msadat wrote:
so how many images did u import to LR at one time ? any lag or slowness when u were editing, i am on a pc and ready for an upgrade
Generally 200-300 if I were out shooting for an afternoon. I shoot my GFX slowly, and tend to have another camera with me. My workflow was to reject obvious fails, then render 1:1 previews, then cull alternates for sharpness, then process and rank.
Everything was fast after 1:1s were rendered. It took a small fraction of a second for the 100% image to show up. If my XT4 were 100ms to show 100%, I’d say my Z9 would be 150ms, and my 100S would be 200ms. Enough that you could TELL when loading images side-by-side, but not enough to be a functional issue.
I export few images, and I’ve always hit “go” and alt-tabbed to go do something else while I waited, so I don’t really know relative export timing. LR has always been slow at that, IMHO… I don’t want to stare at export progress bars!
My PC at the time was your average gaming desktop with a 2070 Super and SSD. My Mac was an M1 MacBook Air. The biggest revelation for me for the M1 was that it was faster than my PC, on battery power, fanless, and cool enough to sit on my lap.
I haven’t done any AI editing, other than playing with the upscale feature when that first came out. I don’t have a use case for those features. The upsizing I tried took a good amount of time, for sure. I decided to live with a little less sharpness on my bird photos, and upsize if I ever decided to print a 20x30 bird photo (still haven’t after all these years).
Perhaps I’m more tolerant than others, but I think Lightroom is a dragon that has been slayed at this point. I think you’d have to be doing some very large batches with some really tight deadlines to make computer performance a real factor.
500 is fine without a grip cos you're always supporting the setup from the lens. On a monopod with a gimbal it's even easier.
Lee Saxon wrote:
For me the 110/2 was fine when I tried a 100s. But if I owned a 250 (or 500, or probably either of the Tilt/Shift), I'd probably make the same decision (well, or just keep my 100, which is what I did anyway). But my guess would be that those are probably the four most niche GF lenses so I'd say that probably still fits within "unless you need a couple of very specific features".
CKrueger wrote:
Generally 200-300 if I were out shooting for an afternoon. I shoot my GFX slowly, and tend to have another camera with me. My workflow was to reject obvious fails, then render 1:1 previews, then cull alternates for sharpness, then process and rank.
Everything was fast after 1:1s were rendered. It took a small fraction of a second for the 100% image to show up. If my XT4 were 100ms to show 100%, I’d say my Z9 would be 150ms, and my 100S would be 200ms. Enough that you could TELL when loading images side-by-side, but not enough to be a functional issue.
I export few images, and I’ve always hit “go” and alt-tabbed to go do something else while I waited, so I don’t really know relative export timing. LR has always been slow at that, IMHO… I don’t want to stare at export progress bars!
My PC at the time was your average gaming desktop with a 2070 Super and SSD. My Mac was an M1 MacBook Air. The biggest revelation for me for the M1 was that it was faster than my PC, on battery power, fanless, and cool enough to sit on my lap.
I haven’t done any AI editing, other than playing with the upscale feature when that first came out. I don’t have a use case for those features. The upsizing I tried took a good amount of time, for sure. I decided to live with a little less sharpness on my bird photos, and upsize if I ever decided to print a 20x30 bird photo (still haven’t after all these years).
Perhaps I’m more tolerant than others, but I think Lightroom is a dragon that has been slayed at this point. I think you’d have to be doing some very large batches with some really tight deadlines to make computer performance a real factor....Show more →
Anyone see a new G series lens roadmap that isn't far out of date? To me, this is far more important than the inevitable new body that will come out.
I see the one posted on the Fujifilm site and it reminds me of the calendar I have up in my office at work, which was last flipped to a new month February of 2020... I keep it as a memorial.
Jan 27, 2026 at 07:06 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Lee Saxon wrote:
I rarely disagree with you, Steve, but I'm gonna disagree on this one.
Given the incredible price and size, with the built-in grip, of the original 100, plus the meaningful gap in time before the 100s came out at [literally the price of a whole Z8] cheaper, I think it's very reasonable to think that those two cameras occupied separate niches and could coexist, sort of like a Nikon D700 that was a grip-less D3.
But then the 100 II came in quite a bit smaller and less expensive, yet they still made a 100s II, *and* it came out only like six minutes after the 100 II...feels like an admission that the 100s II price point was the sweet spot and the 100 II only existed for a handful of people who *really* needed a certain couple of *very* specific features....Show more →
As usual I don't disagree with you Lee. You correctly point out the strange strategy that Fuji adopted in the roll out of the 100, 100S, 100 II and 100S II. To me this suggests that Fuji didn't really know how what price the market would bear or what size would be popular.
Perhaps they have it figured out now, and it seems that the 100S II represents the sweet spot in the market and where sales are likely to be had. If that is right, then I was wrong in my post above and the GFX market is influenced by price and there is a sweet spot. I still think the market is fairly small, but I think you are right that getting the price and the features right does matter.
Late to the party, but the 180MP over 100MP is about a 33% increase in linear pixels (square root of 1.8)
What are folks doing with their 100MP sensors that have left them to "come up short" by 33%. Is that the matter of only printing to 30" dimension and wanting to print to 40" (same ppi)?
Or, is that the matter of shooting with a 35mm lens and cropping vs. shooting with a 45-50 ... or, taking a few more steps closer to your subject?
Or, is that a matter of increasing printed PPI from 300 PPI to 400 PPI (same size print)?
Personally, I found 50MP to be plenty and my bump to 100MP in the X2D was vastly more about the camera improvements over the X1D, than it was about the 100MP increase in sensor size over the 50MP of its predecessor (bargain now, btw). I realize this is Fuji, not Hassy ... but, the math of more MP's has its utility. The question for folks is what does that utilization / capability mean to them ... really?
Oh, and for those folks who are e-shutter fans ... the readout time needed will be long, and the battery suck will be large. Of course, they could give options / modes to read the bands with lesser demands ... but, that'll be counter to the premise of 180MP ... is the path toward Max IQ.
At some point, the matter of cropping into more MP's vs. swapping glass tips the scales in one direction or the other, and folks will vary their rationale for each. I've "cropped deep" into my 100MP files a few times. Would a 33% gain make a real difference in such instances ... sure, but, how much was I gonna do anything with that deep of a crop anyway? That said, I've cropped down from 14MP to 5MP and printed 40" years ago on my Kodak SLR/C.
certainly would have liked a few more pixels for that ... but I still think folks get enamored by how large the MP number is, without thinking through what that math really means ... 180MP = 133% (+33% linear) bump over 100MP ... and how that factors to benefit them. Sure, I can crop deeper, but I'd still get more gain (1000%) from swapping a 50mm lens for a 500mm lens.
Just another way of saying that there might be different fish to fry for folks than needing more MP's.
But, in the world of companies "flexing their muscle" ... MP's is a sexy bicep that makes a lot of folks look their way, to "ooh and ahh" over its size.
Runners ... they just keep running, without even giving a glance that way.
One thing to keep in mind as we try to extrapolate performance on current sensors to predicted performance on a later sensor generation: Typically it isn’t just a matter of increasing the number of photo sites. Other improvements are part of major upgrades to a new sensor generation, and these include things like noise performance, dynamic range, and readout speed.
It is rare — in fact, no examples come to mind — that a newer generation of sensor with higher resolution performs worse than the previous generation in these other ways.
It is fair to ask “who needs 180MP?,” and the answer is probably “almost no one.” However, if a higher resolution sensor can be produced for a camera that has essentially the same inflation-adjusted price and otherwise at least equal erformance, it can a question of “why not?”
gdanmitchell wrote:
It is fair to ask “who needs 180MP?,” and the answer is probably “almost no one.” However, if a higher resolution sensor can be produced for a camera that has essentially the same inflation-adjusted price and otherwise at least equal erformance, it can a question of “why not?”
Or... if they put the effort to make the increase I'm pixels perform as good, or a bit better than current sensor tech, why not keep that same sensor pixel count and make a gigantic change is sensor speed for those that don't want a tick of performance increase and a lot of extra pixels they don't need?
Would users be more apt to buy:
10-20% more performance with 180mp over 100mp...?
50% more performance with the same maps (100mp)...?
Once you get to 100mp (or even 50mp, or for some, 26mp), the extra is just there for cropping, or chest pumping status...
RWNPhoto wrote:
Or... if they put the effort to make the increase I'm pixels perform as good, or a bit better than current sensor tech, why not keep that same sensor pixel count and make a gigantic change is sensor speed for those that don't want a tick of performance increase and a lot of extra pixels they don't need?
Would users be more apt to buy:
10-20% more performance with 180mp over 100mp...?
50% more performance with the same maps (100mp)...?
Once you get to 100mp (or even 50mp, or for some, 26mp), the extra is just there for cropping, or chest pumping status...
I hear ya.
One thing about the development of the "chest pumping" levels ... the benefits of such development tend to trickle down into mainstream applications. So, the development itself has its own levels of admiration ... but, for many folks the applicability might not be as much of a benefit to their current gaps / wants / needs / desires.
For Fuji, I see this as being a BIG SETUP for what that pixel density does when it rolls into their APS-C lineup. THAT is where I think a LOT of (Fuji) folks will embrace the 180MP sensor ... in its smaller brethren (whatever the MP math for that is).
Imo, this is kinda like race cars making bigger, better, badder, faster engines that almost no one will ever drive. BUT, the technology of pushing that envelope ... works its way into the "lesser" product lines. That, and who doesn't enjoy a good "chest pump" once in a while.
RWNPhoto wrote:
Or... if they put the effort to make the increase I'm pixels perform as good, or a bit better than current sensor tech, why not keep that same sensor pixel count and make a gigantic change is sensor speed for those that don't want a tick of performance increase and a lot of extra pixels they don't need?
Would users be more apt to buy:
10-20% more performance with 180mp over 100mp...?
50% more performance with the same maps (100mp)...?
Once you get to 100mp (or even 50mp, or for some, 26mp), the extra is just there for cropping, or chest pumping status...
As with all things in photography, there's a potential for buyers being driven by, as you put it, "chest thumping." But there are also photographers among the potential buyers for whom the improvements could be meaningful.
Also, I would not suggest that, for example, every person who has a 100MP miniMF camera would need to replace theirs with a 180MP miniMF camera. If 100MP works well for a photographer, then keep the 100MP camera.
But camera companies will continue to incorporate technical advances in their cameras that a) are immediately useful to some photographers or b) will please new first-time buyers and those who are upgrading from much earlier versions or different systems entirely.
As to your 20% vers 50% more "performance" question, there's no single answer. Some night choose one while some might choose the other. (And, of course, your numbers are entirely hypothetical so not all that meaningful.)
It is easy, apparently, for people to forget that cameras are not intended to just meed the expectations of the 50th percentile buyer. In order to meet the needs of the 99th percentile buyer, they will necessarily exceed the lower performance levels of the median buyer. No company that specifies gear at a level that is insufficient for 50% of the potential buyers will be successful.
gdanmitchell wrote:
One thing to keep in mind as we try to extrapolate performance on current sensors to predicted performance on a later sensor generation: Typically it isn’t just a matter of increasing the number of photo sites. Other improvements are part of major upgrades to a new sensor generation, and these include things like noise performance, dynamic range, and readout speed.
It is rare — in fact, no examples come to mind — that a newer generation of sensor with higher resolution performs worse than the previous generation in these other ways.
It is fair to ask “who needs 180MP?,” and the answer is probably “almost no one.” However, if a higher resolution sensor can be produced for a camera that has essentially the same inflation-adjusted price and otherwise at least equal erformance, it can a question of “why not?” ...Show more →
The answer to why not is in your own answer - almost no one needs it. And to benefit those very few who want it, everyone else will be paying more for the new sensor and likely losing the option to purchase 100mp and 50mp cameras.
In the past I've always been happy with resolution upgrades but seeing what can be done with 50mp I've reached the point where further resolution jumps aren't worth the hassle.
Geoff D F wrote:
The answer to why not is in your own answer - almost no one needs it. And to benefit those very few who want it, everyone else will be paying more for the new sensor and likely losing the option to purchase 100mp and 50mp cameras.
In the past I've always been happy with resolution upgrades but seeing what can be done with 50mp I've reached the point where further resolution jumps aren't worth the hassle.
I agree that “almost no one needs” it, and I could say the same for 100MP over 50MP or miniMF over FF or a 1% improvement in some aspect of IQ in a lens, or a tiny improvement in noise or DR…
The word (not “world” as per my original typo!) “almost” is doing a whole lot of work in the “almost no one needs it” argument. Unless “NO ONE” needs it, there is some eason for it. It is possible for the “almost no one” statement (which I agree with to some extent) to be true AND for it to make sense to continue advance the technical capabilities f camera gear as new models come out.
Again, equipment, especially high end equipment, is not build to satisfy only most people. It will always exceed the needs of most (almost all?) users, but as long as it meets the needs of those at the margins there is reason to go there.
Anyone can make up any kind of argument to any of this. But, 180MP is needed by NO ONE. There, done.
Someone wants to say that companies have to keep pushing and adding new features. Sure, you can believe that. I can also believe that a lot of companies are run by an idiot who knows little about what they are doing.Happens a lot. Look at Eddie Bauer. Closing all stores now, because the current owner of the brand, are idiots. Now nothing about what they are doing. Eddie Bauer has new clothes, new styles, new colors, always overing more and better options to people, even some that have worn out their current clothes. But no, they can't get people to buy their new stuff, or can't make enough to line their ego inflated wallets. Sooner or later, a lot of companies lose customers, because they are stupid to what their customers want, or how to get them to buy, or greed...
There's little to no pixel count difference between a 180MP 33x44 sensor and the Phase One 151MP 645 sensor. Are you saying that everyone out there using the Phase One system for their shooting are doing it purely for chest thumping purposes and have no other performance reason for choosing that platform?
That's a deluded perspective on this and maybe it's due to myopia or unaware (or otherwise) simplistic views of what other people's photographic requirements are, but I recommend you explore the length and breadth of photography a bit further before declaring something like this. It may be very true in your probably very limited space, but certainly isn't in other people's.
It reminds me of the blind mice. You don't want to be a blind mouse; it's a bad thing.
I don't see a reason to become overly emotional about the prospect of a 180 MP GFX100(S) III. Who needs it? - I don't care, because the GFX line is obviously a line of niche products that very few FMers would consider buying to begin with. The more recent addition,
the GFX100RF can be called a niche in a niche.
Any sensible FMer invests in a Sony FF ecosystem, right? Or, maybe add a top of the line Canon (that, bizarrely happens to be heavier than the GFX100S II), etc. Or chase some unique "rendering" by collecting the manual focus lenses prased by the influncers.
The 180MP body will be another niche product in the niche GFX line. What is the problem? Unless, somehow this development should bankrupt the company. I wouldn't want this to happen but they hopefully know what they are doing.
I look forward to the 180MP GFX, this is an interesting development, and I whole-heartedly welcome any unorthodox camera development.
ruthenium wrote:
I don't see a reason to become overly emotional about the prospect of a 180 MP GFX100(S) III. Who needs it? - I don't care, because the GFX line is obviously a line of niche products that very few FMers would consider buying to begin with. The more recent addition,
the GFX100RF can be called a niche in a niche.
Any sensible FMer invests in a Sony FF ecosystem, right? Or, maybe add a top of the line Canon (that, bizarrely happens to be heavier than the GFX100S II), etc. Or chase some unique "rendering" by collecting the manual focus lenses prased by the influncers.
The 180MP body will be another niche product in the niche GFX line. What is the problem? Unless, somehow this development should bankrupt the company. I wouldn't want this to happen but they hopefully know what they are doing.
I look forward to the 180MP GFX, this is an interesting development, and I whole-heartedly welcome any unorthodox camera development. ...Show more →
I can’t imagine anyone needing 180mp, but I’m sure there will be people wanting it.
I really think we reached a plateau. Which is a problem for sales. In my case, I want more resolution on my MFT cameras, but I’m perfectly fine with my other kits in that regard. For those, I just want smaller gear.
But clearly, my wishes aren’t in line with the trend, so I’m not optimistic.
But, to point out the obvious, more and more we shouldn’t focus on the weight and size of the camera, because the differences are all in the lenses. Good cameras are all about the same size and weight. Lenses are all over the place.
The problem as I have previously pointed out in moving to a sensor that almost no one needs is it will add to costs for those who want to upgrade and we will likely lose the option of being able to purchase 100mp bodies, just as we can no longer purchase new 50mp GFX bodies.
It is like a car manufacturer moving to offering a V8 engine only. Sure some might want it but not a great move if the vast majority of previous buyers would prefer a six cylinder.
