RoamingScott wrote:
There is, of course, the option that your standards of quality are low enough where these results are adequate, in which case, I'd re-evaluate if you need a $5000 fixed lens medium format camera. I'm granting you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't in this category.
As photographers, we all have different standards for image quality.
I've seen it said that when the story is strong, image quality doesn't matter as much, and I suppose that's true.
Like I keep saying, the primary reason I'm buying this camera is for aspect ratio selection and crop-ability in a small EDC package. Not 44x33mm image quality.
But let's talk about image quality for a second.
On one hand, I am more than happy with my GRIII. On the other hand, I know its limitations. I run up against it all the time, and it is annoying.
There are shots where I just push it too damn far and I have to resort to B&W to be able to salvage something. There are other times, where you can see I've pushed it WAY beyond what most people would consider decent. Even though I don't care that much about image quality, I wish I could claw back something a little better.
But enough talk - let's look at some photos and talk about image quality, as it means for me.
Let's start with the most obvious one that we all can agree on (I hope).
First of all, I often shoot flash. When I shoot flash on the GRIII, I shoot it at ISO1600. This shot would have been better on the GFX100RF, where I probably would have dialed down the ISO to ISO800 and lived with a little less DoF.
RoamingScott wrote:
There is, of course, the option that your standards of quality are low enough where these results are adequate, in which case, I'd re-evaluate if you need a $5000 fixed lens medium format camera. I'm granting you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't in this category.
As photographers, we all have different standards for image quality.
I've seen it said that when the story is strong, image quality doesn't matter as much, and I suppose that's true.
Like I keep saying, the primary reason I'm buying this camera is for aspect ratio selection and crop-ability in a small EDC package. Not 44x33mm image quality.
But let's talk about image quality for a second.
On one hand, I am more than happy with my GRIII. On the other hand, I know its limitations. I run up against it all the time, and it is annoying.
There are shots where I just push it too damn far and I have to resort to B&W to be able to salvage something. There are other times, where you can see I've pushed it WAY beyond what most people would consider decent. Even though I don't care that much about image quality, I wish I could claw back something back from it.
But enough talk - let's look at some photos and talk about image quality, as it means for me.
Let's start with the most obvious one that we all can agree on (I hope).
First of all, I often shoot flash. When I shoot flash on the GRIII, I shoot it at ISO1600. This shot would have been better on the GFX100RF, where I probably would have dialed down the ISO to ISO800 and lived with a little less DoF.
RoamingScott wrote:
There is, of course, the option that your standards of quality are low enough where these results are adequate, in which case, I'd re-evaluate if you need a $5000 fixed lens medium format camera. I'm granting you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't in this category.
As photographers, we all have different standards for image quality.
I've seen it said that when the story is strong, image quality doesn't matter as much, and I suppose that's true.
Like I keep saying, the primary reason I'm buying this camera is for aspect ratio selection and crop-ability in a small EDC package.
But let's talk about image quality for a second.
On one hand, I am more than happy with my GRIII. On the other hand, I know its limitations. I run up against it all the time, and it is annoying.
There are shots where I just push it too damn far and I have to resort to B&W to be able to salvage something. There are other times, where you can see I've pushed it WAY beyond what most people would consider decent. Even though I don't care that much about image quality, I wish I could claw back something back from it.
But enough talk - let's look at some photos and talk about image quality, as it means for me.
Let's start with the most obvious one that we all can agree on (I hope).
First of all, I often shoot flash. When I shoot flash on the GRIII, I shoot it at ISO1600. This shot would have been better on the GFX100RF, where I probably would have dialed down the ISO to ISO800 and lived with a little less DoF.
RoamingScott wrote:
There is, of course, the option that your standards of quality are low enough where these results are adequate, in which case, I'd re-evaluate if you need a $5000 fixed lens medium format camera. I'm granting you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't in this category.
As photographers, we all have different standards for image quality.
I've seen it said that when the story is strong, image quality doesn't matter as much, and I suppose that's true.
Like I keep saying, the primary reason I'm buying this camera is for aspect ratio selection and crop-ability in a small EDC package.
But let's talk about image quality for a second.
On one hand, I am more than happy with my GRIII. On the other hand, I know its limitations. I run up against it all the time, and it is annoying.
There are shots where I just push it too damn far and I have to resort to B&W to be able to salvage something. There are other times, where you can see I've pushed it WAY beyond what most people would consider decent. Even though I don't care that much about image quality, I wish I could claw back something back from it.
But enough talk - let's look at some photos and talk about image quality, as it means for me.
Let's start with the most obvious one that we all can agree on (I hope).
First of all, I often shoot flash. When I shoot flash on the GRIII, I shoot it at ISO1600. This shot would have been better on the GFX100RF, where I probably would have dialed down the ISO to ISO800 and lived with a little less DoF.
RoamingScott wrote:
There is, of course, the option that your standards of quality are low enough where these results are adequate, in which case, I'd re-evaluate if you need a $5000 fixed lens medium format camera. I'm granting you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't in this category.
As photographers, we all have different standards for image quality.
I've seen it said that when the story is strong, image quality doesn't matter as much, and I suppose that's true.
Like I keep saying, the primary reason I'm buying this camera is for aspect ratio selection and crop-ability in a small EDC package.
But let's talk about image quality for a second.
On one hand, I am more than happy with my GRIII. On the other hand, I know its limitations. I run up against it all the time, and it is annoying.
There are shots where I just push it too damn far and I have to resort to B&W to be able to salvage something. There are other times, where you can see I've pushed it WAY beyond what most people would consider decent. Even though I don't care that much about image quality, I wish I could claw back something back from it.
But enough talk - let's look at some photos and talk about image quality, as it means for me.
Let's start with the most obvious one that we all can agree on (I hope).
First of all, I often shoot flash. When I shoot flash on the GRIII, I shoot it at ISO1600. This shot would have been better on the GFX100RF, where I probably would have dialed down the ISO to ISO800 and lived with a little less DoF.
RoamingScott wrote:
There is, of course, the option that your standards of quality are low enough where these results are adequate, in which case, I'd re-evaluate if you need a $5000 fixed lens medium format camera. I'm granting you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't in this category.
As photographers, we all have different standards for image quality.
I've seen it said that when the story is strong, image quality doesn't matter as much, and I suppose that's true.
Like I keep saying, the primary reason I'm buying this camera is for aspect ratio selection and crop-ability in a small EDC package.
But let's talk about image quality for a second.
On one hand, I am more than happy with my GRIII. On the other hand, I know its limitations. I run up against it all the time, and it is annoying.
There are shots where I just push it too damn far and I have to resort to B&W to be able to salvage something. There are other times, where you can see I've pushed it WAY beyond what most people would consider decent. Even though I don't care that much about image quality, I wish I could claw back something back from it.
But enough talk - let's look at some photos and talk about image quality, as it means for me.
Let's start with the most obvious one that we all can agree on (I hope).
First of all, I often shoot flash. When I shoot flash on the GRIII, I shoot it at ISO1600. This shot would have been better on the GFX100RF, where I probably would have dialed down the ISO to ISO800 and lived with a little less DoF.
Apr 05, 2025 at 11:06 PM
Previous versions of jjcha's message #16789427 « Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread »
