RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion Thread | |
tzhang4284 wrote:
RustyBug wrote:
tzhang4284 wrote:
RustyBug wrote:
tzhang4284 wrote:
RustyBug wrote:
I think we can pretty well put this in the realm that it is being perceived by:
Those who look at the camera and are focused on what they perceive it can't do.
Those who look at the camera and are focused on what they perceive it can do.
"Can't do'ers" should look elsewhere ... perpetually comparing it to what it isn't from the armchair of cyberland can live on ad infinitum. Meanwhile, there very likely will be folks who use it well, for what it can do.
What can it do better than the other options? I can live with trade offs but it doesn't seem like it's better than the alternatives in any meaningful way.
I think the main point here is that if you desire the MF sensor and IQ it offers ... but, are put off by the bulk and form of the GFX MILC ... here's your option.
Whether that is coming from FF or as the X100 series on steroids ... the qualifier is that you desire the MF sensor. If you don't desire the MF sensor ... or you already enjoy the bulk and form of the GFX MILC, then it likely doesn't offer "better than others" options. The salient point here is what you get ... in the package form / size that it is. Very much like the Leica M ethos.
By that, I mean I can get Leica SL lenses on a Leica SL3 (or a Panny L mount) and use those big Leica SL lenses to get an optic that is "even better" than some of the M lenses. BUT, the attractant to the M series is "just how dang good" they are in the form / size that they are ... which makes for a different carry experience than toting around the SL APO glass (even if the SL APO glass can trump the M glass on the MTF charts ... hint, the M glass is still dang good.).
So, to your question ... the "better" is the combination of GFX sensor in the smaller form factor. Sure, the X100 is smaller, but it doesn't have the GFX sensor. Sure, the 100S has the GFX sensor, but it doesn't have the form factor. The GFX 100RF has the sensor AND the smaller form factor than the other GFX sensor options. For some, that is a "better" combination than the other options, regarding the IQ vs. carry experience.
Ultimately, that then boils down to a "better" carry experience for MF shooting. If folks can't relate to the prospect of this ... then, yup ... look elsewhere. 
Of course, there's always the Hassy X2D (with IBIS) + 38/2.5 (with faster glass) for around $10K and more bulk.
Pick your partner. 
I'll wait for the official MTF charts but to my eyes on a 5k monitor - I don't really see any difference between the GFX100RF sensor + lens sample images vs say the Q3 43mm APO or even the x100vi so I'm not sure image quality is even a selling point. 61mp vs 100mp feels like rounding error.
Like I said though, I'll wait and see for myself though if I get off the pre-order list.
Understood ... if the MF sensor isn't calling to you, then the "combination" just lost its "combo". As to the "rounding error" ... I think if you are a native 3:2 shooter, that's even more the case. Otoh, if you are a 4:3 or 1:1 oriented shooter, then the difference is a bit more meaningful between 61MP 3:2, cropped to 4:3 or 1:1 vs. the 100MP 4:3 cropped (oops, not cropped) to 4:3, or 1:1. Using 1:1 for example, your 36x24 becomes 24x24, whereas your 44x33 becomes 33x33. The difference between 24x24 vs. 33x33 is
6300x6300 @ 300PPI = 21 inch, @ 200PPI = 31 inch
8700x8700 @ 300 PPI = 29 inch, @ 200PPI = 43 inch
So, the basic difference is having a 30 inch @ 300PPI vs. 200PPI.
All the "extra pixels for cropping" and different formats feature is nice ... but, at the core of it is (to your "rounding" point) whether or not the extra 40% (ish) pixel dimensions have value to you. So, here again ... the "combination" is predicated upon your interest in the GFX sensor in a form factor package. No interest in the sensor, then no interest in the combination, is likely.
I think you missed my main point in that the underlying lens seems mediocre from both a sharpness and rendering perspective that makes the 100mp sensor irrelevant. Cropping and higher resolutions just means you're magnifying the mediocrity. The sensor means nothing without the lens.
No ... I didn't miss the point. I basically addressed it previously when I spelled out the difference between the SL APO vs. the M lenses. Yes, the MTF's are higher on the SL APO, but the the M lenses aren't that far behind. And, that difference is an acceptable tradeoff for the different carry experience. Even when I use my SL2-S ... I mount my M lenses, except when I need to use tele glass. I don't even own any normal or wide SL glass.
Will the Fuji 35/4 be on the same level as the Summilux on the MTF's ... I expect not. But, then too, does the 35/4 exhibit as much distortion as the Q. I think that the optical designs have to be looked at in full context. MTF is one, distortion is one, vignetting is one, bokeh / rendering also. For me ... I know that I've had some "pain points" with the Q distortion at times. So, I'll have some decisions about tradeoff of MTF diff vs. distortion diff (vs. f-stop diff vs. OIS diff). The distortion on the 35/4 seems less and simpler than the Q. In the context of shooting my M glass (rather than Q Summilux context), the distortion of my 24/2.8 is better than the Q. No OIS and slower than the Q. The Q likely has a higher MTF than the 24/2.8, also ... and yet, I shoot the 24/2.8 on M more than the Q. Go figure.
So, the 24/2.8, typically shot at f/4 - f/5.6 (while wider) on my M vs. the 35/4 on the GFX 100R ... not that much difference in terms of IBIS and max aperture (less so in application). I'm not discounting the difference in the glass ... but, it also might fall into the category of "rounding error" regarding the amount of differences for a given attribute (i.e. MTF or distortion or vignetting, etc.)
So, yes ... as a system, the lens + sensor are part of the evaluation / assessment. If your work is dead set required to have the absolute highest MTF available ... then, you don't even have to wait to kick the GFX 100RF to the curb. It won't be that lens. It's a "pancake" lens on an MF body. No more than I expect my pancake M 40/2 Cron to perform as well on the MTF charts as my 35/2 Cron ASPH. It won't trump the MTF's ... but, that's not why I shoot my 40 Cron. Sometimes it's for the compact carry, other times its for the rendering ... not the spec sheet.
I can pretty much guarantee that there are options that will have better MTF spec sheets than the GFX 100RF 35/4. If that MTF spec sheet is your goal ... cancel your pre-order now, and be done with it.
|
