fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2              end
  

fuji medium format compared to others

  
 
ruthenium
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · fuji medium format compared to others




- - -

True to some extent. But the GFX of that period was also rather different. I recall extensively testing one of those early 50MP gfx bodies against the 5DsR and doing a public A/B/x test with images from both at a range of sizes. Viewers’ ability to distinguish which they preferred didn’t rise above random until we got to about 30”x 40” where the percentage of people whose choice leaned toward GFX began to be slightly above 50%.

Again, the point isn’t that AOS-C or FF can equal the performance of miniMF, but that the differences are not noticeable until we
...Show more

Is this a meaningful way to judge camera systems, by comparing the prints? Isn't this like looking at stories for children that all end with "...and they lived happily ever after " and claiming that none of these stories is better than the others?
Photography happens before a picture is printed. When thinking of a camera system (that always includes a lens), there are many things that can make the experience of obtaining the raw pictures and the experience of processing these dramatically different, from hell to true joy.



Oct 03, 2025 at 06:35 AM
gyoung143
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · fuji medium format compared to others




Is this a meaningful way to judge camera systems, by comparing the prints? Isn't this like looking at stories for children that all end with "...and they lived happily ever after " and claiming that none of these stories is better than the others?
Photography happens before a picture is printed. When thinking of a camera system (that always includes a lens), there are many things that can make the experience of obtaining the raw pictures and the experience of processing these dramatically different, from hell to true joy.


OK if your hobby is the process, but the end product of your endeavours is an image, which is looked at by people.
Leaving aside any idea of artistic appreciation, the mere technicalities of it mean that it's not possible to discern any advantage of a higher resolution medium until you can for a start display it, a 4k monitor only needs about 11mpx to fill it, any more will be wasted, and even a large print that can use all those pixels will usually only show a difference if you look closely at a part of the image rather than stand back and experience the whole image as the photographer intended when he/she framed it.
Magnifying an image on a monitor to 100% or more, so only part of it is visible is 'only' an interesting technical exercise with little relationship to the experience of producing an image that will stimulate or inform an audience.

Gerry



Oct 03, 2025 at 07:37 AM
Steve Spencer
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #3 · fuji medium format compared to others




OK if your hobby is the process, but the end product of your endeavours is an image, which is looked at by people.
Leaving aside any idea of artistic appreciation, the mere technicalities of it mean that it's not possible to discern any advantage of a higher resolution medium until you can for a start display it, a 4k monitor only needs about 11mpx to fill it, any more will be wasted, and even a large print that can use all those pixels will usually only show a difference if you look closely at a part of the image rather than stand
...Show more

I wouldn't say extra MPs are wasted. Extra MPs can be used to make the smaller sized file you end up with better and it is easy to do by just downscaling the image. I have pretty rudimentary post processing skills and don't like to spend much time post processing a file but even I can downscale and don't mind doing so and the file looks a lot better when I do.



Oct 03, 2025 at 08:08 AM
ruthenium
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #4 · fuji medium format compared to others




OK if your hobby is the process, but the end product of your endeavours is an image, which is looked at by people.
Leaving aside any idea of artistic appreciation, the mere technicalities of it mean that it's not possible to discern any advantage of a higher resolution medium until you can for a start display it, a 4k monitor only needs about 11mpx to fill it, any more will be wasted, and even a large print that can use all those pixels will usually only show a difference if you look closely at a part of the image rather than stand
...Show more

My comment was about judging camera systems, and had nothing to do with the "technicalities" of viewing images on electronic displays.
You might be responding to some of your thoughts (e.g., I didn't say that my hobby is the process) - basically, this is a typical "straw man" argument, unrelated to what I said.



Oct 03, 2025 at 08:53 AM
Jack Flesher
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #5 · fuji medium format compared to others




OK if your hobby is the process, but the end product of your endeavours is an image, which is looked at by people.
Leaving aside any idea of artistic appreciation, the mere technicalities of it mean that it's not possible to discern any advantage of a higher resolution medium until you can for a start display it, a 4k monitor only needs about 11mpx to fill it, any more will be wasted, and even a large print that can use all those pixels will usually only show a difference if you look closely at a part of the image rather than stand
...Show more

Well said. Again, give me a compelling image with a few irrelevant technical warts over a technically perfect, yet uninteresting image.

In some cases, intense clarity, detail and high resolution can be the interesting elements of a photograph — here there are not many, but Burtinsky’s work on Chinese recycling yards comes to mind. In others content is the key, and here there are many examples, but Dorthea Lange is probably a good example of great images with obvious technical flaws. I’d hang a Lange long before a Burtinsky



Oct 03, 2025 at 09:29 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · fuji medium format compared to others


ruthenium wrote:
Is this a meaningful way to judge camera systems, by comparing the prints? Isn't this like looking at stories for children that all end with "...and they lived happily ever after " and claiming that none of these stories is better than the others?
Photography happens before a picture is printed. When thinking of a camera system (that always includes a lens), there are many things that can make the experience of obtaining the raw pictures and the experience of processing these dramatically different, from hell to true joy.


Prints do provide “a” meaningful way to judge/compare camera systems. I don’t see how your children’s story analogy works here — for multiple reasons.

As to your last sentence about the experience, I think it makes the opposite point from the one I believe you are hoping to make.

Regarding that “experience” aspect, I sometimes see a fascinating pattern. The arguments for the larger systems (which are valid for some small percentage of use cases) often begin with (true) claims that the performance specifications of the larger systems measure better than those of the smaller systems. From there, they lead to a conclusion that one must use the larger system for that reason if serious about photography.

But it isn’t that simple, for two general, related reasons. First, the better-ness is conditional on resulting in a perceptible quality improvement in the final output. It can be in extreme cases, but it isn’t (at least not in objective assessments) with smaller images of the sort that most photographers are producing, whether electronic (most likely these days by far) or print. Second, that potential small quality improvement often comes at the expense of larger, heavier, slower, and more limited gear… all of which can have their own negative effects on the photography — e.g. sometimes a smaller, lighter system with more lens options is better suited to capturing certain kinds of images.

Note that this isn’t a question of pure technical image quality, but a question of the quality of overall photographic output.

At this point, sometime the discussion now flips to the “pure joy” of shooting with that ostensibly better large system. Well, OK, but that’s no longer making the case for the original proposed photographic advantages of that larger system. It may well fell good to use a bigger, more expensive system… but that’s not particularly related to its suitability to producing better photography.

FWIW.

Also, to Jack’s post appearing immediately above my post and to the writer of the comment to which he responds: Amen.



Oct 03, 2025 at 09:40 AM
gyoung143
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · fuji medium format compared to others




I wouldn't say extra MPs are wasted. Extra MPs can be used to make the smaller sized file you end up with better and it is easy to do by just downscaling the image. I have pretty rudimentary post processing skills and don't like to spend much time post processing a file but even I can downscale and don't mind doing so and the file looks a lot better when I do.


That's interesting, when printing I usually just let the software sort out from my 24, 26, or 40 max file to whatever the printer needs. Are you saying that, for instance, if I downscale an image for display on an HD monitor, or to the printer's resolution for thr print size the same photo will have better detail if it starts off from a higher resolution original? I must try that, take the same photo on xt3 and xt5, same lens etc, and produce an HD res file from them both and see if there is a discernible difference.

Gerry



Oct 03, 2025 at 10:00 AM
Steve Spencer
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #8 · fuji medium format compared to others




That's interesting, when printing I usually just let the software sort out from my 24, 26, or 40 max file to whatever the printer needs. Are you saying that, for instance, if I downscale an image for display on an HD monitor, or to the printer's resolution for thr print size the same photo will have better detail if it starts off from a higher resolution original? I must try that, take the same photo on xt3 and xt5, same lens etc, and produce an HD res file from them both and see if there is a discernible difference.

Gerry


Yes, that is what I have generally found in my own printing.



Oct 03, 2025 at 10:22 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · fuji medium format compared to others




That's interesting, when printing I usually just let the software sort out from my 24, 26, or 40 max file to whatever the printer needs. Are you saying that, for instance, if I downscale an image for display on an HD monitor, or to the printer's resolution for thr print size the same photo will have better detail if it starts off from a higher resolution original? I must try that, take the same photo on xt3 and xt5, same lens etc, and produce an HD res file from them both and see if there is a discernible difference.

Gerry


Interpolation can take place at several points in the process going from camera file to print. The first obvious one is when we resize our photographs in software to prepare a print file. The second, as I understand it, is in the printer’s own software when we sent it the file to print.

The theory is that the printer interpolation will be better if the resolution of one of them (the printer) is a whole multiple of th either (the post-processing software interpolation). That’s why people may chose a setting like 360 ppi for a printer than prints at 1440 or 2880 for example. (360x4=1440.)

Does it mater? Hard to say. Years ago someone (whose name momentarily escapes me) at the old Luminous Landscape website proposed that since the printer was interpolating anyway that it made more sense to not interpolate in the software since that would interpolate twice… and he claimed to have tests to prove it. I tried that for a while, and ran some tests comparing large files printed both ways… and I could not see any obvious difference.

I did learn one at-the-time-counterintuitive thing from his writing. We all assume that the larger the print the more important it is to keep up high ppi settings in order to handle detail. But it turns out that the opposite is actually the case — high ppi is way more important in a very small print that you might view while holding in your hand than in a very large print likely to viewed from some distance on the wall. (If you just let the ppi “float” with those small print rather than interpolating in software, this theory predicts that you might retain a bit more extra-fine detail in the small print.)



Oct 03, 2025 at 12:11 PM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

ruthenium
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #10 · fuji medium format compared to others


gdanmitchell wrote:
Prints do provide “a” meaningful way to judge/compare camera systems. I don’t see how your children’s story analogy works here — for multiple reasons.

As to your last sentence about the experience, I think it makes the opposite point from the one I believe you are hoping to make.

Regarding that “experience” aspect, I sometimes see a fascinating pattern. The arguments for the larger systems (which are valid for some small percentage of use cases) often begin with (true) claims that the performance specifications of the larger systems measure better than those of the smaller systems. From there, they lead to
...Show more

If cameras A, B, and X (being APS-C, FF, or a GFX) can be used to produce equivalent final (landscape?) images in most cases, that I don't dispute, then the choices that we all make are influenced by "the experience of obtaining the raw pictures and the experience of processing these", like I said.
Our reasons to buy one or the other or two of the different camera systems are a mix of personal and technical considerations. For example, I like my micro-four-thirds camera OM-1 II for macro (for obvious reasons) and I would not use a GFX for macro, even if some do. Also, when hiking, I like my OM-1 II with the 300mm F4 prime more than my Sony A1 with the Sony 200-600 G lens. I like my A1 for landscapes somewhat better than the OM-1 II, but I don't like the performance of the 16-35mm F2.8 GM lens that I have, and I expect that the GFX100S II with the 20-35mm F4 lens should give me much better image quality and user experience.
I hope the point I am making is clear. That with some experience, our choices of photography gear are influenced by a range of personal and technical considerations that can be remotely related to the display of the final products of our photography. The latter we can take for granted that a good photographer can produce good quality, impactful photography work for display to public regardless of the camera system in his/her hands.
When giving advice to others, we cannot promise that a certain camera system should make them better photographers and produce better pictures. But, it would be equally incorrect to discourage others from using some camera systems, e.g. a GFX, on the basis of the argument that the resulting images should mostly look the same as from a camera system A, or B.



Oct 03, 2025 at 02:01 PM
gyoung143
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · fuji medium format compared to others


ruthenium wrote:
If cameras A, B, and X (being APS-C, FF, or a GFX) can be used to produce equivalent final (landscape?) images in most cases, that I don't dispute, then the choices that we all make are influenced by "the experience of obtaining the raw pictures and the experience of processing these", like I said.
Our reasons to buy one or the other or two of the different camera systems are a mix of personal and technical considerations. For example, I like my micro-four-thirds camera OM-1 II for macro (for obvious reasons) and I would not use a GFX for macro, even
...Show more
To me,the camera handling and viewfinder are the most important, as long as that doesn't force an unacceptable compromise in potential IQ.
Why do you prefer Olympus for macro? The reasons don't seem obvious to me! I did a lot of it professionally with Nikon film cameras, and still use the same lenses, bellows etc, but with a Fuji Xt on the back.

Gerry



Oct 03, 2025 at 02:39 PM
ruthenium
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #12 · fuji medium format compared to others


gyoung143 wrote:
To me,the camera handling and viewfinder are the most important, as long as that doesn't force an unacceptable compromise in potential IQ.
Why do you prefer Olympus for macro? The reasons don't seem obvious to me! I did a lot of it professionally with Nikon film cameras, and still use the same lenses, bellows etc, but with a Fuji Xt on the back.

Gerry


There are several reasons, one being the M.Zuiko Digital ED 90mm F3.5 Macro IS PRO lens and some of the features it offers (1 - 2x magnification (2 - 4x 35mm equivalent), up to 7 steps compensation with Sync-IS on OM-1 II, up to 4x magnification with MC-14/20 teleconverters (up to 8x 35mm equivalent), in-camera focus stacking, IP53 weather sealing).
I am not sure if this is obvious but a micro-four-thirds lens that gives 1x magnification is equivalent to 2x magnification on a FF system. Also the DoF is greater, e.g. f/8 is like f/16 on FF. The exceptional IBIS of OM-1 II with the Sync-IS with the lens helps to do hand-held macro. I am sure that FF cameras and dedicated FF macro lenses can be used to obtain excellent macro photos (in line with what Dan stated earlier in this thread), it is just that it seem more "reasonable" to use the micro-four-thirds system for this purpose as this system gives two-times greater magnification and can be used hand-held more conveniently than a FF macro system, if hand-held macro is of interest to someone.



Oct 03, 2025 at 04:09 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · fuji medium format compared to others


ruthenium wrote:
If cameras A, B, and X (being APS-C, FF, or a GFX) can be used to produce equivalent final (landscape?) images in most cases, that I don't dispute, then the choices that we all make are influenced by "the experience of obtaining the raw pictures and the experience of processing these", like I said.
Our reasons to buy one or the other or two of the different camera systems are a mix of personal and technical considerations. For example, I like my micro-four-thirds camera OM-1 II for macro (for obvious reasons) and I would not use a GFX for macro, even
...Show more

I think your point that a variety of factors influence choices about what gear to purchase and use is in line with something I wrote in earlier on FM about "the best" landscape camera — namely that sensor size and resolution alone do not determine the "best" camera.

For me it isn't so much which camera I enjoy using though — it is more about which works best for the taks at hand based on technical and other objective features. That's why I use a big full frame system with a heavy tripod and large lenses for most landscape photography and a smaller format camera with a few small primes for street photography. If I reversed those I choices, in my case I would impair the quality of the photograph in both genres, and I don't mean simply in a technical sense.

In photography forums there are, among others, a lot of people looking for advice about purchases and they look to those whit experience to share that, sometimes in the form of recommendations. In other cases, folks with various levels of experience in photography simply want to "discuss" some question about things, most often gear. (And, unfortunately, too often gear in isolation from actual photographs.) In these cases it is not wrong to encourage them to make choices that our experience tells us will lead to better results, more effective use of their money, and so on.

BTW, regarding the ABX test... you would not do it with camera A, camera B, and camera X. You test only two systems, cameras A and B. X is actually one of those two, either A or B, and the person participating in the test doesn't know whether it is A or B. (In fact, in different stages of the test X might be the same as A or the same as B.) The idea here is to double-check the reliability of claims that one is able ti distinguish differences between A and B by asking them to determine whether A or B are used in the X sample.

Imagine doing that test with two types of wine, one very expensive and one less expensive, that are otherwise similar in taste, color, and so forth. If people can actually distinguish between A and B they should be able to accurately determine whether sample X is actual A or B, but if they can't do that reliably we have to question their ability to distinguish between A and B.



Oct 03, 2025 at 05:07 PM
Steve Spencer
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · fuji medium format compared to others


gdanmitchell wrote:
I think your point that a variety of factors influence choices about what gear to purchase and use is in line with something I wrote in earlier on FM about "the best" landscape camera — namely that sensor size and resolution alone do not determine the "best" camera.

For me it isn't so much which camera I enjoy using though — it is more about which works best for the taks at hand based on technical and other objective features. That's why I use a big full frame system with a heavy tripod and large lenses for most landscape photography
...Show more

I would revise that to "If people can actually distinguish between A and B they should be able to accurately determine whether sample X is actual A or B, but if they can't do that reliably we don't know if they have the ability to distinguish between A and B." Again failing to reject that they can't distinguish between A and B does not mean we should accept that proposition. We should admit that we don't know whether they can distinguish between A and B.



Oct 03, 2025 at 05:33 PM
Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #15 · fuji medium format compared to others


Why care about other peoples opinions when choosing what you are going to use?

– I was never happy with FF, no matter how expensive and stellar lenses I used. Have had more than one hundred of them over the years.

– Bought into GFX. Have not been disappointed even once with image quality. Every single lens is better than I'd ever hope for. Have totally quit looking for "better" gear. No GAS.

– All of the above happened even though I NEVER print. Ever. No interest in prints.

Edit: I don't like "Fuji colors" though, but that can be fixed in PP. It's just that I don't care enough to do anything about it.



Oct 04, 2025 at 02:52 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · fuji medium format compared to others


Makten wrote:
Why care about other peoples opinions when choosing what you are going to use?


Because they broaden your perspective, help you discover facts you might miss on your own, encourage you to check your assumptions…

You don’t have to agree with all of those “other peoples (sic) opinions,” but hearing more opinions than your own can be valuable.



Oct 04, 2025 at 09:25 AM
tsdevine
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #17 · fuji medium format compared to others



Not sure I’ve seen you list out the pros and cons you found while using the latest GFX cameras. Compared to high resolution FF cameras you’ve tried or other more direct competitors to the Fuji?

I enjoy both my GFX100S II and A7R V and have not had the opportunity to try any other competing systems. For landscape shooting I find I often enjoy the 4:3rds aspect ratio, and like the flexibility to crop to other aspect ratios while maintaining higher resolution than I would with my Sony. I also find there is a little more ability to handle challenging lighting, like when I’m shooting waterfalls.

The Sony system has so many more lens options, and is a better all around solution IMHO.

But I find both system being a lot to the table, and I enjoy both.

All IMHO of course.

gdanmitchell wrote:
Because they broaden your perspective, help you discover facts you might miss on your own, encourage you to check your assumptions…

You don’t have to agree with all of those “other peoples (sic) opinions,” but hearing more opinions than your own can be valuable.




Oct 04, 2025 at 10:14 AM
1       2              end






FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2              end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account