RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion Thread | |
vineyard wrote:
chez wrote:
vineyard wrote:
RustyBug wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
My thinking about IBIS is that…
1. Yes, we can make photographs without it. Many of us did for decades.
2. We also made photographs without autofocus, auto exposure, high quality zoom lenses, screens to review settings and images, the ability to magnify the image for manual focus, custom settings, ultra-high ISO, the ability to store more than 12/24/36 images before swapping out our “memory,” Photoshop… you get the idea. ;-)
3. IBIS is plus with a minus, it is very useful in a number of real-world photography situations, and it has become more or less a standard feature on modern cameras.
I find it ironic that no one will acknowledge the prevalence of Leica M shooters in the world for decades, and the M remains a non-IBIS camera to this day. Yet, for Fuji to have a non-IBIS model is (allegedly) unthinkable in today's realm. 
I can get a 50mm/0.95 for my Leica m. I do have 1.2 and 1.4 lenses for it. An f4 lens is allready pretty dark, and does require relatively slow shutter speeds in many situations. That’s when an ibis would really help. When you have an f1.2 lens, it’s much easier to shoot at shutter speeds that don’t require ibis.
But you are forgetting about the dof. A 1.2 lens might be great for gathering light…but sucks if you want to get a lot environment in focus. When I’m traveling, I want my images to show off the unique environment…not some fuzzed out background that could have been just as easily taken in my backyard.
Obviously I can stop down a 1.2 lens to f4 or f8 or whatever I want, if I want a sharp background. But you can not "stop up" an f4 lens, if you need more light, a faster shutter speed etc.
That wasn't even the point though. You asked about the Leica m, and why no one "will acknowledge" the existence of Leica m shooters in the context of this discussion of the RF missing stabilization. The answer is what I said: you can put a 50/0.95 or 1.2 on the Leica m, but can also stop those fast lenses down. For m shooters, the lack of ibis doesn't matter nearly as much. It's not people "not acknowledging", it's that the comparison isn't very useful.
It's comparison is similar to going out with a smaller, slower, compact lens mounted on an M ... without carrying additional lenses during your outing to give you the most "streamlined" carry experience. This is the (albeit a fixed lens) is the MF similarity.
The old adage of mounted up a single lens and leaving it on for an extended period of time, to become accustomed to that FL, etc. ... on an M (i.e. without IBIS). Not that much difference between mounting a 28 / 2.8 Elmarit on an M and going out solo (i.e. no lens changes). For those who seemingly can't get their heads around the GFX 1000RF ... this is a reasonably close comparison to what the carry experience of the 35/4 (fixed) lens would be like. An f/4 or f/5.6 pancake on an M is even smaller / restricting in certain terms ... YET, people DO head out with such a svelte / slim carry as a one lens only approach for an outing.
So, yes ... as a system, the M system can change lenses. The GFX 100RF is not a "system" camera. It is a fixed lens camera that is designed for a subset carry experience (much like a Q doesn't make for an entire system, either). I referenced the M because of its lack of IBIS and folks do carry it with small lenses at times. While the Q is the "more obvious" comparison ... approaching something similar to the GFX 100RF without the stabilization of the Q's OIS, takes us into the Leica M perspective.
The matter was to emulate a non-stabilized, small form package with a slower lens. The M can be setup in similar fashion. Yes, it has the ability to change lenses. But, as an aid to understanding what the experience of the GFX 100RF might be like without IBIS ... the M is referenced ... and yes, tons of folks are shooting without IBIS, and can do so with small (or large) lenses. I understand that the issue then becomes the tradeoff of SS limits > ISO bump (or pp). But (imo) it isn't a "show stopper", just because I can't mount a Lux or Nok on the GFX 100RF. I rarely shoot a Cron below f/3.5 ... and get along just fine in that regard. I don't see the 35/4 as being restrictive the way some folks do.
YMMV, others will dissent. But, yeah ... shooting at f/3.5 on an M ... vs. f/4 on the GFX 100RF, my exposure experiences will be similar, and the package will be smaller than shooting a GFX 100 II with available ILC glass. Will the GFX 100RF be a standalone "system" that encompasses everything someone does ... not likely. But, for trying to get your head around the experience of the carry ... carrying the M with a slower lens, is a comparison that is a bit of a FF bridge in concept from a non-IBIS X100 > M+small / slow > GFX 100RF ... as non-IBIS + slow glass experience. The salient difference being the inherent sensor size from APS-C > FF > MF. That, and the addition of the EVF / AF / Tilt Display vs. the M. But, the non-IBIS related perspective of being limited by the lens carries through in those three setups. Again, some will dissent.
And, the point that the GFX 100 already exists for ILC ... the GFX 100RF is an alternate carry experience to the ILC experience for using faster glass. Which, btw ... for the GFX MF ... the glass options don't get nearly as fast as the FF or APS-C options, anyway. The tradeoff of size for the f/4 isn't a death blow (imo), as some seem to suggest. But, if it is a deal breaker for some folks, then they can certainly do something different ... lots of choices, besides the GFX 100RF. But, (imo) it is the combination of MF and carry experience that renders its attraction. For those who are focused on what it can't do technically ... rather than what it will allow you to experience, and how that interface / influences what you may do with it ... look elsewhere.
|
