I'm still hoping someone compares the gfx100ii without the evf +50mm f3.5 to the gfx100rf. I keep seeing gfx100s (ii) comparisons, but its harder to visualize with the evf sticking out back. I figured the gfx100ii without the evf would have comparable size (besides bigger grip)
I didnt do any measuring, but just trying to visualize the comparison of the gfx100rf+filterAdapter (I roughly copied and added some of the lens as the adapter to visualize) and gfx100ii without evf and with the 50mm f3.5 (I tried to make my edits noticeable so you can see what was changed). Add a smallrig grip, and the heights might be similar. The main benefit of the rf would prob be the leaf shutter in this case. Besides the gfx100ii not having an evf in this setup that is.
I asked this question to the tester and he answered that no, unfortunately. This is a very strange engineering solution. I will wait for a hood from third-party manufacturers.
RustyBug wrote:
Is it possible to use the filter ring without the lens hood? I'm thinking the filter ring provides a fair amount of extension, by itself.
Looking at that honkin' huge rear element in the 35/4 ... and having shot my pancake 40 Summicron-C, one can hope that the reliance on computational distortion correction is minimal (prefer none), and that the 35/4 is a "recessed" lens with excellent distortion correction. That other conversation about 13% is ... well, my temperament for lens choices is typically under 2%, under 1% all the better. I noticed that when (say Nikon) mfr's started moving to the closer registration of mirrorless, their wider throats, included increased reliance on computational corrections in the wider lenses, as a byproduct of those decisions.
I realize that in the context of the Q's Summilux, the computational aspect of shooting a 26 > 28 is "standard think", my experience with it for architectural aspects, leaves more distortion in play than I often care for. Of late, I've found that shooting it in crop mode 35mm more satisfying, as it mitigates much of the computation distortion adjusted areas.
The computational distortion doesn't seem to be linear, but rather exponential. So, when I end up with rotations or other adjustments, it doesn't pan out quite as easily as it does for simple travel scenes or snaps, etc. (where the 26 > 28 works well enough).
Just download some of the RAWs on DPReview, if using Lightroom, you can turn off distortion correction. The difference between uncorrected and corrected is not insignificant. The corrected shots look pretty solid though, although I too prefer distortion correction in lens.
tsdevine wrote:
Just download some of the RAWs on DPReview, if using Lightroom, you can turn off distortion correction. The difference between uncorrected and corrected is not insignificant. The corrected shots look pretty solid though, although I too prefer distortion correction in lens.
The uncorrected images are unusable IMO due to the distortion outside of center.
Makten wrote:
Of course it must move air, but if there is a seal in front of the lens, air will move from one side of the lens to the other without any opening to the surrounding environment.
I have no way of checking, but does the front element not move on this lens when focusing?
tsdevine wrote:
Just download some of the RAWs on DPReview, if using Lightroom, you can turn off distortion correction. The difference between uncorrected and corrected is not insignificant. The corrected shots look pretty solid though, although I too prefer distortion correction in lens.
I tried, but my version of C1 doesn't support the files. They don't even show in the C1 browser.
Well ... that's more of a bummer than lack of IBIS or f/4.
Computation correction, hmmm ... wonder how it'll handle the concrete in the stairs image. The horizon shot is probably pretty simple for it to handle. The sailboat masts and the steeple seem to have a "bent angle" in play.
Of course, sometimes that is the shooter (i.e. not square / level / plumb) inducing (or exaggerating) things.
Would want to see more samples (and corrections) before I toss the baby out with the bath water. Gut check says "better" than the Summilux, but not "no contest - way better" from these few images. That, or maybe it's just "different".
Head to head raw vs. head to head computational correction would be interesting. Certainly, not a technical camera / lens ...but then again, it's not a technical camera / lens.
RustyBug wrote:
Well ... that's more of a bummer than lack of IBIS or f/4.
Computation correction, hmmm ... wonder how it'll handle the concrete in the stairs image. The horizon shot is probably pretty simple for it to handle. The sailboat masts and the steeple seem to have a "bent angle" in play.
Of course, sometimes that is the shooter (i.e. not square / level / plumb) inducing (or exaggerating) things.
Would want to see more samples (and corrections) before I toss the baby out with the bath water. Gut check says "better" than the Summilux, but not "no contest - way better" from these few images. Head to head raw vs. head to head computational correction would be interesting....Show more →
The profile for the RF is already in LR, just load em up and play.
