p.4 #1 · GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
mabra wrote:
One really begins to wonder what exactly is being argued about here—and to what end. Is there a definitive "right" and "wrong" in this context? Is there truly a need to convince others of the "correct" path, or to save them from doing the "wrong" thing? Isn't it all quite harmless if someone—like me, for instance—simply happens to be enjoying the experience of shooting with a camera featuring a (relatively) large sensor?
We all surely recognize that, nowadays, one can achieve excellent results with a wide variety of cameras. Wouldn't it be a relief, then, if this constant proselytizing would finally cease? Please, just let us keep shooting with GFX until we’ve had our fill. Yes, perhaps the day will come when I return to shooting primarily with FF or APS-C; but until then, I simply want to do what I personally deem best for myself. After all, I don't go around trying to convince others that shooting with APS-C is nonsense—that they would be better off switching to GFX. How absurd would that be? So, let's please put an end to this nonsense so that we can get back to exchanging ideas regarding the questions that are truly relevant and actually up for discussion here....Show more →
You must be new here
There are a few people who like to make the same statements every time. You’ll get to know them soon enough.
p.4 #2 · GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
To use the logic being applied here, if you make $100k per and want a 5% annual pay increase, then you would be even more pleased if you earned $200k and got a 5.5% increase. Heck, if you earned $500k then a 2% increase would be “the same” since it is the same number of dollars.
When comparing camera stuff like sensor area and/or megapixels, the percentage improvement is the important thing, not the absolute value. Going from 3MP to 6MP i very much not “the same” as going from 6MP to 63MP in terms of the value to photographer.
I’m baffled that this seems so confusing to people.
Of course, if you insist, then the miniMF format falls even further behind the nominally true 645 equivalent area sensors from Phase One. I’m NOT saying that, but that is where your logic leads.
zhangyue wrote:
Given you make same statement again and again. I will beat the dead horse one more time here.
For anything with format ratio 4X3 such as 11,67,810. The area increase is 90%. That is almost double the sensor area. There is nothing magic about FF sensor size or 3X2 format. With larger sensor, you always have a lot more freedom to do thing you like.
The benefit is as simple as twice the signal light capture. This is not only for the case use all the resolution but also for anything downsampling used, less moire, less false color, sharper final image, less banding with very high DR scene, and better tonality, And you can crop…
Your argument make zero sense. A car with 400 horsepower is in another league to car with 200 ones and you might need to pay triple the price. FUji is a bargain for anyone want above advantages.
Don’t tell me your annual salary from 100k to 190k is less than 50k to 100k raise a few years back.
I just can’t stand experience or opinion based ignorance keep make center piece of the same topic over and over again.
p.4 #3 · GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
To use the logic being applied here, if you make $100k per and want a 5% annual pay increase, then you would be even more pleased if you earned $200k and got a 5.5% increase. Heck, if you earned $500k then a 2% increase would be “the same” since it is the same number of dollars.
When comparing camera stuff like sensor area and/or megapixels, the percentage improvement is the important thing, not the absolute value. Going from 3MP to 6MP i very much not “the same” as going from 6MP to 63MP in terms of the value to photographer.
I’m baffled that this seems so confusing to people.
Of course, if you insist, then the miniMF format falls even further behind the nominally true 645 equivalent area sensors from Phase One. I’m NOT saying that, but that is where your logic leads.
I really don’t want to keep beating this dead horse in this thread. Perhaps we need a new one.
zhangyue wrote:
Given you make same statement again and again. I will beat the dead horse one more time here.
For anything with format ratio 4X3 such as 11,67,810. The area increase is 90%. That is almost double the sensor area. There is nothing magic about FF sensor size or 3X2 format. With larger sensor, you always have a lot more freedom to do thing you like.
The benefit is as simple as twice the signal light capture. This is not only for the case use all the resolution but also for anything downsampling used, less moire, less false color, sharper final image, less banding with very high DR scene, and better tonality, And you can crop…
Your argument make zero sense. A car with 400 horsepower is in another league to car with 200 ones and you might need to pay triple the price. FUji is a bargain for anyone want above advantages.
Don’t tell me your annual salary from 100k to 190k is less than 50k to 100k raise a few years back.
I just can’t stand experience or opinion based ignorance keep make center piece of the same topic over and over again.
p.4 #4 · GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
gdanmitchell wrote:
To use the logic being applied here, if you make $100k per and want a 5% annual pay increase, then you would be even more pleased if you earned $200k and got a 5.5% increase. Heck, if you earned $500k then a 2% increase would be “the same” since it is the same number of dollars.
When comparing camera stuff like sensor area and/or megapixels, the percentage improvement is the important thing, not the absolute value. Going from 3MP to 6MP i very much not “the same” as going from 6MP to 63MP in terms of the value to photographer.
I’m baffled that this seems so confusing to people.
Of course, if you insist, then the miniMF format falls even further behind the nominally true 645 equivalent area sensors from Phase One. I’m NOT saying that, but that is where your logic leads.
I really don’t want to keep beating this dead horse in this thread. Perhaps we need a new one.
p.4 #5 · GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
gdanmitchell wrote:
To use the logic being applied here, if you make $100k per and want a 5% annual pay increase, then you would be even more pleased if you earned $200k and got a 5.5% increase. Heck, if you earned $500k then a 2% increase would be “the same” since it is the same number of dollars.
When comparing camera stuff like sensor area and/or megapixels, the percentage improvement is the important thing, not the absolute value. Going from 3MP to 6MP i very much not “the same” as going from 6MP to 63MP in terms of the value to photographer.
I’m baffled that this seems so confusing to people.
Of course, if you insist, then the miniMF format falls even further behind the nominally true 645 equivalent area sensors from Phase One. I’m NOT saying that, but that is where your logic leads.
I really don’t want to keep beating this dead horse in this thread. Perhaps we need a new one.
p.4 #6 · GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
I have taught university students for the last 30 years; thus, I know that an average human being regularly makes mistakes, and when this happens, this is normal.
Basically, it is best to treat others with the understanding that no one is perfect, rather than with the unrealistic expectation that my neighbor should never make mistakes.
Another human problem is the difficulty of expressing thoughts clearly and unambiguously. This problem might be behind the present discussion and disagreement.
Assuming that what Dan meant from the start was about the crop factors (when he referred to the "differences") and not about the mathematical "difference", then I agree with him on "the meaningful difference when it comes to sensor size comparisons the one expressed by crop factors".
For example, the GF500MM lens on a GFX has the FL equivalent to near 400mm on FF. However a 500mm FF cropped to the APS-C format is equivalent to 750mm. The focal length "differences" are about 100mm between the GFX and FF, and 250mm between FF and APS-C. The latter being considerably larger.
If this is what Dan referred to, then I agree with him.
The crop factor is indeed the single photographic parameter behind the equivalence calculations. It is the crop factor that tells me that my GFX can capture one stop more light at the base ISO when compared to my A1 at its base ISO.
p.4 #7 · GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
ruthenium wrote:
I have taught university students for the last 30 years; thus, I know that an average human being regularly makes mistakes, and when this happens, this is normal.
Basically, it is best to treat others with the understanding that no one is perfect, rather than with the unrealistic expectation that my neighbor should never make mistakes.
Another human problem is the difficulty of expressing thoughts clearly and unambiguously. This problem might be behind the present discussion and disagreement.
Assuming that what Dan meant from the start was about the crop factors (when he referred to the "differences") and not about the mathematical "difference", then I agree with him on "the meaningful difference when it comes to sensor size comparisons the one expressed by crop factors".
For example, the GF500MM lens on a GFX has the FL equivalent to near 400mm on FF. However a 500mm FF cropped to the APS-C format is equivalent to 750mm. The focal length "differences" are about 100mm between the GFX and FF, and 250mm between FF and APS-C. The latter being considerably larger.
If this is what Dan referred to, then I agree with him.
The crop factor is indeed the single photographic parameter behind the equivalence calculations. It is the crop factor that tells me that my GFX can capture one stop more light at the base ISO when compared to my A1 at its base ISO....Show more →
Sure…that’s fine, but what does any of that have to do with the question asked in the OP?
p.4 #8 · GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
As many of you know, I dislike removing posts and would much rather not have to step in. I would hate to see this thread derail. Thank you, @ruthenium, for the thoughtful perspective. Let's keep the discussion focused on the topic and respectful of one another.
p.4 #9 · GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
Back to the OP. Here are my thoughts.
A GFX with native or EF glass is going to be a bigger and heavier system than an X-T5 with the best XF glass, so you need to be good with that. If you like working with Fuji for post processing, GFX might be a good choice. You could consider a combination of a GFX body and the GF 20-35mm f4 and 35-70 and an X-T5 for the longer glass or swap out the GF35-70 with an XF 16-55 f2.8.
I have some EF glass and a GFX 50sii and a Fringer adapter, but I don't tend to use them together much partly because most EF lenses, at least the ones I have, don't give full coverage and I also have Pentax 645 glass that does. Ironically one of the best lenses on GFX is the 40m f2.8 STM pancake, which has good image quality to just before the very edges.
In a lot of situations, in fact probably most, there is not that much difference between XF images and GFX images. But for landscapes printed large or displayed large there can be and for those situations having a GFX is worth it to me.
The X-T5 is a decent jump up in IQ for landscapes compared to the X-T3. The extra MP and more recent sensor technology helps. The GFX is a further step up again.
p.4 #10 · GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
Something worth considering if you are adapting EF lenses to Gfx and also own a Fuji X mount, is adapting both and using the EF's on both platforms. I really like the EF135 f2 on the XT5 and there is nothing like it in Fuji's lineup. Sure its big for that camera but not stupid huge.
p.4 #11 · GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
SGinNorcal wrote:
Something worth considering if you are adapting EF lenses to Gfx and also own a Fuji X mount, is adapting both and using the EF's on both platforms. I really like the EF135 f2 on the XT5 and there is nothing like it in Fuji's lineup. Sure its big for that camera but not stupid huge.
That's in general what I like about adapting lenses. I actually bought my Canon 70-200/2.8 EF version after selling the RF 70-200 f/4 because I realized I was only going to use a lens like that in the studio with my Canon and I always liked using the 70-200mm f/2.8 when I still shot with the 5D in the studio. I didn't need the extra sharpness of the RF versions.
Only after that did I decide to make the same lens my tele option for the GFX, since it's light compared to the Fuji offerings and since I typically don't use the full frame of my GFX camera.
It's the reason I have a ton of adapters lying around to try all kinds of combinations.
p.4 #12 · GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
Geoff D F wrote:
Back to the OP. Here are my thoughts.
A GFX with native or EF glass is going to be a bigger and heavier system than an X-T5 with the best XF glass, so you need to be good with that. If you like working with Fuji for post processing, GFX might be a good choice. You could consider a combination of a GFX body and the GF 20-35mm f4 and 35-70 and an X-T5 for the longer glass or swap out the GF35-70 with an XF 16-55 f2.8.
I have some EF glass and a GFX 50sii and a Fringer adapter, but I don't tend to use them together much partly because most EF lenses, at least the ones I have, don't give full coverage and I also have Pentax 645 glass that does. Ironically one of the best lenses on GFX is the 40m f2.8 STM pancake, which has good image quality to just before the very edges.
In a lot of situations, in fact probably most, there is not that much difference between XF images and GFX images. But for landscapes printed large or displayed large there can be and for those situations having a GFX is worth it to me.
The X-T5 is a decent jump up in IQ for landscapes compared to the X-T3. The extra MP and more recent sensor technology helps. The GFX is a further step up again....Show more →
Thanks Geoff. You are absolutely right. Except not just bigger and heavier than an X-T5 with XF glass, but bigger and heavier than a GFX with GF glass too.
When I started this thread I was under the misguided impression that an adapted setup would be smaller and lighter than a native setup, but it is definitely not the case for the lenses I would buy. So I’ve decided to pair the 100S with the 20-35, 35-70, and 100-200. That will be smaller and lighter than using EF glass (3550g vs 4300g), though about $800 extra. That $800 is probably worth it given all the lenses will natively cover the entire sensor and I know I won’t be giving up image quality by using parts of lens circles that were never meant to be used.
If anyone in the US or Australia has any of those lenses that need a good new home please send me a message….
SGinNorcal wrote:
Something worth considering if you are adapting EF lenses to Gfx and also own a Fuji X mount, is adapting both and using the EF's on both platforms. I really like the EF135 f2 on the XT5 and there is nothing like it in Fuji's lineup. Sure its big for that camera but not stupid huge.
johnvanr wrote:
That's in general what I like about adapting lenses. I actually bought my Canon 70-200/2.8 EF version after selling the RF 70-200 f/4 because I realized I was only going to use a lens like that in the studio with my Canon and I always liked using the 70-200mm f/2.8 when I still shot with the 5D in the studio. I didn't need the extra sharpness of the RF versions.
Only after that did I decide to make the same lens my tele option for the GFX, since it's light compared to the Fuji offerings and since I typically don't use the full frame of my GFX camera.
It's the reason I have a ton of adapters lying around to try all kinds of combinations. ...Show more →
The approach I think I’m going to take is to just adapt the “special” lenses and lenses that have no GF equivalent. I was under the impression that GF glass was SO much more expensive than EF glass, but the good EF glass is still quite expensive. Buoyed perhaps by people adapting EF to RF? The RF glass is weirdly expensive.
The first lenses I’ll try are the Sigma 14mm f1.8 HSM Art and Nikon 20mm f1.8G for astro since Fuji has really dropped the ball there.
p.4 #13 · GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
js47 wrote:
Thanks Geoff. You are absolutely right. Except not just bigger and heavier than an X-T5 with XF glass, but bigger and heavier than a GFX with GF glass too.
When I started this thread I was under the misguided impression that an adapted setup would be smaller and lighter than a native setup, but it is definitely not the case for the lenses I would buy. So I’ve decided to pair the 100S with the 20-35, 35-70, and 100-200. That will be smaller and lighter than using EF glass (3550g vs 4300g), though about $800 extra. That $800 is probably worth it given all the lenses will natively cover the entire sensor and I know I won’t be giving up image quality by using parts of lens circles that were never meant to be used.
If anyone in the US or Australia has any of those lenses that need a good new home please send me a message….
The approach I think I’m going to take is to just adapt the “special” lenses and lenses that have no GF equivalent. I was under the impression that GF glass was SO much more expensive than EF glass, but the good EF glass is still quite expensive. Buoyed perhaps by people adapting EF to RF? The RF glass is weirdly expensive.
The first lenses I’ll try are the Sigma 14mm f1.8 HSM Art and Nikon 20mm f1.8G for astro since Fuji has really dropped the ball there....Show more →
That's exactly what I have, the 20-35, 35-70 and 100-200. I'm a pretty happy camper with that setup. I have adapted a few other lenses, but other than the Voigtlander APO Lanthar 125mm macro, I really just stick to the 3 native lenses.
p.4 #14 · GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
js47 wrote:
So I’ve decided to pair the 100S with the 20-35, 35-70, and 100-200.
Even though I quite like the 100-200, it's not the best lens for landscape unfortunately. It seems optimized for relatively close range, where aberrations are considerably lower than at or near infinity. Even well stopped down, there can be a "haze"/halo around bright object, especially at the long end and focusing at large distance.
However, I'm not sure what to adapt instead. Personally I have the EF 70-300L which has very nice character and colors (but isn't very sharp), and the Sigma 100-400. Non of them cover much more than FF, so you'd want to use 24x36 crop, pano or 33x33 (my to-go method since it's almost as wide as 36 but I don't have to decide between horizontal or vertical images).
The Sigma is sharper than the GF 100-200 but at the same time can give trouble at the periphery even at 24x36, probably because of the thick sensor stack.
The above shows why I don't recommend adapting lenses, but for longer teles, it's probably worth investigating at least.
Edit: The 100-200 is much nicer to use though, partly because of the weight being close to the camera, which makes the lens feel smaller and lighter than it is. AF is also fast and quiet, and OIS works amazingly well compared to the adapted lenses (with Fringer).
p.4 #15 · GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
Are medium format film camera lenses not considered worth adapting? On the face of it such as Mamiya 645 lenses should have no trouble covering, and as reflex camera lenses should in theory give little trouble with fringing and curvature of field? Quite cheap in UK.
p.4 #16 · GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
Makten wrote:
Even though I quite like the 100-200, it's not the best lens for landscape unfortunately. It seems optimized for relatively close range, where aberrations are considerably lower than at or near infinity. Even well stopped down, there can be a "haze"/halo around bright object, especially at the long end and focusing at large distance.
However, I'm not sure what to adapt instead. Personally I have the EF 70-300L which has very nice character and colors (but isn't very sharp), and the Sigma 100-400. Non of them cover much more than FF, so you'd want to use 24x36 crop, pano or 33x33 (my to-go method since it's almost as wide as 36 but I don't have to decide between horizontal or vertical images).
The Sigma is sharper than the GF 100-200 but at the same time can give trouble at the periphery even at 24x36, probably because of the thick sensor stack.
The above shows why I don't recommend adapting lenses, but for longer teles, it's probably worth investigating at least.
Edit: The 100-200 is much nicer to use though, partly because of the weight being close to the camera, which makes the lens feel smaller and lighter than it is. AF is also fast and quiet, and OIS works amazingly well compared to the adapted lenses (with Fringer)....Show more →
Years ago I had the 100-200 for the 50S for a few days. In testing it out, I decided that for infinity landscape I preferred cropping from the GF 120 versus the zoom, so I returned it. I would welcome a larger and heavier 100-200 with an f/4 maximum aperture, something closer to the IQ of the GF 250.
p.4 #17 · GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
gyoung143 wrote:
Are medium format film camera lenses not considered worth adapting? On the face of it such as Mamiya 645 lenses should have no trouble covering, and as reflex camera lenses should in theory give little trouble with fringing and curvature of field? Quite cheap in UK.
Gerry
645 lenses have no issues covering the sensor but few of them have auto focus. The Contax 645 have AF (except for the 120 macro) with a Fringer adapter but its a bit clunky and slow, especially in low light. But as long as you choose slow or non-moving targets and mentally prepared, they are fun to use. I have the 35/3.5, 140/2.8, 120/4 macro, 210/4, and Mutar 1.4x. They are sharp but not native GF sharp and out of focus areas are beautiful. The 140 took me especially by surprise as the reviews were mixed and the price low. It has great character and softer color than GF's and I found a telephoto prime to be a lot of fun on medium format.
p.4 #18 · GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
I own the GFX 100S ii and use my 2 adapted EF lenses(35 1.4 ii & 50mm 1.4) as much as I use my native 80mm 1.7 lens. Native GFX lenses are expensive, relatively slow, and there are a lot of gaps in the lineup. My 2 EF lenses autofocus no different than my 80mm WITH the fringer adapter. I am a pixel peeper, and closed down to F/2.8, I get razor sharp images from the EF lenses. The sigma 50mm f1.4 has almost no visible vignette. I have owned the A1, R5, Z8, and A7rv cameras and the resolution and colors of the GFX is head and shoulders above the others. If you're not a pixel peeper and you are better at squeezing more out of your images during editing than I am, then it may not be as big of a difference to your final images. I still use my z8 for fast action, long/wide lenses and video.
p.4 #19 · GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
Howie4life wrote:
I own the GFX 100S ii and use my 2 adapted EF lenses(35 1.4 ii & 50mm 1.4) as much as I use my native 80mm 1.7 lens. Native GFX lenses are expensive, relatively slow, and there are a lot of gaps in the lineup. My 2 EF lenses autofocus no different than my 80mm WITH the fringer adapter. I am a pixel peeper, and closed down to F/2.8, I get razor sharp images from the EF lenses. The sigma 50mm f1.4 has almost no visible vignette. I have owned the A1, R5, Z8, and A7rv cameras and the resolution and colors of the GFX is head and shoulders above the others. If you're not a pixel peeper and you are better at squeezing more out of your images during editing than I am, then it may not be as big of a difference to your final images. I still use my z8 for fast action, long/wide lenses and video....Show more →
Do they cover the format, with good sharpness stopped down a couple of stops, if not what is the point of buying an expensive e larger format camera.
gyoung143 wrote:
Do they cover the format, with good sharpness stopped down a couple of stops, if not what is the point of buying an expensive e larger format camera.
