gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes? | |
mjm6 wrote:
I find it remarkable that people get wrapped around the axel of resolution when it is completely irrelevant to almost all the users on the forum unless you have very specific high-resolution requirement for certain applications (like if you are doing client work where they demand very large reproductions or if your own personal work is intended to be printed very large, and I'm talking about larger than 20x24" on a regular basis), or if you feel the need to be cropping heavily on a regular basis.
For example, if you like to shoot in panoramic formats like the X-Pan 24x65 proportions, then you wil be cropping about 1/2 to 2/3 of the image for every single frame that you intend to use for that (unless you are stitching, of course).
If this is a goal (single-shot panoramas) then it absolutely makes sense to be looking at the higher resolution of the GFX 100MP cameras. It probably doesn't make too much sense for the GFX 50MP cameras, though.
However, IMO, the real value of the GFX cameras is the dynamic range improvements that you can gain by using a larger format (and higher resolution) sensor. This benefit isn't necessarily something everyone would use, however, so you have to decide if it is beneficial for what you intend to do with the images. If you tend to shoot for JPGs and in color, you aren't going to gain much if at all from the DR increase.
If you shoot for B&W images, there is a better chance that the images will have better shadow detail and the highlights won't be so harsh with improved DR, and this provides you more headroom for manipulation of the image in the darkroom. This benefit is somewhat irrespective of the resolution so you can gain from the DR even if you are intending to have an image reproduced for web viewing whereas the perceived resolution gain of a higher resolution sensor are lost quickly depending on the intended final use of the image.
The B&W application is important for my uses and this was the main reason I moved to the GFX four years ago or so. There was (with the 50MP sensor at that time) a clear advantage for my purposes and the 100MP sensors have increased that. These make it possible that the images have characteristics that are more like B&W negative film and that is important to me. Resolution, not so much at all... I was happy with 24MP and have felt little need for more MP since then, with only one exception.
The exception to the resolution question is related to making copy reproductions of my 4x5 work for some commercial applications. There, I have dug deeply into the performance of the 50MP and 100MP sensors and in some cases, I have been stitching 3-4 100MP images together to get very high resolution reproductions of some 4x5 work for large scale printing requirements. The system I am using is producing very high resolution (it's effectively faithfully reproducing the film grain) and that's what I wanted from the scans. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't worry about this, but the situation demanded some extremely large reproductions for an exhibition and I tested the AI-based file enlargement approaches against high resolution scans and the scans lookd much better to my eye, so that's the approach I took.
For my own personal work, if it weren't for the DR aspect, I'd be using an X camera... no question.
To be fair, I'm still shooting 120 film for my own person work if the travel will support it, but if it doesn't I've been using the GFX because it has clear improvements in DR which I find valuable. To get the film into the digital realm, I scan it with the GFX camera.
I think you have a valid point regarding resolution/detail… but that your switch to DR as the defining difference falls into the same trap that you call out regarding resolution.
There is no question that larger sensors can record a larger dynamic range than smaller sensors, all else being equal. (Just as it is true that larger sensors can record more detail, all else being equal, as a result or using a larger number of photo sites and of improved system resolution from larger formats.)
You accurately point out that people often imagine that the effect of the increased resolution is larger than it actually is (for example, it arguably makes no — or an least no significant — difference until we get to quite large prints. But the same can be said for the increased dynamic range.
There are several aspects to this.
Relative to DR a photograph can fall into three situations.
1. The dynamic range is small enough that either of the systems being compared (let’s say a high quality FF system and a miniMF system) can capture it effectively. This is the most common situation and is, I would say, normally the case.
2. The dynamic range is so large that no system under consideration can fully capture it — shadows will be blocked and/or highlights will be blown out no matter which system is used. This is the second most likely scenario.
3. The dynamic range is too large for one system, but only by such a small increment that the alternative system can still capture it — in other words, on camera is subject to the failure described in #2 while the other is not. This is possible, but a distinct minority of the real world instances.
Beyond this, the “failure” of a system to handle DR is not exactly a binary, as it “it doesn’t capture it.” As we know, the definition of DR limits is a bit subjective since it is based on an arbitrary standard describing when a system reaches a certain level of image degradation at the outer bounds of high and low luminosity. But there’s still an image beyond those bounds (except for a truly blown out highlight), and it isn’t like a camera with a 12 stop DR cannot be used to produce an effective print of a subject with 12.5 stops of DR.
In that case, a camera with, say, 13 stops of DR will be better, but it is not a night and day difference. Perhaps post-processing recovery (which will be necessary in both cases, as print and display media don’t show that range of DR and our eyes don’t see that range all at once either) will be a bit more extensive in one than the other, and a very detailed look at the very darkest shadows (say below 10 luminosity on the 256 level scale per channel) may show a tiny be more noise.
All of this is not to say that there is no difference nor is it to say that 12 stops of DR is the same as 14 stops. But in the same what that a bit more resolution won’t make a profound difference, neither will a bit more DR. Is it a good thing to have it? Sure, I’ll take it? Is it always worth picking the camera with the greatest DR? No. DR is but one of many aspects of camera performance that need to be evaluated as a whole.
|
