jjcha wrote:
Ok final shot. Same night. This one - heavily back lit. No flash. These guys were right in front of me, 1 - 1.5 meters away? Not even -- I vaguely recall leaning back (pushing back against the crowd) to get this photo.
I pushed the shadows hard on this one in post. Again, I wouldn't mind at all more shadow recovery. I'm abusing the image quality here and I would love to have some of it back. I have to believe the GFX sensor can do that better than the GRIII.
I need a camera like the GRIII or X100 to take these photos. It needs to be one handed. I need to be able to compose with the LCD - there's a freedom there that's like shooting from the hip. It needs to be fast. It needs to be zone focused.
I need 1/125th. I can't slow the shutter speed more. I need F5.6 (full frame equivalent) for depth of field. I am pushing these natural light shots as hard as I can. I will take what I can from any sensor. The GFX100RF will do these shots better.
Image quality means different things to different people. This is what it means to me.
In addition to the aspect ratio ergonomics (I am so bored with 3:2, I want to change aspect ratio in the field), which is the primary reason I am buying this camera, I certainly don't mind taking advantage of better image quality than the GRIII or X100V.
You wonder why the designers worked so hard to make the GFX100RF so small. Why they didn't fit in IBIS. Why they didn't sacrifice a little for F3.0 maybe.
Well. I can't say I know the answer to that question.
But I guess I'm glad the answer includes a use case for guys like me.
@jjcha, thank you for rescuing this thread. Speaking in terms of prior shooting experience and recasting it with the GFX100RF is an excellent way to discuss the potential value of this camera.
It’s all too easy to get trapped in a mantle of technical authority and losing sight of photography as an art, hobby, or profession. (I also thank those who linked the Fujifilm short marketing films, which I thought were tasteful and spoke to the photographic experience we should expect with this camera.)
Another simple example is from a trip I took last year to Kennedy Space Center. This was a family excursion, so I only brought my X100VI. I also brought the wide angle converter knowing there would be large space-ships in closed-in areas where the 35mm effective focal length would fall short. The image below was shot with the converter (so 28mm effective focal length) at f/5.6, 1/30s, ISO 6400. Clearly not a masterpiece but a photo I enjoy with impressive quality from the X100VI.
With the GFX100RF I would have taken this at the native 28mm except it would have yielded much higher resolution and less noise. Does that matter for this shot? Not when viewed on a typical screen at normal resolution. But I like zooming in to view details on images like this one: the rivets in the rocket, people’s expression as they look on, the details in the mission patches, even the geometric texture of the ceiling—all would be amplified by the GFX100RF. But more importantly, I would have likely experimented with different aspect ratios when taking this image. Would 4:3 have helped capture more people context at the bottom? Would a panoramic ratio have focused my composition better? Hard to know in retrospect, but I know that’s what I would have explored.
Would this picture have made it worthwhile spending the premium for this camera over the X100VI? No, not for me. But I hope the accumulated experience across hundreds of situations like this one will.
jjcha wrote:
Ok final shot. Same night. This one - heavily back lit. No flash. These guys were right in front of me, 1 - 1.5 meters away? Not even -- I vaguely recall leaning back (pushing back against the crowd) to get this photo.
I pushed the shadows hard on this one in post. Again, I wouldn't mind at all more shadow recovery. I'm abusing the image quality here and I would love to have some of it back. I have to believe the GFX sensor can do that better than the GRIII.
I need a camera like the GRIII or X100 to take these photos. It needs to be one handed. I need to be able to compose with the LCD - there's a freedom there that's like shooting from the hip. It needs to be fast. It needs to be zone focused.
I need 1/125th. I can't slow the shutter speed more. I need F5.6 (full frame equivalent) for depth of field. I am pushing these natural light shots as hard as I can. I will take what I can from any sensor. The GFX100RF will do these shots better.
Image quality means different things to different people. This is what it means to me.
In addition to the aspect ratio ergonomics (I am so bored with 3:2, I want to change aspect ratio in the field), which is the primary reason I am buying this camera, I certainly don't mind taking advantage of better image quality than the GRIII or X100V.
You wonder why the designers worked so hard to make the GFX100RF so small. Why they didn't fit in IBIS. Why they didn't sacrifice a little for F3.0 maybe.
Well. I can't say I know the answer to that question.
But I guess I'm glad the answer includes a use case for guys like me.
@jjcha, thank you for rescuing this thread. Speaking in terms of prior shooting experience and recasting it with the GFX100RF is an excellent way to discuss the potential value of this camera.
It’s all too easy to get trapped in a mantle of technical authority and losing sight of photography as an art, hobby, or profession. (I also thank those who linked the Fujifilm short marketing films, which I thought were tasteful and spoke to the photographic experience we should expect with this camera.)
Another simple example is from a trip I took last year to Kennedy Space Center. This was a family excursion, so I only brought my X100VI. I also brought the wide angle converter knowing there would be large space-ships in closed-in areas where the 35mm effective focal length would fall short. The image below was shot with the converter (so 28mm effective focal length) at f/5.6, 1/30s, ISO 6400. Clearly not a masterpiece but a photo I enjoy with impressive quality from the X100VI.
With the GFX100RF I would have taken this at the native 28mm except it would have yielded much higher resolution and less noise. Does that matter for this shot? Not when viewed on a typical screen at normal resolution. But I like zooming in to view details on images like this one: the rivets in the rocket, people’s expression as they look on, the details in the mission patches, even the geometric texture of the ceiling—all would be amplified by the GFX100RF. But more importantly, I would have likely experimented with different aspect ratios when taking this image. Would 4:3 have helped capture more people context at the bottom? Would a panoramic ratio have focused my composition better? Hard to know in retrospect, but I know that’s what I would have explored.
Would this picture have made it worthwhile spending the premium for this camera over the X100VI/ No, not for me. But I hope the accumulated experience across hundreds of situations like this one will.
jjcha wrote:
Ok final shot. Same night. This one - heavily back lit. No flash. These guys were right in front of me, 1 - 1.5 meters away? Not even -- I vaguely recall leaning back (pushing back against the crowd) to get this photo.
I pushed the shadows hard on this one in post. Again, I wouldn't mind at all more shadow recovery. I'm abusing the image quality here and I would love to have some of it back. I have to believe the GFX sensor can do that better than the GRIII.
I need a camera like the GRIII or X100 to take these photos. It needs to be one handed. I need to be able to compose with the LCD - there's a freedom there that's like shooting from the hip. It needs to be fast. It needs to be zone focused.
I need 1/125th. I can't slow the shutter speed more. I need F5.6 (full frame equivalent) for depth of field. I am pushing these natural light shots as hard as I can. I will take what I can from any sensor. The GFX100RF will do these shots better.
Image quality means different things to different people. This is what it means to me.
In addition to the aspect ratio ergonomics (I am so bored with 3:2, I want to change aspect ratio in the field), which is the primary reason I am buying this camera, I certainly don't mind taking advantage of better image quality than the GRIII or X100V.
You wonder why the designers worked so hard to make the GFX100RF so small. Why they didn't fit in IBIS. Why they didn't sacrifice a little for F3.0 maybe.
Well. I can't say I know the answer to that question.
But I guess I'm glad the answer includes a use case for guys like me.
@jjcha, thank you for rescuing this thread. Speaking in terms of prior shooting experience and recasting it with the GFX100RF is an excellent way to discuss the potential value of this camera.
It’s all too easy to get trapped in a mantle of technical authority and losing sight of photography as an art, hobby, or profession. (I also thank those who linked the Fujifilm short marketing films, which I thought were tasteful and spoke to the photographic experience we should expect with this camera.)
Another simple example is from a trip I took last year to Kennedy Space Center. This was a family excursion, so I only brought my X100VI. I also brought the wide angle converter knowing there would be large space-ships in closed-in areas where the 35mm effective focal length would fall short. The image below was shot with the converter (so 28mm effective focal length) at f/5.6, 1/30s, ISO 6400. Clearly not a masterpiece but a photo I enjoy with impressive quality from the X100VI.
With the GFX100RF I would have taken this at the native 28mm except it would have yielded much higher resolution and less noise. Does that matter for this shot? Not when viewed on a typical screen at normal resolution. But I like zooming in to view details on images like this one: the rivets in the rocket, people’s expression as they look on, the details in the mission patches, even the geometric texture of the ceiling—all would be amplified by the GFX100RF. But more importantly, I would have likely experimented with different aspect ratios when taking this image. Would 4:3 have helped capture more people context at the bottom? Would a panoramic ratio have focused my composition better? Hard to know in retrospect, but I know that’s what I would have explored.
Apr 06, 2025 at 02:02 PM
Previous versions of Erich6_'s message #16789784 « Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread »
