RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.54 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread | |
Lukacs wrote:
I returned the camera at the end. I think it's an excellent device, it can't hold up the 35GM IQ, but first we have to compare the size and weight. It provides excellent results even in the highest crop zoom. Also F4 aperture is really good on this sensor, I don't take a statement here, every serious photographer should know the ability of a 35mm F4. I didn't find the lack of IBIS a problem at all, I'm only shooting static subjects under 1/60, for best results I'd use a tripod anyway. AF is not A7RM5 level, but I found it good, capable of tracking moving kids.
Overall this is not a technical perfection tool for high resolution (that lens definitely not capable resolving 100MP pixel level), if you care about pure resolution go for a ILCE MF with a large, high optical performance lens. This camera just delivers, I can't describe it technically, and I don't know if the magic is the large sensor's color, light, overall DR, but never seen this kind image quality, it's an analogue, film like rendering.
So the question why I returned it. I can't afford two premium camera, so I had to choose. I opted for the A7RV flexibility at he end: the outsanding reolution, faster lenses, different focal lengths, class leading AF, lower value. If I can afford it (not the price, but my overall monthly income, life) I'd take this excellent camera without hesitation, but in my situation this place taken by the affordable Ricoh GR3. ...Show more →
Thanks for your insights. I think it is reasonable to understand that a pancake style lens isn't designed to be the uber, mtf, zillion pixel slicing optic of larger optics. Maybe folks are looking at this backwards, a bit. Your comment about "excellent results even in the highest crop zoom" ... I think there's a salient point contained within that. Some folks will quickly gravitate to what that says. Others, you'll never get them to understand it, no matter how hard you try to explain it. 
Yet, there's a difference between a technically, class leading optic and a good rendering optic, in that the latter does not need to be the former, in all instances. Case in point, there are different levels of SA correction applied in any number of optics, and often that SA can have a rendering effect that makes the projection "less clinical" looking. Optical engineers / designers have to make certain choices / decisions wrt to how they want the lens to perform. Sometimes those choices aren't a matter of "they couldn't", rather, instead, "they did", for such a reason. Good to hear that they designed a nice one ... even if not an mTF class leader. Which, imo ... class leading MTF never was the intent of this camera / optic.
"This camera just delivers" ... good to hear. 
NOTE: wrt the optical performance, I had the opportunity to see some shootout images shot from the X2D with 38/2.5 vs. the 100RF (not my liberty to share), both shot at f/4. The performance difference wasn't anything I'd be concerned about. Having a 200mph car and a 220 mph car ... I can live with the lesser of the two when it still gets me where I'm going. It isn't a race ... it's getting out of it what you desire. If you need the 220 mph car, okay then. But, when 200 mph is still dang fast ... well, you get the gist.
|
