RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.39 #7 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread | |
racetratr wrote:
My own ongoing thought experiment:
I have a Sony A7CR and a very fine Sigma 24mm f3.5. When I set the camera's aspect ratio to 4:3, I end up with the focal length equivalent of about 27mm. This rangefinder stye setup has very similar size and weight as the GFX100 RF. Same basic sensor too...but only 54 megapixels of it (at the 4:3 aspect ratio).
The Fuji apparently has a very good viewfinder, vs. the Sony's mediocre one. The Sony, of course, allows interchangeable lenses.
When using a wide angle lens like the Sigma I can hand hold the A7CR at 1/4 second or more. In low light, that means I can use a significantly lower ISO, which would compensate for the IQ hit compared to the larger Fuji sensor. (Unless I am trying to stop motion, of course.)
The Sony/Sigma combo is excellent, and the body probably has better autofocus and more responsive overall operation than the Fuji.
I've pre-ordered the GFX100 RF, because it seems to suit my way of working, usually with a single medium wide prime lens, on the street. And I'm one of the people who can really use and appreciate all the megapixels. (For perspective control, decent sized prints, smoothness, fewer artifacts, more file malleability.)
But these days there's a lot that can be done in post processing to optimize full frame files. My usual print size is 16 x 24, right on the edge of where, IMO, larger format capture makes a significant difference. Even then, a lot depends on proper exposure, post processing, and what kind of paper I print on. It's always better to be able to go larger, though...
So I'm wavering. I have a long time background in large and medium format film photography, but I've been holding off on medium format digital because of size, weight, speed of operation and cost issues. I can afford the new Fuji, and I love its form factor. But I wonder if its IQ advantage, which is available within a useful but limited shooting envelope, is really worth it. I have to consider how big that advantage is, when it would apply, and what I would be giving up in terms of the A7CR's features, versatility and operability.
...Show more →
Sounds like you've got use case figured out ... imo, the difference is going to be in file maleability. If you find the MF sensor offers you something that your Sony doesn't keep pace with in post ... I'm guessing that'll be the "tipping point" for you.
For me, I already know that the MF file maleability is better than my Q2. Granted, I've got plenty of options ... but, in terms of better files in that form factor, it is pretty much the Q3 or GFX 100RF. Extending form factor to other styles, and the 907X / X1D II / X2D / GFX MILC's (bricks that they are) come into play, as well.
I just ran across the ZM 25/2.8 Biogon and VM 25/4 Skopar (a "refresh" thought) ... mounted on an M11 that little Skopar would be similar (fixed FL, wide, pixels to crop, no IBIS, svelte package) to the 100RF. No EVF, no tilt, no AF, but you get the gist ... for those looking for a svelte package. Oh, but that combo would be $$$ more than the 100RF (for those keeping $$$ score). Of course, you can then get ILC or faster glass whenever you want, too (for those griping at f/4 without IBIS). 
As to print sizes ... my target is 24x32 and larger, so I can roll with most anything over 40MP (viewing distances understood), as long as the color tonality holds up well when pushed (or cropped, etc.) in post. My experience with the Hassy was that MF holds up very well vs. my Q2. Here again, the price point of the GFX 100RF isn't out of line when you put it in context of Hassy / Leica sensors > 50 MP.
|
