main trade-off being the optic ... zoom / IQ of such a larger lens vs. the diminutive optic on the RF.
I can see the 100RF making for a good "bike camera" or EDC / family outings (IQ, very little gear) when I don't want to pack around more gear, or futz with lens changes, etc. For me, the GFX100 + Fuji ILC GFX glass isn't on my radar. But, with understanding of what the 100RF is (vs. isn't), it still captures my intrigue.
Sometimes, perspective is key. I've often thought that a FF 33 x 33 camera (FF image circle, still) would be a nice change from 3:2 36 x 24. Maybe, I think of the 100RF as exactly that ... just with an additional option to widen things out if / when desired.
I'm inclined to think this sits in the space between a Q (fixed lens, leaf) / M (no stabilization, mechanical triangle of operation) / Hassy (MF, leaf) ... won't best any of them in their respective strong suits. Yet, a stone's throw away from all of them. Might have been the camera Goldilocks was looking for in the bear's house.
p.27 #18 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Like many others here this camera has interested me. For some reason the x100 never really did.
Currently I shoot an m10 and zf and consider the zf my main camera.
I’d have to rid myself of the m10 to acquire anything whether it’s the RF, a Z8, Q3 or a gfx100s. I’m not a professional. Wish I was. I get paid for a couple things that require a zoom lens on my zf.
The gfxRF is intriguing but f/4 with no way to go faster is a hmmmm to me. My m10 has no ibis but it’s not 102mp. If it had ibis and 2.8 lens it’d be sooooo tempting
p.27 #19 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RustyBug wrote:
+1
1758 g
735 g
Physical size difference is noteworthy.
IBIS for holding the beasty rig with focal plane shutter, no IBIS for holding the pocket rocket with leaf shutter ... horses, for courses. . The main trade-off being the optic ... zoom / IQ of such a larger lens vs. the diminutive optic on the RF.
I can see the 100RF making for a good "bike camera" or EDC / family outings (IQ, very little gear) when I don't want to pack around more gear, or futz with lens changes, etc. For me, the GFX100 + Fuji ILC GFX glass isn't on my radar. But, with understanding of what the 100RF is (vs. isn't), it still captures my intrigue.
Sometimes, perspective is key. I've often thought that a FF 33 x 33 camera (FF image circle, still) would be a nice change from 3:2 36 x 24. Maybe, I think of the 100RF as exactly that ... just with an additional option to widen things out if / when desired.
I'm inclined to think this sits in the space between a Q (fixed lens, leaf) / M (no stabilization, mechanical triangle of operation) / Hassy (MF, leaf) ... won't best any of them in their respective strong suits. Yet, a stone's throw away from all of them. Might have been the camera Goldilocks was looking for in the bear's house. ...Show more →
Yep, that size and weight difference totally changes things.
p.27 #20 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
newyork wrote:
Like many others here this camera has interested me. For some reason the x100 never really did.
Currently I shoot an m10 and zf and consider the zf my main camera.
I’d have to rid myself of the m10 to acquire anything whether it’s the RF, a Z8, Q3 or a gfx100s. I’m not a professional. Wish I was. I get paid for a couple things that require a zoom lens on my zf.
The gfxRF is intriguing but f/4 with no way to go faster is a hmmmm to me. My m10 has no ibis but it’s not 102mp. If it had ibis and 2.8 lens it’d be sooooo tempting ...Show more →
For me what’s tempting the most is the size of the body / lens wrapped up with a great sensor. Making the body larger takes away from the uniqueness of the camera.
