X2D 16bit RAW. Colors are the best. What we see here is all the way down to 72dpi. To my eye that renders many online images to look about the same even though they are not in reality.
A useful exercise would be to explain a workflow in which a 16 bit file's differences could be discernable to a client, not the photographer in the editing bay over a full frame 12 or 14 bit file.
I think in most if not all cases, the case would be so edge that shooting with medium format would be necessary at that point.
highdesertmesa wrote:
It’s easy to stitch together an image with smaller formats into a file equal to or greater than 100mp for static subjects. The 100mp 44x33 bodies just become a convenience at that point.
For me, the biggest draw of 44x33 is the native image ratio.
Exactly, 100mp and 45mp are essentially identical compared to the 200/300mp stitches I used to take 10+ years ago.
Frankly anyone shooting landscape without stitching cannot decently claim to be striving for best possible image quality.
bernardl wrote:
Frankly anyone shooting landscape without stitching cannot decently claim to be striving for best possible image quality.
Bernard
On one hand, I totally get where you're coming from if you are photographing slow or non moving things like mountains. On the other hand, unless stacking software has gotten much better without me realizing it, if you have even moderate amounts of motion in your photo, stacking is going to come with a lot of issues. I really think it comes down to the type of landscape image you're looking to capture.
bernardl wrote:
Frankly anyone shooting landscape without stitching cannot decently claim to be striving for best possible image quality.
A silly statement without any qualifications. I've learned not to let perfect be the enemy of great in my work. The times a higher res stitch would best a single shot for my particular use cases and printing parameters are scant, and I can generate more work faster without such a pointless limitation on myself.
Certainly the resolution difference between 24mp and 100mp is rather less than I expected, certainly at this size and display method. However when examined with intent, the colour reproduction of the Hassy is clearly superior, especially in the OOF areas. The OOF pinks of the main subject flower are over-saturated blobs on the ZF but the subtle tones are quite well delineated in the Hassy images. The tones in the in-focus areas are quite close however. Although this could be a difference in DOF between lenses etc.
Alistair1 wrote:
Certainly the resolution difference between 24mp and 100mp is rather less than I expected, certainly at this size and display method. However when examined with intent, the colour reproduction of the Hassy is clearly superior, especially in the OOF areas. The OOF pinks of the main subject flower are over-saturated blobs on the ZF but the subtle tones are quite well delineated in the Hassy images. The tones in the in-focus areas are quite close however.
Those tones vary pretty substantially depending on which Nikon Profile you shoot with, for what it's worth. This is actually a custom profile that comes close-ish to SOOC Hassy colors, but not bang on obviously. If you're going to shoot RAW and edit, all a moot point either way.
I think it's pretty obvious after shooting Hassy over the last month that colors are THE reason to pick one up. But is a Hassy photo worth $10,000 more than a Nikon photo?
RoamingScott wrote:
Those tones vary pretty substantially depending on which Nikon Profile you shoot with, for what it's worth. This is actually a custom profile that comes close-ish to SOOC Hassy colors, but not bang on obviously. If you're going to shoot RAW and edit, all a moot point either way.
I think it's pretty obvious after shooting Hassy over the last month that colors are THE reason to pick one up.
How does the Hassy and Fuji equivalent bodies compare in this regard? IIRC you have shot both. The Hassy seems to attract quite a price premium over the Fuji.
I hated every single aspect of GFX colors and white balance, which is why I picked up the X2D. Hassy just nails the tones comparatively speaking for what I shoot.
Alistair1 wrote:
How does the Hassy and Fuji equivalent bodies compare in this regard? IIRC you have shot both. The Hassy seems to attract quite a price premium over the Fuji.
RoamingScott wrote:
I was curious if anyone would pick up on my trick. It's N > H > H > N
I was thinking you reversed the order in the 2 samples. So I actually preferred the Nikon samples. Granted, the Hasselblad images may have been truer to life, and I may be biased from years of using Nikon.
bernardl wrote:
Exactly, 100mp and 45mp are essentially identical compared to the 200/300mp stitches I used to take 10+ years ago.
Frankly anyone shooting landscape without stitching cannot decently claim to be striving for best possible image quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes and no, a lot of times I am working in very dynamic and fast changing weather like the edges of storms rolling in and out and you just can not stitch that stuff so having as a high a res as possible in one take really helps.
Ai_Print wrote:
Yes and no, a lot of times I am working in very dynamic and fast changing weather like the edges of storms rolling in and out and you just can not stitch that stuff so having as a high a res as possible in one take really helps.
Yes, try stitching a wave as it crashes against the rocks.
I now have GFX100 ii. Used to own GFX 50s, GFX 100. Also have access to X2D and X1D that my friend own. Personally out of camera, I do prefer Hasselblad color as I never am a big fan of Fuji color
but it is not difficult to get color that I like with a little post processing and out of camera Fuji color is not horrible or anything like that.
However, I am glad that I am with GFX system rather than Hasselblad mainly because of AF.
GFX 50s was kind of like A7r, may be a bit slower. GFX 100 improved a bit but subject recognition was
not great but AF is quite usable, may be not quite as fast as Z7. GFX100ii is significantly better with very
usable subject recognition. AF speed is still slow but I think that may be 2nd to big glass and the focusing group just don't move as quickly. Low light AF is still not so good and nowhere near Nikon Zf for example but in reasonable light, it is very usable. X1D/X2D AF is much much worse in my experience. If I have it, beside landscape and very stationary portraiture, I am not sure if I want to use it for anything else much. GFX 100ii is kind of like Z7 but with poorer low light capability and AF speed is a bit slower but more advance subject recognition in my opinion. Leica S System is much much worse from my little experience with it.
So I would give credit to Fuji quite a bit for giving (mini) medium format system that does not compromise too much on AF system and is quite fun to use.
All valid points here.....
I think if you are just comparing a finished and downsized image purely on quality then the difference between a high-end FF camera and a 100mp GFX/Hasselblad is more or less negligible.
And the FF cameras are certainly easier and quicker to shoot with a much larger possible lens selection.
The reason I prefer my GFX100s is for the incredible tonal range, shadow recovery and croppability in post....my Sony A1 does not even come close there.
The GFX is my preferred camera for studio work for portraits with adapted manual lenses, also with the Fringer adapter the AF is actually more than good enough with certain lenses.
On the other hand on long trips or where I need fast and very reliable AF for fast subjects I will always use the Sony and am also quite happy with the resulting image quality.
But for pure happiness with the final image the GFX always wins.....
When I think about all the foundational photographers I wish I could have been reincarnated from, I wonder most what aspect ratio Edward Weston would shoot with given today’s choices?
highdesertmesa wrote:
Something about the single 100mp shot in a ratio close to 8x10 film makes me feel like I can conjure up the spirit of Ansel Adams, though
Pretty obvious to me one of the pair offer more contrasts in smaller area, which one would move the clarity slider to achieve it. Macrocontrast? Microcontrast? The Nikon looked like a splash of color with less gradations which contribute to the "flatness".
Not a direct comparison but that's the same reason why I moved to Leica system, particularly the M, not just for the shooting experience.
On stitching, never said it was applicable to all types of images but it is to many in fact. Look, I shoot GFX and IQ4-150 for my landscape work. But even so I stitch when possible. And laziness is how I look at myself when I don’t stitch but could.
102mp is better than 60 or 45 for sure, but in the end isn’t that different. Few people, if any, would describe a print made from a 102mp camera as super sharp vs one made from a Z8 file. On the other hand I have on my wall a 2m wide print made from a 2008 250mp stitch that make every visitor go WoW… shot with a D3x and Zeiss 100mm f2.0 Makro.
Btw I would use an X2D instead if the lenses were weather sealed. Half of my landscape work is done in snowy conditions and the gear often ends up very wet due to condensation. The GFX lenses aren’t 100% as good and the Hassy colors are clearly nicer but the GFX system doesn’t need baby sitting.
DWOfPaul wrote:
It's definitely impressive how much Hasselblad and Fuji have been able to progress medium format, with medium format mirrorless. Personally, though, the biggest advantage I currently see in MF over FF mirrorless is if the extra resolution or squarer aspect ratio helps your print needs. The overall IQ of the images between MF and FF are very close. Hasselblad does have higher flash sync speeds with leaf shutters if you need faster sync speeds, but I use flash less and less as cameras have gotten better, and my styles of photography have changed. Technically, MF also has shallower DOF, but the lenses are usually slower. Which brings us to lens selection, where FF camera systems have a much larger number of lenses to choose from. MF cameras also seem to still be slower and have worse AF than FF cameras.
As much as the Fuji GFX100S II interests me on paper, I just don't see it adding enough to my overall ability to produce photos that it would be worth starting a MF system. Maybe in another generation or two of MF cameras, it will be worth reconsidering. Your sample is yet another good reminder that at least currently, MF does not have a major leap over FF in image quality....Show more →
The only reason I have and use the GFX100s is for square and wide pano shots. Otherwise it stays home.
