gyoung143 wrote:
A natural reaction I think, once you've admired the composition as a whole then you (especially if you're a photograoher) think, 'let's see if his technique is good enough to warrant his decision to print it that big.
But the vast majority of prints really big are made either to be seen at a distance, such as billboards,or as decor such as backdrop to a reception area, in which case a bit of fuzziness or 'grain' either doesn't matter or adds drama to it,
Gerry
It’s not grain they are looking at…in fact the vast majority of people that view these large prints in galleries are not photo bitheads. There is the natural lure to view the details in a large print and the only way to do that is to come in close to the print. Many great photos have images within the image just waiting to be discovered.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Our OP is concerned about bulk and weight for travel, and is happy enough with the APS-C gear that the move to FF is not a slam dunk. Doesn’t seem to fit the use case for GFX, right?
- - -
On a different subject that has come up in this thread… that “normal viewing distance” business only works in some situations.
For example, I’ve sold/licensed some work for quite large reproductions in, for example, retail locations. The largest is 31’ (that’s feet, not inches) in a retail location near a national park. I have not personally seen the installation, but I’ve seen similar installations, for example a full wall-sized image of Pinnacles National Monument at my local REI store.
Here that “viewing distance” principle works quite well. Virtually no one walks up to the wall to count the needles on a tree, instead the images are almost always just environmental background. I think there are other, smaller instances that work the same way. For example, I have some relatively large prints in places like restaurants where it is hard to imagine many people (OK, a few oddball photographers excluded) excusing themselves from the table before the desert course to go inspect for sharpening halos at “nose-length distances.)
However…
I’ve also seem large work that has different aspirations in galleries, museums, and private collections where viewers initially look from “normal viewing distances” but they get additional pleasure by moving it closer to see what is revealed close up.
This isn’t odd at all. We certainly do it with paintings, where it is not at all odd to get in close to see how the brush strokes turn into the impression of, say, light on water. It is also common in music where, while you can enjoy the first movement of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 1 knowing little about the details, the “closer you get” to seeing beneath the surface the more you enjoy and are astonished by what goes on.
And, again, there’s the simple practical point that photography has evolved, and photographers (witness these forums) and viewers have different expectations for sharpness than were common a few decades ago. ...Show more →
Well, when you know that you or folks viewing your work of art will move in closer to see more detail, than of course that needs to be taken into account when it comes to DoF. No different from the past. People did take "a closer look" at images at times also in the 60ies :-)
My "standards" of sharpness haven't changed over time, nor has the ability of the human eye to resolve details.
One reason I am so concerned about Fuji being inconsistent in where it puts the point of critical is exactly that already a small change can lead to lack of critical sharpness where it should have been. Of course only upon closer inspection. Many images that are focused beyond infinity appear sharp at normal viewing distance. Only on closer inspection does a slight overall OOF reveal itself.
chez wrote:
This “proper viewing distance” is a bunch of BS.
Interesting statement. DoF (of which viewing distance is one element) has been around for decades! When you expect "close inspection" of an image to happen, or you expect to crop a lot, or view at 100% on the PC, then you DoF scale changes substantially (see Pixel Based DoF scale that Fuji offers). In fact, in may change so much that you cannot get everythggn you want into that DoF range. And it makes accurate and consistent AF even more important.
chez wrote:
It’s not grain they are looking at…in fact the vast majority of people that view these large prints in galleries are not photo bitheads. There is the natural lure to view the details in a large print and the only way to do that is to come in close to the print. Many great photos have images within the image just waiting to be discovered.
But did the photographer intend that? It's up to theauthor of the image to decide what he/she wants 'sharp'. Normal photo technique is to frame. Crop whatever to present an image they want to be looked at as a whole.
If a viewer 'sees' pictures in parts of the image that's usually happy chance for the viewer to carry tour oremise forward you would need to ensure that every part of the image is sharp even at the closest inspection. That is impossible.
Nielk Mike wrote:
Interesting statement. DoF (of which viewing distance is one element) has been around for decades! When you expect "close inspection" of an image to happen, or you expect to crop a lot, or view at 100% on the PC, then you DoF scale changes substantially (see Pixel Based DoF scale that Fuji offers). In fact, in may change so much that you cannot get everythggn you want into that DoF range. And it makes accurate and consistent AF even more important.
According to Mr Google, DoF dares from 1867, the very start of photography.Pixel based nonsenses dates from Internet discussion forums.
gyoung143 wrote:
According to Mr Google, DoF dares from 1867, the very start of photography.Pixel based nonsenses dates from Internet discussion forums.
Yeah, when that 40MP at 200% non-sense started :-). Pixel based is very useful to see where critical focus needs to be put in case close examination, or cropping, is intended. Just for the Fuji fans around here: https://www.fujifilm-x.com/global/stories/depth-of-field-in-deep/
I have the X/GFX and Sony 35mm system, and was thinking of selling my extensive Sony system. I had started with the Sony mirrorless right from the first A7R.
I prefer the photography process using Fujifilm cameras, in addition to the color science.
Unfortunately I purchased a A9III and it is incredibly capable. Far beyond anything I used before including the A1. The A9III seems to have an almost perfect rate of keepers as far as photo accuracy in pretty much every situation I’ve used it.
For daily usage to capture everyday life as well as street photography, it nails everything. Almost like a cheat code. The colors of the photos seem very pleasing and analog like, unlike other Sony cameras I have used.
So, in my opinion if you are going for the A9III, I can understand. But for everything else I prefer Fujifilm colors. I also like the way Fujifilm cameras and lenses are built, they feel like real professional equipment.
As far as lenses go, I would say that Sony GM lenses are superb, just like the Fujifilm ones.
My favorite Sony lenses are the 35mm 1.4 GM, 12-24 2.8 GM and the 24-70 2.8 II GM.
If I had to choose just one Sony lens, it would be the 35mm 1.4 GM or the Tamron 35-150 2-2.8 as an alternative.
My favorite Fujifilm X lenses are the 23mm 1.4 WR, 56mm 1.2 WR and the 90mm 2.0 WR. If I had to choose one Fujifilm, it would be the 23mm one.
In the GFX systems, my favorite lens is the 80mm 1.7, but if I were to choose one lens it would be the 35-70 mm zoom.
But in all my international travels, I got tired of carrying heavy equipment, so in the future, I will probably try a compact camera like the X-M5, with really small lenses. I prefer the experience of travel first and photography second.
In my opinion sensor size is overrated for what I use it. But camera companies have used the psychology of calling 35mm sensors “full frame” to get people to think any other size is less “full”. And it worked, people now use this idiotic term to describe 35mm sensors. As if other size sensors use less that their sensor size.
My favorite camera still remains the Panasonic GM1.
Nielk Mike wrote:
Yeah, when that 40MP at 200% non-sense started :-). Pixel based is very useful to see where critical focus needs to be put in case close examination, or cropping, is intended. Just for the Fuji fans around here: https://www.fujifilm-x.com/global/stories/depth-of-field-in-deep/
Seeing where critical focus needs to be is focussing, magnify all you want, as we did with large format cameras, magnifier on the screen.
DoF is to do with human perception of sharpness, it has no more to do with sensor resolution (or pixel pitch) than it did with films of differing resolution capabilities. I could resolve much more detail with Pan F than with HP4, but nobody ever suggested using different DoF scales
I give you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field for a proper explanation of it
gyoung143 wrote:
Seeing where critical focus needs to be is focussing, magnify all you want, as we did with large format cameras, magnifier on the screen.
DoF is to do with human perception of sharpness, it has no more to do with sensor resolution (or pixel pitch) than it did with films of differing resolution capabilities. I could resolve much more detail with Pan F than with HP4, but nobody ever suggested using different DoF scales
I give you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field for a proper explanation of it
Not sure why you are so agitated. DoF has to do with viewing distance. If that changes, the DoF range shrinks or grows. So one has to take the intended viewing distance into account.
p.4 #10 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
gyoung143 wrote:
But did the photographer intend that? It's up to theauthor of the image to decide what he/she wants 'sharp'. Normal photo technique is to frame. Crop whatever to present an image they want to be looked at as a whole.
If a viewer 'sees' pictures in parts of the image that's usually happy chance for the viewer to carry tour oremise forward you would need to ensure that every part of the image is sharp even at the closest inspection. That is impossible.
No, the photographer does not need to ensure every part of the image is sharp. I quite often limit the focus to remove items in the background or foreground that I don’t want sharp as they might detract from the image. I’m just saying that the only way people view a large print is by standing back and taking it all in is a total fallacy. I’ve seen many people in galleries come up close to a large print to admire the finer details in the print…details that might not be truly appreciated when looking at the print from far away.
p.4 #11 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
gyoung143 wrote:
But did the photographer intend that? It's up to theauthor of the image to decide what he/she wants 'sharp'. Normal photo technique is to frame. Crop whatever to present an image they want to be looked at as a whole.
If a viewer 'sees' pictures in parts of the image that's usually happy chance for the viewer to carry tour oremise forward you would need to ensure that every part of the image is sharp even at the closest inspection. That is impossible.
It is not impossible. View cameras, with rise and fall and tilt/shift can easily get everything from foreground to background in focus and sharply detailed. While I haven't used 35mm tilt/shift lenses I assume they can do the same. Whether a photographer wants everything in the scene sharp and detailed will really depend on the subject and the photographer's intent.
It is probably common for landscape photographers to want absolutely everything in the scene as sharp as possible so that viewers can move close and marvel at the details, the picture within the picture. On the other hand, if one is doing high key or low-key photography or using shallow DoF to draw the viewer to the subject, then what matters is whether the subject is sharp.
Interestingly and somewhat counter to my first point, I saw a video where Joe Cornish was shooting rock stacks off the Cornwall coast. He was deliberately shooting at f5.6 on FF just to soften ever so slightly the foreground and the background to make the rock stacks pop a little. It had never occurred to me before that one might aim just to soften everything other than the main subject by a tiny bit as a technique, as opposed to aiming to blow out the background a lot.
p.4 #12 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
Geoff D F wrote:
It is not impossible. View cameras, with rise and fall and tilt/shift can easily get everything from foreground to background in focus and sharply detailed. While I haven't used 35mm tilt/shift lenses I assume they can do the same. Whether a photographer wants everything in the scene sharp and detailed will really depend on the subject and the photographer's intent.
It is probably common for landscape photographers to want absolutely everything in the scene as sharp as possible so that viewers can move close and marvel at the details, the picture within the picture. On the other hand, if one is doing high key or low-key photography or using shallow DoF to draw the viewer to the subject, then what matters is whether the subject is sharp.
Interestingly and somewhat counter to my first point, I saw a video where Joe Cornish was shooting rock stacks off the Cornwall coast. He was deliberately shooting at f5.6 on FF just to soften ever so slightly the foreground and the background to make the rock stacks pop a little. It had never occurred to me before that one might aim just to soften everything other than the main subject by a tiny bit as a technique, as opposed to aiming to blow out the background a lot.
...Show more →
I spent most of my pro career using Sinar, Cambo etc monorail and MPP technical cameras. And I have tilt and shift adapters to usemy Nikon lenses on Fuji. Tilt will move the plane of focus, so that you can get from foreground to background sharp,as long as the required plane is from foreground at bottom to background at top or similar, very useful in the studio and other controlled situations. But it won't add to DoF either side of that plane of focus.
I knew an 'artist in residence' who made a project by using swing and tilt at large apertures to shift the plane of focus through woodland. Quite disturbing.
p.4 #13 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
JadedWriter wrote:
I have been work horsing the Sigma 17-40 since I bought it, been very happy with it.
Oh, you are? I would love to hear your thoughts. I know you shoot a lot of candids, indoor events, and also have experience with the Z9. That’s exactly where I’m coming from.
I have been tempted to pick up a 17-40/1.8 for my X-E5, to use as my wide zoom for candids, to take over for my Z9 (primarily for size reasons).
I have always shot FF 24-70/2.8’s. The Z9+24-70 combo is the best I’ve ever used… eye detect is flawless. I can go an entire indoor shoot without missing a single shot, in lighting like 1/250 f/2.8 ISO6400. The worst I might suffer is it grabbing the wrong face when there are multiple performers in shot.
The 17-40 looks great on paper, but I’m concerned that in marginal indoor light, the Fuji (I’m using an X-E5) won’t have a good hit rate for eye detect photos and tracking.
How do you feel its C-AF tracking is in indoor venue lighting? Is it sticky enough for me to aim at a guitar and track it on a noisy stage? Does face detect hold moving faces well enough to reliably get head/shoulders shots at 40mm? Can you pick out a face in a wide shot, or is there so much DOF that the camera can’t find them?
I know I’m in for a bit of a downgrade, but can I expect to still get 9-of-10, and do a bit of burst shooting to ensure I get all my shots? Or does the f/1.8 not buy me that much, and I can expect to regularly miss when the light gets low?
My 35/1.4 and 56/1.2 are my comparables, but their older AF motors make them not great tests.
p.4 #14 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
The stuff works. I will admit that I do shoot Fuji pretty old fashioned without eye detect on a lot. The stuff mostly works though. Also now that I'm thinking about it there is a Fuji X photographer that's a concert shooter so it should be able to do what you want it to do. Probably not as easy as the Nikon set up though.
?si=UtUOhN2I_2Hk7Zui CKrueger wrote:
Oh, you are? I would love to hear your thoughts. I know you shoot a lot of candids, indoor events, and also have experience with the Z9. That’s exactly where I’m coming from.
I have been tempted to pick up a 17-40/1.8 for my X-E5, to use as my wide zoom for candids, to take over for my Z9 (primarily for size reasons).
I have always shot FF 24-70/2.8’s. The Z9+24-70 combo is the best I’ve ever used… eye detect is flawless. I can go an entire indoor shoot without missing a single shot, in lighting like 1/250 f/2.8 ISO6400. The worst I might suffer is it grabbing the wrong face when there are multiple performers in shot.
The 17-40 looks great on paper, but I’m concerned that in marginal indoor light, the Fuji (I’m using an X-E5) won’t have a good hit rate for eye detect photos and tracking.
How do you feel its C-AF tracking is in indoor venue lighting? Is it sticky enough for me to aim at a guitar and track it on a noisy stage? Does face detect hold moving faces well enough to reliably get head/shoulders shots at 40mm? Can you pick out a face in a wide shot, or is there so much DOF that the camera can’t find them?
I know I’m in for a bit of a downgrade, but can I expect to still get 9-of-10, and do a bit of burst shooting to ensure I get all my shots? Or does the f/1.8 not buy me that much, and I can expect to regularly miss when the light gets low?
My 35/1.4 and 56/1.2 are my comparables, but their older AF motors make them not great tests....Show more →
p.4 #15 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
For a trip like that, I’d probably stick with the Fuji setup. The weight and convenience really matter when you’re traveling all day, especially if you’re moving between churches, museums, and different cities. The 16-55 II sounds like a very practical upgrade too—having f/2.8 throughout could help a lot in those darker interiors without giving up the Fuji system you already know well. I’d rather have a lighter setup that I’m comfortable carrying everywhere than add a whole new system just for the extra DR.
p.4 #16 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
CKrueger wrote:
Oh, you are? I would love to hear your thoughts. I know you shoot a lot of candids, indoor events, and also have experience with the Z9. That’s exactly where I’m coming from.
I have been tempted to pick up a 17-40/1.8 for my X-E5, to use as my wide zoom for candids, to take over for my Z9 (primarily for size reasons).
I have always shot FF 24-70/2.8’s. The Z9+24-70 combo is the best I’ve ever used… eye detect is flawless. I can go an entire indoor shoot without missing a single shot, in lighting like 1/250 f/2.8 ISO6400. The worst I might suffer is it grabbing the wrong face when there are multiple performers in shot.
The 17-40 looks great on paper, but I’m concerned that in marginal indoor light, the Fuji (I’m using an X-E5) won’t have a good hit rate for eye detect photos and tracking.
How do you feel its C-AF tracking is in indoor venue lighting? Is it sticky enough for me to aim at a guitar and track it on a noisy stage? Does face detect hold moving faces well enough to reliably get head/shoulders shots at 40mm? Can you pick out a face in a wide shot, or is there so much DOF that the camera can’t find them?
I know I’m in for a bit of a downgrade, but can I expect to still get 9-of-10, and do a bit of burst shooting to ensure I get all my shots? Or does the f/1.8 not buy me that much, and I can expect to regularly miss when the light gets low?
My 35/1.4 and 56/1.2 are my comparables, but their older AF motors make them not great tests....Show more →
My Sigma 17-40 is a very good lens. I stop short of saying awesome because for some wide-open, sort distance, high contrast edge images, there was some color banding that LR didn't get rid of. But again, short range, like 3 feet, and only wide open.
I did not ever use it on an X-E5, because it was heavy enough on the X-T5, or X-H2. With the X-E5, it would probably need a grip.
I never tracked a guitar moving, but face moving it is within a few percent of what a comparable Fuji lens is, to me anyway.
p.4 #17 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
I use a (similarly-sized) 18-120 as a travel zoom for my XE5 and it’s not so bad. The lens dominates the body, but the whole setup is light enough that it’s not so bad. The 56/1.2 is actually a bit more awkward, cause there’s no good place to hold the lens itself.
Thanks for the video link! I agree with his thought that it’s more the art than the gear for concert photography. I need to remind myself that I could do all this with my old 5D, and all these cameras are much better than that.
Perhaps interesting, I did a test at an event couple years ago with my Z9, GFX100S, and XT5 for face detection, indoors in dim lighting. Super briefly (cause I know I’m already off topic!), I got the following results over 2500 frames:
I will say non-subject tracking on the Z9 was significantly better. The Fujis tend to do this thing where the focus box “travels” away from the focus point over time, so I found a static single AF point was better for Fuji.
In any case, thanks to everyone for feedback on the 17-40. Apologies for being a bit off-topic with that question, but I appreciate the forum wisdom!
p.4 #18 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
That 105 could work, but I remember it being a bit on the slow side when I adapted a few times, which might really explain why I got the 85 1.2. Also I've done some event work with GFX. The 32-64 at least looks like it plays nicer than the 55 and 801.7 I use. CKrueger wrote:
I use a (similarly-sized) 18-120 as a travel zoom for my XE5 and it’s not so bad. The lens dominates the body, but the whole setup is light enough that it’s not so bad. The 56/1.2 is actually a bit more awkward, cause there’s no good place to hold the lens itself.
Thanks for the video link! I agree with his thought that it’s more the art than the gear for concert photography. I need to remind myself that I could do all this with my old 5D, and all these cameras are much better than that.
Perhaps interesting, I did a test at an event couple years ago with my Z9, GFX100S, and XT5 for face detection, indoors in dim lighting. Super briefly (cause I know I’m already off topic!), I got the following results over 2500 frames:
I will say non-subject tracking on the Z9 was significantly better. The Fujis tend to do this thing where the focus box “travels” away from the focus point over time, so I found a static single AF point was better for Fuji.
In any case, thanks to everyone for feedback on the 17-40. Apologies for being a bit off-topic with that question, but I appreciate the forum wisdom!...Show more →
p.4 #19 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
pechance wrote:
I started looking at the A7RV and honestly a bit of envy crept in. The thought of 1.5+ stops better DR is very appealing. Also it seems the ultra wide options for FF (especially Sony mount) are much stronger than options for Fuji.
Regardless of whether you’re shooting RAW or JPEG, have you played with Fuji’s DR settings?
If you’re shooting RAW, it doesn’t CREATE DR, but it does make it easier to shoot high DR scenes. It basically sets a fake higher ISO, and applies a curve to give you what looks like more dynamic range, at the cost of added shadow noise. And the viewfinder remains WYSIWYG; you aren’t shooting a dark viewfinder, knowing that you’re going to crank a Shadows slider later in LR.
When I shoot JPEG, I get more DR on ready-to-use files. When I shoot RAW, it’s easier to shoot due to an accurate viewfinder, and the RAW files look correct at import-time in LR.
The added noise is at thing to live with compared to a FF camera, but like others have said, if you’re PPing files, today’s NR tools means noise isn’t much of a factor.
For an UWA, have you looked at the 10-18/2.8? It’s smaller and faster than the 10-24, which I agree is a bit of a beast on a Fuji X body.
And as for your sample images…. are you unhappy with those? They seem good to me! I wouldn’t change systems just for a small improvement in these images.
p.4 #20 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
Agreed on both: the 32-64 is great even on moving subjects, and the 105E has some difficulties with moving portraits. I chalk that up to the razor thin DOF at head/shoulders distances, especially with GFX.
I find the gigantic effective aperture on GFX is really only useful for me if I have a busy background that’s really close to my subject, as is often the case at smaller venues. The challenge then is only being able to get far enough way to get that cool full-body-but-shallow-DOF hero shot that makes people think you’re abusing a cell phone computational portrait mode.
JadedWriter wrote:
That 105 could work, but I remember it being a bit on the slow side when I adapted a few times, which might really explain why I got the 85 1.2. Also I've done some event work with GFX. The 32-64 at least looks like it plays nicer than the 55 and 801.7 I use.
