RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.35 #19 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread | |
itai195 wrote:
To my mind comparing this to a 100SII is pretty nonsensical. The sensor is the same, but the RF is in a completely different size class than the 100SII could have any hope of approaching. If you're after absolute IQ and willing to take on the size of a 100SII system, you absolutely should go that route.
To me, this is similar to comparing the optical output of the Leica SL APO lenses on the SL3 to an excellent M mount lens (with adapter) on the SL3. The engineering of optical excellence afforded in the mountain of glass in the SL APO is a level up above a counterpart M ASPH. An inherent value of the M lens is that for its size, it still packs a punch that meets / exceeds the thresholds for many, many things ... without the size / weight of the SL APO ... which is undeniably a "superior" MTF experience. At what point does the difference in APO vs. ASPH create the value proposition for the difference in size / weight. Personal choices.
Of late, I've been shooting my wider M glass at mostly F/4 or F/5.6. Rarely F/8. So, the experience of a diminutive package without stabilization, and without anything wider than F/4 pretty much mimics the 100RF setup. The main diff's is the 100RF has AF, tilting screen, MF sensor, EVF. Of those things, the AF is probably my least need (but it could be convenient for letting others use it will have value, as well as "those times".).
The MF sensor is hoping to afford my color work a greater continuity of tonality than my current Q2 ... which begs the question of the sensor in the SL3 / Q3 / M11 and the toppings / readouts used for those as potential upgrades, instead of either the Hassy or the GFX. My experience with the X1D II for my color work was nice. I had a pair of lenses, but on the wide side, the 45/3.5 wasn't as wide as my Q2 and I'd need both bodies (both around 50MP) ... and the color of the Q2 didn't reach the levels of the Hassy.
So, (for me) ... while many folks are comparing this to sit between the Q3 and Q3 43, I'm seeing it more as the offspring of the Q series and the X1D II (no IBIS), with the addition of a tilt display, in a single body. I'll be retaining my SL2-S for my longer glass, which has IBIS. Leaf shutter and wide FL ... I should get along without IBIS just fine, like I do with my M's. If I really want to do low light, IBIS oriented work, the big pixels + IBIS on my SL2-S and small M lenses can fit the bill for that, in lieu of no IBIS / tripod work with the 100RF or M bodies.
I don't see the 100RF as a replacement for anything, rather I see where it can "slot in" to the mix, with other rigs ... none of which can ever be a 100% complete, stand alone solution, for all things, to all people, all the time. It's but one piece in the "camera wardrobe" (see below).
The added advantage of built in ND and long exposure times (vs. Q), and dual card slots isn't the main advantage over the Q, but it might be nice to have. Tradeoff ... no macro, no OIS, no F/1.7.
I think that when I look at the % of my shots that are taken with 24 / 35 / 40 / 50 on my M vs. the number on my Q, the M is easily the one that I carry more than the Q2. To that end, I'm looking at the 100RF as something that I'll incorporate with my M to a more significant degree than I have my Q2. Having the 100RF and the M with the 50/1.5 II could make for a nice pairing of smaller rigs, retaining a degree of reasonability to the concept of "cropping" the 100MP. For an even smaller setup, I could mount my 40/2 on the M, or mount up the longer 75/2.4 to have more of a short tele landscape to pair with the X100RF.
Think of a black suit or black skirt ... repeatedly mixed with tie or blouse of your choice. The X100RF is "fixed" like the staple of a the basic / classic, black attire ... others are interchangeable to be customized to your mood. I could likely achieve something similar with a pair of M's and just mount up the 28 Cron on say an M11, and ILC a "lesser" M (still an option of approach), but the 100RF is at least worth a serious consideration to sit in that space between the matrix of potential options. In some regard, the 100RF has removed certain decisions from the equation, via the fixed lens approach. What % (i.e. never expecting it to be 100%) will it come into play. IDK, but I do anticipate it to be more than the Q2 sitting in my bag most days.
I guess, my thinking is that the 100RF can become part of my fixed lens EDC (vs. Q), and the M (or SL) can be the augmentation to take over where the 100RF doesn't cover. For, "not a lot" more size, the color depth of the 100RF is an attractive rig, that the 50R (also, no IBIS) and the larger IBIS brethren of the GFX ILC's kinda "tap out" on the ergonomics. Granted, the Hassy is still an option ... but, it is also a different size / price point.
My (hopefully, realistic) anticipation is that the 100RF might be a "Goldilocks" to sit in the midst of these varied options ... and be a different amount of my EDC than my Q2 is (which it really isn't, for me).
Only one way to know ... 
The relevant comparison is to the Q3. The RF gives you the same focal length, a bit smaller size, certainly easier to pocket or fit in a bag, and more megapixels for cropping. Both of those appeal to me as a big Q3 user who values the small size and makes use of the cropping headroom provided by its sensor. The question to me is whether I'd miss that f/1.7 lens and IBIS, which I'd give up in the trade. I'm still on the fence there — I will probably have to try an RF and see how it works for me. I'm not sure why there's much need for drama or wish casting this camera into something it's not, the specs aren't what some folks were hoping for and that's just fine....Show more →
The other thing that is kinda in my history is that back in the film era ... I rolled with a Nikon FE and a 28/2.8. The form factor of the 100RF is reminiscent, and a 2.8 (stopped down for improved optic) FF isn't that far off from the 100RF, just a larger sensor (and AF).
Along with that, was my 75-150/3.5 ... which for the jump to longer glass, one can approach it with ILC or with two bodies. Imo, the need for IBIS is greater on the long side of thing. And, when you are magnifying things, the FF format + longer optic is a lighter / smaller setup than MF + longer (and larger) optic to cover the larger image circle. So, in that instance, having two different format bodies isn't such a bad thing ... i.e. FF for my longer work, MF for my wider work).
More than one way to skin the cat. Finding the one that works best for you ... personal choices.
|
