p.68 #1 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RustyBug wrote:
Native focal Length x 4 is around 1/140, so I wouldn't expect 1/160 to be a worrisome shutter speed, unless I'm being a bit sloppy in technique. Diffraction might be something in the f/11 or f/16 range I'd watch for, but that's a peculiar (although, certainly legit) question about the "other" end of the lens aperture range, considering how much folks have clamored about the f/4 aperture being such an issue of limitation. Strikes me that the question of diffraction will likely be of interest for folks who don't find f/4 limiting (i.e. not the fuzzfest bokeh, must have folks).
Yes, I refer to Leica's 4xFL formula as my minimum for a non IS camera. But being 70, I also gravitate towards Jim Kasson's 6xFL formula quite often. With my 100RF I've set my ISO Auto 1 setting for IQ priority with a shutter speed set at minimum 1/200 and maximum ISO of 1600. I'll deviate the settings for action and low light with Auto 2 and 3 or adapt manually.
With the GFX 100S I've experienced how quickly the depth of field can close in on a photo, especially when the focus point is nearby. I've often have had to close down to f/11 and sometimes even to my personal limit of f/14 even though diffraction is taking away resolution. F/4 to 8 is often my prefered working apertures with this sensor.
I just finished reading ReidReview's 100RF lens test (pay wall). I'm really happy with his test results and it confirms my less technical impressions so far. Without saying too much it's a superior lens center to edge. Much better than the Q's 28mm but we all know that lens is long in the tooth.
p.68 #5 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
"do the math"
I'm quite familiar with the math. I'm aware that the shape of CoC can extend beyond the area of an individual pixel dimension. My question is whether your reference of "sets in extremely quickly" is in terms of it is readily visible in print vs. the math of pixel peeping?
Or, maybe a different way of asking is ... at what print sizes / viewing distances (and ppi / dpi) do you find the diffraction effects from GF lenses problematic that would strongly prohibit folks from shooting f/11 or f/14, regarding the impact from diffraction?
p.68 #6 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
If you're shooting GFX lenses at f/11 to f/14, you're doing it very wrong, diffraction sets in extremely quickly on GF lenses.
That’s utter nonsense.
While the diffraction limited aperture is larger than those values, you can still produce very sharp photographs at apertures smaller than (and larger than) the diffraction limited aperture on pretty much any camera/lens combination.
Years ago I accepted the notion that the FF cameras of that time must be shot at about f/8 in order to get good sharpness.
Then I decided to conduct my own tests with all of my lenses at a range of apertures (and in the case of zooms, focal lengths), which made it clear that the real world effect on sharpness of being an aperture or two away from the “best” aperture was negligible. And many cases using a non-ideal aperture produced images with greater subjective sharpness.
What is subjective sharpness? Take two examples.
Let’s say what we are photographing a subject (perhaps a flower or a person’s face, etc.) against a background with some detail. While some aperture might be the ideal diffraction-limited aperture, using a larger aperture that throws the background out of focus can produce the subjective sense that the subject is sharper against that soft background than if we had used the supposedly “right” aperture with maximum theoretical sharpness… and a busier background competing with our primary subject.
The opposite is also true. For example, if we are photographing something like perhaps a landscape subject where there are both near and far elements, shooting at a much smaller aperture than the diffraction limited aperture (let’s say f/16 or even for /22 on FF and perhaps a stop smaller on miniMF) the overall sense ill sharpness will be stronger than if we shot at, say, f/5.6 or f/8 or whatever the diffraction limited aperture is, which would allow near/far elements to be OOF. (Yes, a TS is a good alternative in some cases, as is focus stacking, but that’s s different subject.)
Rather than relying on questionable rules of thumb, it is far better to gain actual experience using the full range of apertures and understanding the effects and the magnitude of those effects in photographs and how to best balance them for the desired result.
I suspect that you are new to some of this stuff, but if you still imagine aperture decisions are as simple as “stay close to the diffraction limited aperture” or “that aperture is too small,” then “you are doing it very wrong.”
p.68 #7 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
If you're shooting GFX lenses at f/11 to f/14, you're doing it very wrong, diffraction sets in extremely quickly on GF lenses.
Scott, if you don't understand or accept what Dan wrote, then I would invite you to post your assertion of not using f/11 to f/14 for depth of field reasons over on the DPReview Medium Format Forum. They are very knowledgeable over there and you would be roasted royally.
p.68 #8 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
goodbokeh wrote:
Scott, if you don't understand or accept what Dan wrote, then I would invite you to post your assertion of not using f/11 to f/14 for depth of field reasons over on the DPReview Medium Format Forum. They are very knowledgeable over there and you would be roasted royally.
It's one thing to say that the effects of diffraction increases the CoC, and as you stop down. the size of the CoC may reach a size that extends across adjacent pixels ... particularly, as pixel size is reduced in a high density sensor such as the GFX.
However, it is an entirely different thing to tell people that use GFX lenses at f/11 or f/14 that they are doing it wrong ... no wait, correction ... doing it VERY WRONG.
I'm also curious to hear why Scott thinks that diffraction sets in "extremely quickly" on GF lenses. As an optical property of light passing by the edges of the aperture blades, is there something about the GF lenses aperture blades that are particularly inducing to creating diffraction more than other medium format lenses? Did I miss something?
p.68 #9 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
"do the math"
Not a good argument for GFX100RF discussion. Think about diffraction and accidentally hit the crop lever - not a good recipe for your state of mind
f/16 is there to be used.
As romantic as it sounds, GFX100RF is about art, creativity, joy of photography, catching memories... One has accept this as this camera does not make sense technically. The resolution amazes me at times, but I am equally amazed by A7rV resolution. We are deep into the area having excessive resolution. I have also shot blurred images even at 1/125 sec time. These images are not necessarily unusable, but it they are more like 24mp resolution, not 102mp.
GFX100RF would definately benefit having IBIS. In this camera the lack of IBIS is much more obvious than in X100V. But I think I can live with this shortcoming. In fact, despite the 12mp resolution, I am thinking of buying Nikon D700 back just to get deepr into the retro non-IBIS territory (and because of the mighty D700 colors).
p.68 #10 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Anyone know, could other gfx bodies use framelines like interface in the RF instead of cropping into black bars while using crop other than 4:3? Couldn’t find options on this.
p.68 #11 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Used the RF the other day for a few shots of my dogs playing outside. The cropping leeway worked very well and the continuous focus and AF track kept up—no easy feat with these hooligans!
p.68 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
tuomkok wrote:
f/16 is there to be used.
+1
Not that a lot of folks will use f/16, and yes the effects of diffraction do increase as you stop down. But, the tools are built with capability, such that it is available for use. If f/16 serves the needs of the shooter (dof, etc.), and the shooter understands the implications of their decisions ... then, yup, it's there ... ready, willing and available for use.
Keeping in mind the relatively larger (physical) apertures of the "larger" medium format lenses ... for a given f/stop (which is the ratio of lens aperture vs. image circle, e.g. larger image circle = larger physical aperture for a given ratio vs. smaller image circle projections). So, f/11 on MF is more like f/8 on FF.
While we see many lenses that "peak" their MTF's in the 5.6- 8 range, the effects of diffraction can bring the MTF back into similar territory as shooting lenses in their 3.5 - 2.8 range, etc. Never mind folks have "fast glass", that have lower MTF's ... yet, they are fully willing to shoot lower MTF's to get the DOF they want. Shooting f/11 - f/16 (imo) is the exact same thing ... in that, it is a conscious understanding of quid pro quo where DOF and CoC intersect relative to their influence on MTF. It just happens to be on the "other side" of maximum MTF capability, in the DOF / CoC sliding paradigm.
Ironically, that intersection (or "sweet spot") for is in the f/4 - f/5.6 or f/8 range ... and the GFX 100RF camera starts at f/4 (f/3.2-ish FF EQ). While folks lament that not being to their preference (which I get) for shallow dof, the salient point is that the tool has a range of utility, and to suggest that it is wrong, or "very wrong" to use the tool in which its capabilities were made ... and deny seasoned folks might actually have an understanding of said available range ... yeah, well, you get the gist.
p.68 #13 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
To get to the point, if you need greater DOF you can produce a very sharp print at a large size from a miniMF shot at f/16. You can even get a good result at f/22. In an extreme case there could be reasons to shoot at f/32.
If you don’t need deep DOF (or, for that matter, shallow DOF) just shoot at whatever aperture you have found to be sharpest with the lens you are using if conditions make that choice otherwise a good one.
p.68 #14 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
To get to the point, if you need greater DOF you can produce a very sharp print at a large size from a miniMF shot at f/16. You can even get a good result at f/22. In an extreme case there could be reasons to shoot at f/32.
If you don’t need deep DOF (or, for that matter, shallow DOF) just shoot at whatever aperture you have found to be sharpest with the lens you are using if conditions make that choice otherwise a good one.
p.68 #15 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Offering my mint silver GFX100RF at $5,090 shipped (PayPal protection included too) in the Buy & Sell forum after ending up with two—after I bought one locally. I truly like the camera. Selling one at a slight loss basically just to move it to someone who can enjoy it, especially with these being so scarce now and eBay prices hitting $6.5k after taxes.
p.68 #16 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
After a few hundred shots, I find this camera to be a bit frustrating to use and a bit of an acquired taste. Lack of depth of field, high ISO, and no IBIS definitely limits some photography opportunities. However, in the right situation, it produces amazing images that definitely possesses a wow factor and has a unique look. Here's a downsampled image that probably doesn't do this justice.
I think for most people a Fuji X100VI, Leica Q3, or Q3 43mm APO makes more sense however I'm leaning towards keeping my GFX100RF since I do enjoy the output in the right situation but not totally sure yet. Also, the video is fairly mediocre if you care about it even though the digital stabilization makes it a lot more usable handheld for me than the Q3 43mm APO ever did.
p.68 #17 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
tzhang4284 wrote:
After a few hundred shots, I find this camera to be a bit frustrating to use and a bit of an acquired taste. Lack of depth of field, high ISO, and no IBIS definitely limits some photography opportunities. However, in the right situation, it produces amazing images that definitely possesses a wow factor and has a unique look. Here's a downsampled image that probably doesn't do this justice.
I think for most people a Fuji X100VI, Leica Q3, or Q3 43mm APO makes more sense however I'm leaning towards keeping my GFX100RF since I do enjoy the output in the right situation but not totally sure yet. Also, the video is fairly mediocre if you care about it even though the digital stabilization makes it a lot more usable handheld for me than the Q3 43mm APO ever did....Show more →
As a person owned a Sigma DP2M as an only camera for two years, finding the GFX100RF an extremely versatile device.
The solution is another camera, I'd consider an A7III with fast prime lens for low light and narrow DOF shots. For portability and camera handling, shooting experience (EVF quality, high resolution tilt LCD resting in the camera surface, leaf shutter) combined with the IQ the RF is unmatched on the market.
p.68 #18 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
tzhang4284 wrote:
After a few hundred shots, I find this camera to be a bit frustrating to use and a bit of an acquired taste. Lack of depth of field, high ISO, and no IBIS definitely limits some photography opportunities. However, in the right situation, it produces amazing images that definitely possesses a wow factor and has a unique look. Here's a downsampled image that probably doesn't do this justice.
I think for most people a Fuji X100VI, Leica Q3, or Q3 43mm APO makes more sense however I'm leaning towards keeping my GFX100RF since I do enjoy the output in the right situation but not totally sure yet. Also, the video is fairly mediocre if you care about it even though the digital stabilization makes it a lot more usable handheld for me than the Q3 43mm APO ever did....Show more →
I think that what you are saying is pretty much what I said a few score pages ago: this is a camera with a very imited ideal use case, and while it could be useful for a very tiny subset of photographers, the vast majority will not be well served by it, large sensor aside.
I think a good number of folks who are getting it are not really going to see any advantage from the 100MP miniMF sensor, and that they are going to miss things like IBIS and the possibility of having more than one focal length.
The camera’s design is full of oddball contradictions. A 100MP sensor in a camera that most will use handheld. A handheld-intended camera without IBIS at a time when virtually all high end cameras have IBIS. A single wide focal length when may wil want more flexibility.
If one’s use case is really in the target range for a camera with this unusual set of features and attributes it could be fine, but a whole lot of folks who are getting it for things like a supposedly lightweight everyday camera will be better off with something entirely different.
p.68 #19 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
looking at www.jonasraskphotograpy.com, I'd reckon he is indeed within the range of the small minority of photographers who is skilled enough such that the absence of IBIS, etc., matters not one whit. I particularly appreciate and admire his night-time pictures. Given my "hack status" as a photog, I need all the help I can get, so I'll spend my $$$$ on those prosthetic attributes that minimize the absence of my skill.
p.68 #20 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lukacs wrote:
As a person owned a Sigma DP2M as an only camera for two years, finding the GFX100RF an extremely versatile device.
The solution is another camera, I'd consider an A7III with fast prime lens for low light and narrow DOF shots. For portability and camera handling, shooting experience (EVF quality, high resolution tilt LCD resting in the camera surface, leaf shutter) combined with the IQ the RF is unmatched on the market.
Yeah - I ended up picking up a Fuji X-T5. I would have just picked up another X100VI but harder to find without a markup.
---------------------------------------------
gdanmitchell wrote:
I think that what you are saying is pretty much what I said a few score pages ago: this is a camera with a very imited ideal use case, and while it could be useful for a very tiny subset of photographers, the vast majority will not be well served by it, large sensor aside.
I think a good number of folks who are getting it are not really going to see any advantage from the 100MP miniMF sensor, and that they are going to miss things like IBIS and the possibility of having more than one focal length.
The camera’s design is full of oddball contradictions. A 100MP sensor in a camera that most will use handheld. A handheld-intended camera without IBIS at a time when virtually all high end cameras have IBIS. A single wide focal length when may wil want more flexibility.
If one’s use case is really in the target range for a camera with this unusual set of features and attributes it could be fine, but a whole lot of folks who are getting it for things like a supposedly lightweight everyday camera will be better off with something entirely different....Show more →
Yeah I think the target photography envelope is narrower compared to the X100VI - that camera is much more versatile. The main reason it stays in my kit for now is I like large sensor point and shoots and the image quality is amazing in the right situation but buyers should beware.
I had a Q3 43mm APO before and tempted to buy back but the 28mm equivalent focal length works better for me and this is significantly better than the Q3 28mm lens in my opinion and much more usable in video although still not good.
