js47
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1 #16 · GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses? | |
burningheart wrote:
If you are not familiar with the online spreadsheet reference it shows the compatibility of many many adapted lenses on GFX, Hassleblad. It is a great resource to get an idea of what to expect when using adapted lenses.
I was familiar, thanks 
Rand47 wrote:
The answer is no. I have the GFX system with most of the lenses. Bodywise I have the OG GFX 100 (my favorite) and the GFX 100 II. They are fabulous, because, I print LARGE. And, because of the tilt shift lenses.
I also own the X-T5 and X-H2 and a bunch of good Fuji glass for them, and the Viltrox Pro lenses. This system is also fabulous and great for prints up to 20x30”.
In my opinion you’ll get precisely nothing from putting sub-optimal lenses (image circle not quality) on a GFX body. THE reasons to own GFX are: the GF lenses; and printing LARGE.
With advances like DXO Pure Raw and Gigapixel AI, the margin between my X and GFX system is shrinking. The remaining differences are in dynamic range, the incredible fine detail capture ability, the native tilt shift lenses, and the HUGE and bright EVF on the GFX 100 II, and very little else up to something larger than 20x30.
From what you describe in your OP, grab any one of the 40mp Fuji X bodies, and be happy with the system you have!
Rand
...Show more →
I also like printing large, but for me even the 16 MP files from my X-T1 were almost large enough for 20x30” (that is 163 dpi). I could definitely tell that there was something missing, but non-photographers (not looking too closely) would have been unlikely to notice. I think I’d be hard-pressed to notice the difference between two well-made prints if one was from a 30 MP camera and the other was from a 100 MP camera. That said, I think I still would be able to tell since 30 MP at 20x30” is only 223 dpi….
The big advantage of so many MP for me is freedom to crop. With a 16 MP, 20 MP, or even 26 MP camera, there is really not much you can do beyond horizon straightening if you want to get a great large print. Keystone corrections can be devastating, let alone taking an Xpan or portrait crop. 102 MP lets me take an Xpan or portrait crop and still have 50 MP, which could easily reduce to 30 MP if keystone corrections or framing adjustments are necessary.
These are mostly edge cases though, and you are absolutely right that the Fuji X system makes the most sense, especially for someone who hikes to get to locations. An X-T5 setup for 12-450mm eq (8-16, 16-55ii, 70-300) would weigh 3500g compared with the lightest GFX100S setup for 16-315mm eq (20-35, 35-70, EF100-400) at 5600g. 2kg is a lot! A 10 MP picture that you take is better than a 100 MP picture that you don’t take….
SGinNorcal wrote:
I agree that w/o any of the great GF lenses, there isn't enough reason to switch to a Gfx body. I'm sure you would get great shots and get some of the wonderful medium format look when everything works together. But when using full frame lenses, even ones that work well are usually not 100% coverage at all times. I have the Canon 100-400L and it is a great lens, with the baffle removed, the vignette is minimized but at times still present. I still use it some as there is no native zoom with this range. I would be really surprised if those smaller FL Canon zooms could match what the 20-35 and 45-100 (or 32-64) can do. I've not used those Canons so I can't say for sure. To me, it would be a shame to have a Gfx and not experience the 55 and 110 (never used the 35, 45, 63, or 80), I feel they allow you to take full advantage of the big sensor. In my experience with Canon 100-400 and 135/f2, I get some good shots but spend quite a bit of time cleaning them up. Vignette/cropping, color and exposure adjustments, rare to having something great SOOC. Unless you already own the Canon zooms mentioned, then I would answer this differently.
My hiking combo is X-T5, 16-55II, Sigma 12/1.4, and 70-300. Its a great system for landscape on the move when the huge depth of field of APSC suits your purposes....Show more →
That is good to know that using the GFX with adapted lenses (even lenses that adapt well) adds post-processing overhead. I hate post-processing, and one of my main goals in switching back to Fuji is to shrink my editing workflow.
Would you say that you need to spend a lot of time cleaning up shots taken with EF lenses on GFX in FF “crop” mode? Or only when using the entire sensor? I mentioned it above, but the GFX100S is essentially the same size as the Nikon Z8. So I can’t help but wonder if using the GFX100S with adapted EF L-series lenses in FF crop mode would be like using a full-frame Fujifilm Z8 but with the ability to utilize the full sensor with GF lenses or when practical with adapted lenses.
|
