mzbe wrote:
Regarding 'color accuracy' and 'depth', and 16-bit being wonderful for portraits (as opposed to 14-bit full frame):
Fuji GFX (all current and historic models) has a 14-bit color Analog-to-Digital converter. The newer cameras interpolate that 14-bit data, and the marketing claim is 16-bit.
I have not seen an analysis of the new H2D2 in this regard. The sensor is the same, but Hasselblad may be using a different A2D pipeline and actually delivering 16-bit color depth.
In terms of accuracy, the better full frame cameras (e.g. Leica M11, Sony A7rV, Canon 5D) achieve a Sensitivity metamerism index (ISO 17321) of 84 (on a scale of 100, higher is better); source: DXOmark.
There are fewer measurements available for full frame cameras, one that I found was the Hasselblad X1D-50c at a SMI of 76....Show more →
Just as an aside, every so often I imagine the discussion in another decade or two, not of the difference between 14-bit and 16-bit color, but rather about how 34-bit color is “better” than 32-bit color… ;-)
This doesn't make any sense (having shot with the Canon RF, EF, Fuji X, GF, and now primarily Nikon Z and F). I'm going to guess if you put a 55 1.7 GF image next to an RF 50 1.2, controlling for framing and exported so they're at the same resolution that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I recently shot a commercial job on a 100mp body with the 55 1.7, 20-35, 45-100 and 80 and I wouldn't hesitate using the primes again.
Perhaps if you post up photos to show what you mean, that might quell some of the debate here.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think your problem with the GF system is not that it doesn't have top tier primes, but that it doesn't have the type of top tier primes that you want. It is no secret that the GF system has a lot less lenses available for it than Canon (or Sony or Nikon or even the L mount alliance). Fuji also only makes about 2 or 3 lenses a year for the system and there is a real paucity of 3rd party lenses as well. This means the system cannot cater to all types of shooting.
You put that together with the fact that no lens is going to be perfect and whatever you build will have its weaknesses and Fuji has to decide what it will and will not emphasize in its top tier lenses for the GF system. Fuji has 3 GF lenses with apertures faster than f/2.8. It seems to me these lenses are primarily designed for portraits. They aren't designed for the type of shooting about which you care a lot - flat plane subjects that cover the field and are being shot at maximum aperture. They do have in my view three distinct styles for these three lenses. The GF 110 is relatively well corrected with reduced but not eliminated aberrations. It is the closest to the type of lens you want. The GF 80 is more like the xF 50 f/1 (but not as extreme as that lens) in not correcting fully spherical aberrations which reduces sharpness but also improves the bokeh. The GF 55 is in between these two reducing aberrations more than the GF 80 but not as much as the GF 110. I see it as closer to the 110, however.
You seem to prefer lenses that are very highly corrected. You are particularly a fan of the RF Canon L lenses and particularly the f/1.2 primes in this line. These lenses aren't perfect either. They certainly have some axial CA wide open. They do correct very highly for spherical aberrations, however. I think these lenses are great for some types of shooting and probably suit your flat plane subjects that cover the frame quite well. Personally, I dislike them for portraits, however, because they tradeoff extra sharpness for less pleasing bokeh and I think that is a bad tradeoff for portraits. I do like the highly corrected look for some types of nature shooting, however, but I can get that with slower f/2 primes and that is my preference. I use Sony for my FF 35mm shooting and I feel the same way about their most recent fast GM lenses. I don't think the 85 f/1.4 GM II is an upgrade to their 85 f/1.4 GM original and I am not interested in it. I don't like their 35 f/1.4 GM or the 50 f/1.4 GM, or the 135 f/1.8 GM. I find them all too highly corrected for what I want for portraits and bigger than they need to be for shooting when I want a highly corrected lens.
I think Fuji might build super highly corrected lenses for the GF system but I would expect if they do so for them to be f/2.8 on MF. They would just be a lot easier to build. I also think they won't come any time soon as Fuji has a lot of lenses to make. It seems to me the GF system is a poor match for the type of shooting you want to do. I don't think it is because the GF lenses aren't top tier lenses, however. I think it is because Fuji has designed the top tier fast GF lenses for a very different application than for which you want to use them and they have a poor set of tradeoffs for your type of shooting. Just like the RF Canon L f/1.2 primes (or the newest Sony GM lenses) have a poor set of tradeoffs for my preferences and the way I shoot....Show more →
I didn't state that GF lacks top-tier glass; I carefully placed "seems" and a question mark in the title. It really was a question.
What you're saying makes a lot of sense, especially the bit about the three distinct styles. That mostly matches my test results. The only thing I'm not convinced on is 80/1/7's character, It's nothing like the XF 50/1, nor is it particularly smooth on its own terms. Defocus a busy background in the middle distance and see how "nervous" the bokeh gets.
Regarding the RF's trading bokeh for sharpness: Canon agrees with you -- hence the DS version of the 85. Not really 1.2 at that point, you do lose a lot of light, but it's the best bokeh you can get this side of the Plena and XF 50/1 (I haven't tried the APD version of XF 56/1.2, so can't speak to that).
Regarding GF being unsuitable for me -- point taken.
Evection wrote:
RE: Corner performance at f/1.7: Obviously unimportant in portraiture, but as stated, I also do fine art. I often shoot flat planes with little to no internal distances/focus falloff. 1.7 isn't just about bokeh, as far as I'm concerned. When in comes to that, a lot of my pictures are both wide-open and largely in acceptable focus. So yes, I'm very aware of corner sharpness.
Admittedly, I'm not focusing at infinity there, which may explain the difference in performance we observe. But I can vouch that RF 50/1.2, 85/1.2 and 135/1.8 have much better corner performance wide-open than the 55. (Technically, the Canon's do benefit from stopping down, but the improvement is miniscule. 95% of the performance is already achieved at max aperture).
Your last paragraph tells me we're mostly in agreement. Need to test that 120 (somehow missed it). 250 is a bit too narrow for me, though. ...Show more →
I have good copies of the RF 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 and GF 55, 110, and 250. I agree that the RF 85 is a marvel, it's very consistent from center to corner at 1.2 (it feels like it must cover a larger image circle) and sharp at 1.2, getting sharper going down a stop or more. The 50 isn't quite as good. While it's also extremely consistent across the frame (again leading me to believe it must cover a larger image circle), but it has some LoCA and the background rendering is one step down, though good. The closest native GF lens I have sharpness wise to these is probably the 120, it's just very sharp everywhere at f4. The 250 is also really good, just not quite as perfect. The 55 doesn't feel like it was made to compete with these in the same way. It's offering a unique focal length/aperture combination that I don't think is available in autofocus form on other systems (it works out to a 43mm 1.3). You're right that the corners are not as good as the center at 1.7, though on my copy it's mostly a lost of contrast and micro-contrast; I don't see any smushy softening. I think the question remains of how sharp it is stopped down vs. something like the RF 50. The 55 can definitely resolve 100mp and it is doing so resolving a larger image circle. It's definitely sharp across the frame stopped down. I can accept that compromise vs. the chart topping FF lenses discussed here. Just wish it was quicker to focus.
Evection wrote:
I didn't state that GF lacks top-tier glass; I carefully placed "seems" and a question mark in the title. It really was a question.
What you're saying makes a lot of sense, especially the bit about the three distinct styles. That mostly matches my test results. The only thing I'm not convinced on is 80/1/7's character, It's nothing like the XF 50/1, nor is it particularly smooth on its own terms. Defocus a busy background in the middle distance and see how "nervous" the bokeh gets.
Regarding the RF's trading bokeh for sharpness: Canon agrees with you -- hence the DS version of the 85. Not really 1.2 at that point, you do lose a lot of light, but it's the best bokeh you can get this side of the Plena and XF 50/1 (I haven't tried the APD version of XF 56/1.2, so can't speak to that).
Regarding GF being unsuitable for me -- point taken.
I have no dog in the fight...I've shot just about every modern camera system that exists, and I don't like the rendering of the 80/1.7 either, despite many here and elsewhere lauding praise on it. We like what we like, and that's fine. Luckily, we have more choices than any photographer has ever had before us.
Evection wrote:
Then we come to macro. How is there no 1:1 lens in GFX? (No, I'm not ruining my quality and diffraction limit with extension tubes).
Tubes don’t affect optics, they just add extension. They also don’t affect diffraction any more than using the corresponding amount of extension (focus ring) on the lens. Their downside is that you lose infinity focus, and you have to swap various arrangements to hit different repro ratios.
But, yeah: GFX needs a 1:1 lens. A 180mm would be nice, and an 80mm wouldn’t hurt, either. Also, X needs a 60/2.4 refresh. Fuji in general could pay more attention to macro.
I used a Sigma 105/2.8OS on my GFX100S for a while. Worked well, but I am much more likely to crop than to need 100mpixel, so I ended up getting rid of it and shooting macro with my Z105 (fantastic AF tracking) or X60/2.4 (tiny, dense).
If you do shoot macro on GFX, I hear the Canon 100/2.8L is well-regarded as an adapter lens. Macro (and telephoto) is an area where you should adapt rather than shoot native. Take advantage of the platform’s flexibility.
Evection wrote:
RE: Corner performance at f/1.7: Obviously unimportant in portraiture, but as stated, I also do fine art. I often shoot flat planes with little to no internal distances/focus falloff. 1.7 isn't just about bokeh, as far as I'm concerned. When in comes to that, a lot of my pictures are both wide-open and largely in acceptable focus. So yes, I'm very aware of corner sharpness.
Admittedly, I'm not focusing at infinity there, which may explain the difference in performance we observe. But I can vouch that RF 50/1.2, 85/1.2 and 135/1.8 have much better corner performance wide-open than the 55. (Technically, the Canon's do benefit from stopping down, but the improvement is miniscule. 95% of the performance is already achieved at max aperture).
Your last paragraph tells me we're mostly in agreement. Need to test that 120 (somehow missed it). 250 is a bit too narrow for me, though. ...Show more →
Corner performance for things like art reproduction you want the best flat field lenses you can find. These won’t be fast optically, they’ll be a macro in direct mount or a tech lens via an adapted tech camera. Fast optically always has corner limitations wide open, and f1.7 in MF is fast. Like @RoamingScott said, if you want the best performance in fast optics, your best bets are the f1.2 and longer f2 FF mirrorless lenses. Horses for courses, there is no one single best camera for everything.
Personal adjunct. For virtually any imaging need today, the top tier FF cams from Canon, Nikon and Sony paired with their best glass is about as good as it has ever been from a technical superiority standpoint. IMHO, those systems collectively obviate the need for an MF digital camera.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Personal adjunct. For virtually any imaging need today, the top tier FF cams from Canon, Nikon and Sony paired with their best glass is about as good as it has ever been from a technical superiority standpoint. IMHO, those systems collectively obviate the need for an MF digital camera.
I generally agree with this, though I would add the word “generally” (or “may” or “often”) before the word “obviate.”
There’s no arguing with the fact that the slightly larger miniMF sensor systems can produce measurable improvements in technical things like noise, detail, dynamic range, and more. This would objectively trump the smaller FF systems, but for a few other uncomfortable facts.
1. The best FF camera systems produce outstanding image quality when used by competent photographers. We’re talking about differences so small that they are rarely actually visible.
2. The smaller FF systems also come with a much more developed and diverse set of important adjuncts to the camera itself — the wider selection of lenses (also of excellent quality) and other accessories and tools.
I am not saying that there is never a reason to use the larger miniMF systems, and I could actually see owning one myself if a few key changes were made.
I’m not gong to make myself popular (that train left he station long ago) by saying this, but the number of photographers whose work benefits in real-world ways by choosing the larger system over alternatives is very small.
I’m still often surprised by the banal quality of much of the posted photography done with these systems — about the same amount done with other formats. To simplify, the photos seem to fall into three categories: Undistinguished photographs that show no benefit from the larger system, excellent photographs that would look just as fine if made with a different system, and a smaller group of excellent photographs that are arguably better for using the larger format.
mzbe wrote:
Regarding 'color accuracy' and 'depth', and 16-bit being wonderful for portraits (as opposed to 14-bit full frame):
Fuji GFX (all current and historic models) has a 14-bit color Analog-to-Digital converter. The newer cameras interpolate that 14-bit data, and the marketing claim is 16-bit.
I have not seen an analysis of the new H2D2 in this regard. The sensor is the same, but Hasselblad may be using a different A2D pipeline and actually delivering 16-bit color depth.
In terms of accuracy, the better full frame cameras (e.g. Leica M11, Sony A7rV, Canon 5D) achieve a Sensitivity metamerism index (ISO 17321) of 84 (on a scale of 100, higher is better); source: DXOmark.
There are fewer measurements available for full frame cameras, one that I found was the Hasselblad X1D-50c at a SMI of 76....Show more →
The GFX actually does deliver a 16-bit raw file (in single shooting mode at least -- in continuous shooting mode it is believed that the camera reduces the bit depth to 14-bit or 12-bit). Some sensors will capture a lower bit file (say 14 bit) and then expand the bit depth to 16-bit which allows more flexibility in post-processing. This is not the same as interpolation, because the sensor is not creating new shades by estimating values; it is adding two non-colored (black) bits to each color channel, expanding the possible shades that can be achieved in each pixel during post processing.
(Of course it all depends on what you shoot, how you shoot, how you display the photos, etc, as to whether this will make any difference in the final product).
And yeah the Hasselblad and GFX are two completely differently designed sensors and so there's a lot of digital processing that goes into creating a final image that has nothing to do with the lens or the bit depth
Sep 06, 2025 at 11:30 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
CKrueger wrote:
Tubes don’t affect optics, they just add extension. They also don’t affect diffraction any more than using the corresponding amount of extension (focus ring) on the lens. Their downside is that you lose infinity focus, and you have to swap various arrangements to hit different repro ratios.
But, yeah: GFX needs a 1:1 lens. A 180mm would be nice, and an 80mm wouldn’t hurt, either. Also, X needs a 60/2.4 refresh. Fuji in general could pay more attention to macro.
I used a Sigma 105/2.8OS on my GFX100S for a while. Worked well, but I am much more likely to crop than to need 100mpixel, so I ended up getting rid of it and shooting macro with my Z105 (fantastic AF tracking) or X60/2.4 (tiny, dense).
If you do shoot macro on GFX, I hear the Canon 100/2.8L is well-regarded as an adapter lens. Macro (and telephoto) is an area where you should adapt rather than shoot native. Take advantage of the platform’s flexibility. ...Show more →
There are also some excellent 645 film lenses for macro that are easily adapted. I have used both the Mamiya 645 120 f/4 A and the Contax 645 Zeiss 120 f/4 APO and both are excellent. I like the Zeiss lens a little better, but both the Mamiya is a bit easier to adapt (you need a smart adapter for Contax 645, but a simple dumb adapter works for Mamiya 645).
Re @gdanmitchell; I would go further and say I have seen more truly excellent images from the top tier FF camera systems than I have from MF, including my own So I’ll go further and stick to my claim above: as of right now, I don’t see current MF delivering anything superior to what top tier current FF can deliver, and in many cases not even “as good as” for a variety of reasons.
If I didn’t mind the weight, I’d go back to a full Nikon, Sony or Canon system over anything else available right now, irrespective of price. There’s not enough (none?) extra juice in MF right now to make its vast set of negatives worthwhile.
Sep 06, 2025 at 11:57 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Jack Flesher wrote:
Corner performance for things like art reproduction you want the best flat field lenses you can find. These won’t be fast optically, they’ll be a macro in direct mount or a tech lens via an adapted tech camera. Fast optically always has corner limitations wide open, and f1.7 in MF is fast. Like @RoamingScott@ said, if you want the best performance in fast optics, your best bets are the f1.2 and longer f2 FF mirrorless lenses. Horses for courses, there is no one single best camera for everything.
Personal adjunct. For virtually any imaging need today, the top tier FF cams from Canon, Nikon and Sony paired with their best glass is about as good as it has ever been from a technical superiority standpoint. IMHO, those systems collectively obviate the need for an MF digital camera. ...Show more →
What larger sensor get you is more maximum dynamic range, more resolution at the same pixel density, and more flexibility in cropping images. All that comes because with the same level of light in the setting, you are collecting photons from a larger area so you are using more light. That is generally a good thing, but it is often offset by larger format lenses have slower maximum apertures.
The size of the sensor also has a major effect on lens design. Lens designers also have a different set of tradeoffs as the sensor gets bigger. On one hand they can design a lenses with smaller apertures making it easier to reduce aberrations, but this advantage is off set by the lenses needing a bigger image circle making it harder to control other optical properties. One useful way to think about this tradeoff is that it is easier to design lenses for a larger sensor that have reduced aberrations that get smaller as aperture gets narrower like axial CA and spherical aberrations. Those advantages come with the slower max aperture typical of larger format lenses. At the same time it is harder to design lenses for a larger sensor that have a flat field, low distortion, sharp corners, and low lateral CA (which typically is worse in the corners and edges). Those challenges come with the larger image circle.
These differences are true whether we are talking the difference between m4/3rds and APS-C, APS-C and FF, or FF and MF. One format is not necessarily better than any other format, but the challenges for lens designers change as the format gets bigger. For smaller formats controlling aberrations especially for fast lenses becomes a really big challenge, but for larger formats controlling the performance across the much larger image circle becomes more of a challenge. It is not surprising that the OP who cares especially about a flat field and corner performance finds that easier to obtain on a smaller format. Nor would it be surprising if you want shallow depth of field with fewer aberrations that is easier to obtain with a larger format.
I really enjoy the output from my Fuji setup, although I really like my Sony setup as well. There are cases where 4:3rds works more for me than 3:2nds, and I've found the image quality exceptional. But I shoot mainly for my enjoyment, which is the yardstick I measure by. Everyone has their own yardstick, but I'm not sure anyone's yardstick is definitive.
Steve Spencer wrote:
What larger sensor get you is more maximum dynamic range, more resolution at the same pixel density, and more flexibility in cropping images. All that comes because with the same level of light in the setting, you are collecting photons from a larger area so you are using more light. That is generally a good thing, but it is often offset by larger format lenses have slower maximum apertures.
The size of the sensor also has a major effect on lens design. Lens designers also have a different set of tradeoffs as the sensor gets bigger. On one hand they can design a lenses with smaller apertures making it easier to reduce aberrations, but this advantage is off set by the lenses needing a bigger image circle making it harder to control other optical properties. One useful way to think about this tradeoff is that it is easier to design lenses for a larger sensor that have reduced aberrations that get smaller as aperture gets narrower like axial CA and spherical aberrations. Those advantages come with the slower max aperture typical of larger format lenses. At the same time it is harder to design lenses for a larger sensor that have a flat field, low distortion, sharp corners, and low lateral CA (which typically is worse in the corners and edges). Those challenges come with the larger image circle.
These differences are true whether we are talking the difference between m4/3rds and APS-C, APS-C and FF, or FF and MF. One format is not necessarily better than any other format, but the challenges for lens designers change as the format gets bigger. For smaller formats controlling aberrations especially for fast lenses becomes a really big challenge, but for larger formats controlling the performance across the much larger image circle becomes more of a challenge. It is not surprising that the OP who cares especially about a flat field and corner performance finds that easier to obtain on a smaller format. Nor would it be surprising if you want shallow depth of field with fewer aberrations that is easier to obtain with a larger format. ...Show more →
I agree with the theory. Now show that superiority to me with actual image crops. This becomes essentially impossible to do at this point because the FF lenses and sensors are so good that the theoretical benefits to the MF sensor cannot be rendered by current MF lenses. Tech lenses get closer, but the effort (and added expense) to use them optimally is massive in comparison to FF. Then IF you see any actual “superiority,” you’re viewing it at 400% and it’s buried in an irrelevant section of the image, rendering whatever minuscule gain inconsequential…. IOW it may be there, but it’s usually less than irrelevant.
Sep 06, 2025 at 12:42 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Jack Flesher wrote:
I agree with the theory. Now show that superiority to me with actual image crops. This becomes essentially impossible to do at this point because the FF lenses and sensors are so good that the theoretical benefits to the MF sensor cannot be rendered by current MF lenses. Tech lenses get closer, but the effort (and added expense) to use them optimally is massive in comparison to FF. Then IF you see any actual “superiority,” you’re viewing it at 400% and it’s buried in an irrelevant section of the image, rendering whatever minuscule gain inconsequential…. IOW it nay be there, but it’s usually less than irrelevant. ...Show more →
Notice I am not talking about just FF 35mm vs 44 X 33. That is just the last step that is easily available. With widely available options the basic steps are m4/3rds to APS-C to FF 35mm to 44 X 33. Any two steps is pretty easy to observe. Any one step is pretty hard to observe when we are examining overall image quality, but seeing differences in one step is often a bit easier or harder depending on what you are examining. Can you see less axial CA and spherical aberrations at the same depth of field on the larger format with just on step--yes you often can. Is it harder to maintain a flat field, low distortion, and top corner performance when you go up just one step--yes that is generally true--so advantages to the larger format in these image parameters often are minuscule at best with larger formats even as you go up two steps.
I shoot across three formats and film too. I chose to get a GFX for the image quality jump over APS-c, not FF. And also because i enjoy how Fuji cameras operate and the ease of getting the colours I want out of them. I've shot Canon and Sony in the past. Could I do everything i want with those systems - probably. I just don't enjoy them as much as Fuji.
I mostly agree that jumping to GFX from FF in the search for improved image quality is for most people pointless. Instead it should be viewed as a niche system and whether it useful to have will depend on whether that niche fits the photographers needs/interests.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Notice I am not talking about just FF 35mm vs 44 X 33. That is just the last step that is easily available. With widely available options the basic steps are m4/3rds to APS-C to FF 35mm to 44 X 33. Any two steps is pretty easy to observe. Any one step is pretty hard to observe when we are examining overall image quality, but seeing differences in one step is often a bit easier or harder depending on what you are examining. Can you see less axial CA and spherical aberrations at the same depth of field on the larger format with just on step--yes you often can. Is it harder to maintain a flat field, low distortion, and top corner performance when you go up just one step--yes that is generally true--so advantages to the larger format in these image parameters often are minuscule at best with larger formats even as you go up two steps....Show more →
I disagree. I’ll say the double step from current cameras and lenses from well captured raw 40mp APS-c to well captured raw 100mp MF is now very small.
Can you see the shallower DoF in the MF image? Yes. Is that a benefit or a detriment to the image? Answer is it depends on the image. Here the FF cam offers more flexibility in either direction.
Can you see a difference in noise? Probably not a significant one either direction. Again, a top end FF camera is probably better than either.
Can you find a difference in DR? Probably best in the MF camera. Is it going to be significant to the image? Probably not. And probably no usable gain with FF here over APS-c either.
End of day, the most flexible system is going to be FF; and there’s the reason they dominate the pro market. Most MP count and costs is MF; and there’s no substitute for added MP’s if you really need them — and very few do... Smallest, lightest and least costly is APS-c, which is why it still exists — albeit in limited form.
Jack Flesher wrote:
I disagree. I’ll say the double step from current cameras and lenses from well captured raw 40mp APS-c to well captured raw 100mp MF is now very small.
Can you see the shallower DoF in the MF image? Yes. Is that a benefit or a detriment to the image? Answer is it depends on the image. Here the FF cam offers more flexibility in either direction.
Can you see a difference in noise? Probably not a significant one either direction. Again, a top end FF camera is probably better than either.
Can you find a difference in DR? Probably best in the MF camera. Is it going to be significant to the image? Probably not. And probably no usable gain with FF here over APS-c either.
End of day, the most flexible system is going to be FF; and there’s the reason they dominate the pro market. Most MP count and costs is MF; and there’s no substitute for added MP’s if you really need them — and very few do... Smallest, lightest and least costly is APS-c, which is why it still exists — albeit in limited form. ...Show more →
It really depends what you mean by most flexible system.
If you mean lens selection, then there is lots more lens selection with any of the major FF 35mm mounts than with any other format although there is getting to be lots of lens selection on Fuji X mount.
If you mean flexibility to crop to a different perspective, then 44 X 33 has the clear advantage even over FF 35mm.
If you mean the shallowest depth of field it is pretty much a tie between FF and 44 X 33 and depends on what focal length you care most about and whether you are willing to use adapted lenses. Keep in mind there is no advantage of a smaller sensor when you want more depth of field. You can simply stop the larger format down more and turn the ISO up to get the same shutter speed and noise will be about the same.
Having shot both Fuji GF mount and APS-C, it really depends on what you are shooting. If I am shooting in low light and I use an 80 f/1.4 lens on the GF, the files will look markedly better than anything I can get from APS-C, and I will have flexibility to crop to improve the composition which I wouldn't have with APS-C. I can get pretty close with FF 35mm, however, even if I find it easier with a GF camera. See the shot attached below for an example. This shot was a piece of cake with the GF, even though I improved it with a bit of a crop. I don't think I could have gotten it with even a 40 MP APS-C.
It also depends on how big you want to print. For most of my prints which are 12 X 16, I can do really well with APS-C, but if I want to go bigger I have little room for error with APS-C and lots of room for error with the GF.
I think that room for error may be the biggest difference as you move a couple of steps. I find with APS-C if I miss the composition, or the exposure, or set the ISO too high I quite often wreck the shot. With 44 X 33 I can usually save it, and that can and does make a real difference.
It says 180mm in the EXIF, but it was shot with a Leica R 80 f/1.4 I forgot to change the lens designation
GFX 50S180.0 mm lens180mmf/1.01/320s1600 ISO0.0 EV
So I’ll go further and stick to my claim above: as of right now, I don’t see current MF delivering anything superior to what top tier current FF can deliver, and in many cases not even “as good as” for a variety of reasons. 