I’m also confused by your use of the term “perspective” in your prior post. Do you mean “aspect ratio?” Changing formats should not change the “perspective” of photographs,” in and of itself.
Sep 08, 2025 at 10:34 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
gdanmitchell wrote:
How big do YOU regularly print, Steve?”
I’m also confused by your use of the term “perspective” in your prior post. Do you mean “aspect ratio?” Changing formats should not change the “perspective” of photographs,” in and of itself.
I don't sell my work any more (and never did very much), so I print just to hang the photos in my home and my office. I do change them up a couple times a year and for a couple of the spaces I hang bigger prints. I not sure if that counts as regularly or not. As I said, most of my prints are 12 X 16 as I tend to reuse the same frames, but some are bigger and as large as 30 X 40. I change the 12 X 16 photos more as I have a 13 X 19 printer and can print those easily myself, but I do know someone who runs a photography studio with a large format printer that lets me print the bigger sizes.
Sorry, I was unclear in using the word perspective. I do not mean aspect ratio as about 90% of my shooting with any camera (even my 3 X 2 sensor cameras) are shot in a 4 X 3 aspect ratio that is my default view in the viewfinder for all my cameras.
What I should have said is field of view and all I meant was that larger formats make it a lot easier to plan to crop and gain flexibility in composition. You can shoot a 45mm on a Fuji GFX camera and decide to use it as a mild wide angle, a normal lens or a short telephoto and it will work well for all those fields of view. The same is not true for a 23mm on APS-C. By the time you try using a 23mm on APS-C as a short telephoto the image begins to fall apart. I appreciate the added flexibility when I use a 44 X 33 sensor camera.
gdanmitchell wrote:
How big do YOU regularly print, Steve?”
I’m also confused by your use of the term “perspective” in your prior post. Do you mean “aspect ratio?” Changing formats should not change the “perspective” of photographs,” in and of itself.
I think he meant the field of view -- when you crop tightly into a photograph, the perspective is the same but the new crop creates the illusion of a different perspective -- it usually happens at a subconscious level.
mdude85 wrote:
I think he meant the field of view -- when you crop tightly into a photograph, the perspective is the same but the new crop creates the illusion of a different perspective -- it usually happens at a subconscious level.
Perspective remains unchanged; it is 100% a function of taking position and camera angle. Changing the focal length or cropping does not change that perspective, it changes the subject magnification and FoV.
But yes, more pixels allows for more cropping before the image falls apart. Crop a 100mp image by half in each dimension and you have a 25mp image. Crop a 40mp APS-c image by half in each dimension and you have a 10mp image. However, which final product is actually *better* has a lot more to do with the actual image content than the number of pixels
Jack Flesher wrote:
But yes, more pixels allows for more cropping before the image falls apart. Crop a 100mp image by half in each dimension and you have a 25mp image. Crop a 40mp APS-c image by half in each dimension and you have a 10mp image. However, which final product is actually *better* has a lot more to do with the actual image content than the number of pixels
Very true. More resolution is pretty much always going to be better if the focal lengths are different (and pretty much better in any other case too).
But if you use the same focal length lens, then you don't need to crop any more into the APS-C photo to get the same field of view. Due to the magnification of the APS-C sensor.
For example:
Using 55mm lens on a GFX 100 --> desire to achieve a FF-equivalent field of view of 110mm --> crop to 25MP.
Using 56mm lens on an XT5 --> desire to achieve a FF-equivalent field of view of 110mm --> crop to 23MP.
So yeah -- you can convert a wide angle lens to a telephoto lens with a 100 megapixel camera, but then you pay for the convenience of doing so ($10k plus you have to lug it around). Better just to use a longer lens, or move closer, or upscale the image in post.
mdude85 wrote:
Very true. More resolution is pretty much always going to be better if the focal lengths are different (and pretty much better in any other case too).
But if you use the same focal length lens, then you don't need to crop any more into the APS-C photo to get the same field of view. Due to the magnification of the APS-C sensor.
For example:
Using 55mm lens on a GFX 100 --> desire to achieve a FF-equivalent field of view of 110mm --> crop to 25MP.
Using 56mm lens on an XT5 --> desire to achieve a FF-equivalent field of view of 110mm --> crop to 23MP.
So yeah -- you can convert a wide angle lens to a telephoto lens with a 100 megapixel camera, but then you pay for the convenience of doing so ($10k plus you have to lug it around). Better just to use a longer lens, or move closer, or upscale the image in post.
About that converting a wide angle lens to a telephoto lens. Yes, you could indeed use a longer lens, but I don't think it's possible to use such a telephoto lens as a wide angle lens ;-). It's about flexibility I think. You can do, but you don't have to when not "needed". So, you (also) pay for the convenience of not having to buy a separate long lens, if you only use that tele every now and then.
Such a longer lens would make sense, if a wide angle lens is ALWAYS used as a tele. I don't know anyone who does that, and that would be pretty stupid anyway.
And using a longer lens next to such a wide angle on a GFX100 (and any camera), would only bring extra costs and weight.
Mujabad123 wrote:
About that converting a wide angle lens to a telephoto lens. Yes, you could indeed use a longer lens, but I don't think it's possible to use such a telephoto lens as a wide angle lens ;-). It's about flexibility I think. You can do, but you don't have to when not "needed". So, you (also) pay for the convenience of not having to buy a separate long lens, if you only use that tele every now and then.
Such a longer lens would make sense, if a wide angle lens is ALWAYS used as a tele. I don't know anyone who does that, and that would be pretty stupid anyway.
And using a longer lens next to such a wide angle on a GFX100 (and any camera), would only bring extra costs and weight.
Yep, that's the trade-off. The 40 APS-C camera is pretty much inarguably more portable with a similar level of image quality for most uses. And the GFX camera has excellent image quality, great color rendering, impressive post-processing ability, and high resolution, but with a much higher cost and less portability.
(I should note that in terms of portability, carrying around two lenses on the Fuji X system is still better than carrying around only one on the GFX 100. The GFX is super portable for its class, but is still much bigger, heavier and pricier than an APS-C kit--as it should be!).
mdude85 wrote:
Yep, that's the trade-off. The 40 APS-C camera is pretty much inarguably more portable with a similar level of image quality for most uses. And the GFX camera has excellent image quality, great color rendering, impressive post-processing ability, and high resolution, but with a much higher cost and less portability.
(I should note that in terms of portability, carrying around two lenses on the Fuji X system is still better than carrying around only one on the GFX 100. The GFX is super portable for its class, but is still much bigger, heavier and pricier than an APS-C kit--as it should be!). ...Show more →
Fuji did seem to slow down GF lens release, there is only 500 f5.6 in 2024 and 2 specialty TS lens and 55 f1.7 in 2023. There are virtually no third party auto focus presence.
On full frame side, there are new lenses coming almost every month. Even very slow Sony released 50-150 f2, 16 f1.8 and 400-800 this year.
On the other hand, it may be difficult to expand lens line up. Probably for most people, 20-35 f4 and 45-100 f4 is enough for most situations.
This thread seems to slowly be morphing to match the conclusions I formed dabbling with the GFX system a couple times now. The image quality is great, but as a system it's considerably less portable and flexible than a smaller sensor system, which ultimately meant that it didn't fit my needs. But this is also why I am a fan of the GFX100RF — it's the only camera that packages medium format quality in a truly portable package that I can carry standalone or alongside an aps-c or full frame system.
I don't understand the 80 1.7 hate. Besides the slowish focusing, it's a fantastic lens. If the 55 1.7 and 80 1.7 underwhelms you, perhaps the equipment aren't the problem.
itai195 wrote:
This thread seems to slowly be morphing to match the conclusions I formed dabbling with the GFX system a couple times now. The image quality is great, but as a system it's considerably less portable and flexible than a smaller sensor system, which ultimately meant that it didn't fit my needs. But this is also why I am a fan of the GFX100RF — it's the only camera that packages medium format quality in a truly portable package that I can carry standalone or alongside an aps-c or full frame system.
I tend to agree. A full GFX system is too big to want to carry around everywhere, so its better to think of it as an adjunct to a smaller complete system. And on that basis perhaps only a couple of speciality lenses are needed. I'm also seeing the attraction of the GFX100RF.
Geoff D F wrote:
I tend to agree. A full GFX system is too big to want to carry around everywhere, so its better to think of it as an adjunct to a smaller complete system. And on that basis perhaps only a couple of speciality lenses are needed. I'm also seeing the attraction of the GFX100RF.
While I'm usually inclined to build out a kit, that's not the case with my GFX100S at all. When I got it, I also got the 63mm. I later added the small 50mm and the equally small 35-70mm. I have a few Canon EF lenses I can adapt to it and that's it.
I love the rendering of the 110mm, but I know that I'd never take it anywhere. Just too large and heavy.
Evection wrote:
Disclaimer: I don't use or care about zooms, so I'm not commenting on their quality here.
Canon RF and Fuji X shooter here. I'm contemplating replacing my RF system with GFX. I don't do action or wildlife and only ever use AF-S anyway, so bad medium format autofocus is not a concern for me. Don't need compact street/travel lenses either as I have my X system for that. When I bring my bulky RF L primes, I only care about image quality, which is why GFX seems like a logical next step. We're talking fine art, portrait and macro here.
So, I rented a GFX 100II with 55/1.7, 80/1.7 and 110/2.0. Those focal lengths suit me, as a starting kit. The test did not go well.
The 80/1.7 is optically subpar to the point I wouldn't even consider it.
The 55/1.7 is a lot better than that, but still disappointing. Corner performance at f/1.7 is mediocre, only gets excellent at 2.8 and narrower. There's also a coma problem -- wouldn't use that lens for nighttime photography.
The 110/2 is the only top-tier lens here. It can replace my RF 85/1.2 in most cases.
Looking at the lens lineup, all the other primes are too slow for my use case. Appreciate they're meant to be smaller and cheaper, but I'm not looking for EDC glass in a medium format system. And here's the thing... the faults I pointed out in the 55 and 80 would be fine in compact glass, but those two are not that. Their heft, price and aperture puts them in the same category as the Canon and Nikon 1.2 glass. They don't live up to it, optically.
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)....Show more →
I’m curious about this as well, could you post some examples? Might be helpful. I’ve only seen good things about most of those lenses and the work I’ve seen looks good. Granted, I don’t know that what I’ve seen has been shot wide open like that. I think mostly it’s stopped down quite a bit—especially landscape and architecture. If you don’t mind me asking, what are you shooting at 55mm MF that you need f1.7 for exactly?
crazy150 wrote:
I’m curious about this as well, could you post some examples? Might be helpful. I’ve only seen good things about most of those lenses and the work I’ve seen looks good. Granted, I don’t know that what I’ve seen has been shot wide open like that. I think mostly it’s stopped down quite a bit—especially landscape and architecture. If you don’t mind me asking, what are you shooting at 55mm MF that you need f1.7 for exactly?
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1858455/56#16830515
Here's one I posted at 1.7. I wouldn't say 1.7 was needed, but it shows how incredibly shallow the focus range is at 1.7, probably about 1/2". I use the lens far more at f2 than 1.7.
Interesting, what are you shooting with now, Fuji X?
Jack Flesher wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Geoff D F wrote:
I tend to agree. A full GFX system is too big to want to carry around everywhere, so its better to think of it as an adjunct to a smaller complete system. And on that basis perhaps only a couple of speciality lenses are needed. I'm also seeing the attraction of the GFX100RF.
Isn't the RF system basically the same size as the GFX system? Those Canon R kits are huge compared to Sony. Canon's DSLRs and EF lenses are also huge. I had a 6D and 5 or 6 lenses and I'm kind of shocked that I carried them around so much now that I have a Fuji system with 4 or 5 lenses that's less than half the size and weight.
The GFX 100s/ii with 35-70 is very portable and excleent travel setup.
mdude85 wrote:
Yep, that's the trade-off. The 40 APS-C camera is pretty much inarguably more portable with a similar level of image quality for most uses. And the GFX camera has excellent image quality, great color rendering, impressive post-processing ability, and high resolution, but with a much higher cost and less portability.
(I should note that in terms of portability, carrying around two lenses on the Fuji X system is still better than carrying around only one on the GFX 100. The GFX is super portable for its class, but is still much bigger, heavier and pricier than an APS-C kit--as it should be!). ...Show more →
SGinNorcal wrote: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1858455/56#16830515
Here's one I posted at 1.7. I wouldn't say 1.7 was needed, but it shows how incredibly shallow the focus range is at 1.7, probably about 1/2". I use the lens far more at f2 than 1.7.
Sure, occasionally you want an extreme DOF for effect, but OP seems critical of the sharpness wide open. I'm just curious as to what the subject and style he shoots that would demand such sharpness at 55mm 1.7 and just how soft his photos are.
edit: and any softness I see in your photos are just due to the extreme shallow DOF and the geometry of the focal plane at that focus distance. People forget that field curvature exists.
mdude85 wrote:
Isn't the RF system basically the same size as the GFX system? Those Canon R kits are huge compared to Sony. Canon's DSLRs and EF lenses are also huge. I had a 6D and 5 or 6 lenses and I'm kind of shocked that I carried them around so much now that I have a Fuji system with 4 or 5 lenses that's less than half the size and weight.
I think one would have to do an apples to apples comparison with lenses and bodies that match the capabilities you desire and see where you end up. I really value the telephoto range for landscape use, for example, and while the GFX has options there, they don't quite match the convenience or flexibility of a typical 100-400mm full frame lens. Or for travel, while I can appreciate the simplicity of a single body and lens, a zoom whose maximum aperture is f/4.5 isn't going to work for me in many cases, and at that point I'm needing a second [large] lens. I like the GFX100RF not because it does everything I'll ever need, but because it's easy to bring along.
