Anyone have direct experience with the high res Z?s vs GFX MF sensors of the 50MP variety? Folks seem to love the MF sensors but practical difference (aside from 100MP) seemed marginal.
Generally just my own enjoyment at this point. I’ve shot Nikon and Sony for years, landscapes would probably be closest but I’m not printing large etc. so benefits of 50MP would just be my own entertainment. Color depth, malleability of the MF sensor maybe. Not too much low light or fast action.
I guess short version is that I still remember being impressed how much better the sensor was going APS-C to FX (A6000 to A7) and I’m maybe hoping that MF will be similar, but I’m skeptical looking at the tech specs.
I have no idea why you'd bother with the 50mp versions when you can get an equally capable 100S for dirt cheap these days.
Of course the files are more impressive than the Z files from both resolution and editability standpoints, but they aren't THAT different and the lenses are way bulkier.
For sensor size, going from APS-C to FF is about twice the jump as going from FF to MF. For the 50 MP bodies I think it would only make sense if you have a strong preference for 4:3 or especially want specific GFX lenses.
The 100s is there if you want to squeeze every drop of fidelity without having to stitch multiple frames.
I’ve been using both medium-resolution Nikon Z full-frame bodies and the GFX100S. There are naturally differences between them, but in practical use, the difference is often quite small.
If you compare a 24 MP full-frame body with the 102 MP GFX100S, the difference in file size is definitely noticeable, both in resolution and in how much hard drive space the files eat up. They also make Lightroom cry a little. The difference becomes much less dramatic when the comparison point is something like a 47 MP full-frame body (Z8/Z9).
Nikon mirrorless bodies and lenses are much more responsive to use, so for general photography I would recommend them as the more practical choice. The GFX system makes you work slower, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It can be especially rewarding with adapted MF vintage lenses, where the slower shooting experience and larger sensor can be part of the fun.
z8 has a bit more "thin" files than GFX but they both behave the same predictable way in C1. Olympus and HB are in the same set. Sony's and Leica's files are wildly different, and I don't like to work with them at all. At least this is my experience for now. It might change if I gain more experience with them.
z8 and gfx100s2 is a great combination, I use them together for a few years now.
I just went on a walk with them a few days ago:
do you only use native Fuji lenses on the GFX or, by any chance, any shot with a Nikon F adapted on both? I always feel the hitch for a GFX but the cost of lenses, ouch... I love portraits and some landscape and with some vintage but good primes I am curious to know how would they work adapted on a Fuji
I don't use Nikon anymore, but I have MFT, Canon and a GFX100s. The latter I only use (and bought) for panoramic and 1x1 images, because the 100mp allows for a lot of cropping while still retaining a high resolution. I can't imagine carrying the large Fuji lenses, though, and only have the 50mm, 63mm and the 35-70mm lenses. I rented the 110mm and found it to be a gorgeous lens, but I know I just wouldn't use it.
I do adapt Canon EF and other lenses to it, which is possible without issues because I use it mostly as a crop camera anyway.
And I bought the GFX100s after having the GFX50r, since the 100mp camera was only $500 more used at the time.
GiovanniAprea wrote:
do you only use native Fuji lenses on the GFX or, by any chance, any shot with a Nikon F adapted on both?
Grazie
I use both native Fuji lenses and adapted Nikon F-mount or vintage lenses. With a smart adapter, many F-mount lenses work surprisingly well, and it can save you money if you’re also a Nikon shooter.
I own and love the 58G and the 85/1.4D along with some other good F mount glass along with some also very good Contax/Yashica ones, I will save and some day go for a bigger sensor, no rush, I have 45MP in both F and Z mount and pretty pleased with both but, portrait wise, I have the feeling that a GFX could add that little extra over Nikon gear
Counter: I tried adapting a slew of F glass to GFX and only came away with a few I was pleased with. Many couldn't cover the full image circle, pretty much defeating the purpose for me. I have no desire to shoot a cropped 2:3 image on a 4:5 camera. Some lenses also had coatings that didn't play well with the GFX sensor, leading to really awful color casts.
Two standouts that I enjoyed were the Voigtlander 58/1.4 and Helios 44-4.
Yeah, adapting F glass will depend a lot on your tolerance for the corners. Not just vignette, but often smearing and extreme cats-eye. It can add an odd texture to the image unless you're cropping to 16:9 or 1:1.
RoamingScott wrote:
I have no idea why you'd bother with the 50mp versions when you can get an equally capable 100S for dirt cheap these days.
Of course the files are more impressive than the Z files from both resolution and editability standpoints, but they aren't THAT different and the lenses are way bulkier.
well for one thing processing time on a computer, 50 vs 100 is a lot if you don't have the latest and greatest. also with fuji you slows you down, cause its slower camera (all of them compared to z8/9).
As others have said, adapting F-mount lenses to GFX depends on the lens and on how critical you are about IQ, especially corner quality, or whether you're okay with cropping the corners away using the excellent crop modes on GFX cameras. In my experience, mainly shooting portraits, I've had mostly good results. The 58mm, 85mm, and 105mm work really well. The 35mm f/1.4 is usable in 3:2 crop mode, while the 28mm f/1.4 & 20mm f/1.8 works ok with a 16:9 crop mode. The main thing being, you lose resolution while cropping the photos, but nothing in the Fuji's own lineup provides that fast apertures for wide angles.
28mm f1.4E @f4 16:9 crop, image still around 76 Mpix. We don’t talk about the corners.
20mm f1.8G @f4 16:9 crop, image still around 76 Mpix. We don’t talk about the corners.
35mm f1.4G @f4 heavy 16:9 crop, we don’t stare the corners and image is still around 56 Mpix
35mm f1.4G at f1.4 - A light crop from the original to keep it 4:3 without too much vignetting. Soft corners, distortion, whatever. It’s a portrait, so I don’t care. After resizing it for the web, everything magically becomes better.
Great samples. If Nikon doesn't update their sensors (dual-gain architecture?), I might have to pick up a used GFX to get that extra color depth. Excited to adapt my 105E.
16-bit RAW is more of marketing talk than any real world avantage. Did some comparison and I didn’t see any real difference. Maybe in some extreme cases or when doing color critical archive capturing it could be justified. Big file size difference and 16-bit files are also making Photoshop to work extra hard. Edited files need to be saved in .psb format which takes more time to save and open. Time is most valuable resource, so I usually work with 14-bit files.
When I needed outright IQ and dynamic range, I reached for my GFX100. It was always a joy shooting with it. I loved the 16-bit files and DR. I use both systems. Of course there are cons with the GFX like sensor readout, AF, burst, etc but if you’re not bothered by those, than you’ll enjoy it. The GF 63mm is absolutely stunning of a lens too
