RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.64 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread | |
gdanmitchell wrote:
HCB did “worry” about lighter lenses and cameras, which is why he chose to forego using the larger format systems of his era and instead use a format that was largely considered to be too small and too low quality for “serious” photography. Yes, that’s was how lots of people felt about 35mm film cameras in that era.
But more significantly, he didn’t worry about stabilization and AF (or AE, etc), not did Galen Rowell because…
… those things largely did not exist on the equipment of the time. (I’d have to look closely, but my best hunch is that Rowell was using 35mm gear — I believe Nikon was his choice —— that had things like match-needle exposure and split prism manual focus aids. I suppose one might have challenged him by pointing out that HCB didn’t “need’ those things.)
It is undoubtedly true that one can make photographs with gear that doesn’t have typical modern features like AF, IS, AE, etc. Likewise, it is true that one could drive cross-country in a Model A Ford, travel to Europe by ship, forego the use of cellular phones, carry traveler’s checks instead of credit cards, heat your home with a fireplace, and carry water from the well in a bucket.
You could also use glass plates instead of film. And you could even make some fine photographs that way.
I can tell you with certainty that the majorly of past photographers (though, honestly, HCB might have been at least a bit of an exception) would embrace the improvements to modern photographic gear and technologies had they been available. While some modern folks look backwards and imagine some lovely “purity” or something about that earlier work, the folks in those earlier times did not see it that way. They.
(If you’ve been around photography for a while, you have actually watched this process take place with quite a few photographic luminaries. I personally know folks who were Ansel protégés, and they — with almost no exceptions — have moved from the manual LF film gear that was common back then to the modern digital gear that all of us use today.)
No one questions that fact that we can make good photographs with a camera that has a single 35mm focal length, a maximum f/4 aperture, no IBIS, etc. What some may well question is whether foregoing those useful and easily available photographic technologies for a different technology (the 100MP 33 x 44 sensor) is going to be a plus, a minus, or neutral for photographs… and reasonable photographers may conclude that the theoretical plus of better IQ from that sensor is outweighed by the plus of larger aperture, smaller size, and features like IS on alternative cameras.
As you point out, HCB — who did use and ILC — seemed to do quite well without modern improvements like… 100MP 33x44 formats....Show more →
Understood.
For clarity ... I'm not playing the "purist" card ... just the fact that there are lots of folks who get along just fine without "all the features" (i.e. they don't allow the absence of something to restrict them from doing what they do). Personally, I (can) carry M, Q and SL. Technology wise, that's one each with no stabilization, OIS, IBIS. Of the three, I easily shoot the M more often than I shoot those with the additional technology. And, as to the f/4 lens ... I routinely shoot at f/4-f/4.5, occasionally I'll push / pull it a 1/2 stop into the f/3.5 - f/5.6 or f/6.3 territory. f/8 and f/2.8 are rarely used. Bear in mind also, that even in FF, there are some WA lenses that are only f/3.8, not to mention the zooms that are f/4.
So, if it's a reasonable choice for folks to choose those "slower" lenses, instead of their larger options, I don't see any reason why f/4 on the 100RF is such a problem for folks to get their head around, that it is an option. Don't like it ... get the GFX 100 II with fast ILC glass and pack it instead, like folks have the option to buy that 70-200/2.8 instead of a 70-200/4 (with the accompanying size / weight / aperture quid pro quo).
So, while I'm well versed in the lack of IBIS, the lack of fast aperture and the lack of AF, those are the three things that are suggested as being so big of an issue ... well, I'm just not buying it, as being all that restrictive. It doesn't restrict me, and I'm a nobody. So, if someone is a "somebody" that's an "all that" photographer, I'm quite certain they have the skillset (technical and mental approach) to do good works with the GFX 100RF. Others, might find it requires them to shift their mindset a bit, in order to be rewarded with the ethos of the 100RF. Still others, won't get there for a bit. And, some others will never get there. There's no requisite to do so. If folks find this camera to be too restrictive for their temperament, lots of other options. For those who can appreciate it for what it is, rather than lament what it isn't ... we'll soon see the fruits of their good works. Check back in a year and see where things are. 
YMMV
|
