tzhang4284 wrote:
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.
You are getting at one of the things that seems to so often overlooked with this camera.
miniMF can resolve more details than FF and other smaller formats. But in order for that to be meaningful a set of other variables must be handled more precisely, too. The lens quality is one of them. (I don’t know what the optical quality is of the RF lens – it seems at last good.) But another is the stability of the camera itself. If you put it on a tripod and are careful, there is a difference between 61MP FF and 102MP miniMF — though you won’t see it in web images and probably not in prints until you get to some pretty big sizes.
But from all I can tell and what I read, this is not a camera that people intend to put on a tripod. It seems to be desired because of its small size and lighter weight and because it doesn’t encumber the photographer. Quite a few folks are discussing this camera for their street and/or travel photography. If you are shooting handheld, you have to be even more careful that you would be with a full frame system if you want to achieve the potential resolution advantage of that larger, higher pixel-density sensor.
Whatever the delta is between miniMF and FF and smaller systems, it is diminished when handholding the camera, especially without lens IS or IBIS… and the FF alternative is already capable of producing very high quality 30” x 45” prints — so we aren’t talking about a difference between bad and good but a difference between really excellent and perhaps a bit more really excellent if you are careful.
Again, there is a use case for this camera — but it is rather small.
tzhang4284 wrote:
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.
You are getting at one of the things that seems to so often overlooked with this camera.
miniMF can resolve more details than FF and other smaller formats. But in order for that to be meaningful a set of other variables must be handled more precisely, too. The lens quality is one of them. (I don’t know what the optical quality is of the RF lens – it seems at last good.) But another is the stability of the camera itself. If you put it on a tripod and are careful, there is a difference between 61MP FF and 102MP miniMF — though you won’t see it in web images and probably not in prints until you get to some pretty big sizes.
But from all I can tell and what I read, this is not a camera that people intend to put on a tripod. It seems to be desired because of its small size and lighter weight and because it doesn’t encumber the photographer. If you are shooting handheld, you have to be even more careful that you would be with a full frame system if you want to achieve the potential resolution advantage of that larger, higher pixel-density sensor.
Apr 17, 2025 at 11:23 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16797564 « Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread »
