I don’t know whether or not this is relevant in this case… But in addition to other points mentioned above, but it may be time to remind that comparing 100% crops from two systems with quite different pixel dimensions can be very misleading.
Your Canon R system cannot have more than 45 MP, and if you aren’t using an R5 it may have even smaller pixel dimensions. The GFX system has 100 MP — at a minimum, more than twice as many.
Let’s say that you look closely at 500 x 500 pixel 100% crops from images from both cameras. You’ll be looking at a significantly smaller section of the 100MP images, which is, of course, equivalent to looking at them at a higher magnification. A flaw of any magnitude this is equal on both systems will look worse on the 100MP system… because you are looking more closely at a smaller section of the overall image.
A good and relevant way is to make images from both and produce the kind of output that you are likely to use them for. Will you make 13” x 19” prints? Make a few using whatever workflow you would apply to both source images. Will you just view electronically on the web? Make some images of that type and compare. Do you make really big prints? Again, use your best workflow, optimized for both images as you would with real photographs and produce sample prints in those sizes, or at least produce crops from such images.
Even better… show those test images pairs to someone whose judgment you trust (maybe several such “someone’s”) WITHOUT TELLING THEM ANYTHING ABOUT THE SOURCE IMAGES or what you are trying to find out, and just ask them what they notice about each pair.
Dan
Evection wrote:
Disclaimer: I don't use or care about zooms, so I'm not commenting on their quality here.
Canon RF and Fuji X shooter here. I'm contemplating replacing my RF system with GFX. I don't do action or wildlife and only ever use AF-S anyway, so bad medium format autofocus is not a concern for me. Don't need compact street/travel lenses either as I have my X system for that. When I bring my bulky RF L primes, I only care about image quality, which is why GFX seems like a logical next step. We're talking fine art, portrait and macro here.
So, I rented a GFX 100II with 55/1.7, 80/1.7 and 110/2.0. Those focal lengths suit me, as a starting kit. The test did not go well.
The 80/1.7 is optically subpar to the point I wouldn't even consider it.
The 55/1.7 is a lot better than that, but still disappointing. Corner performance at f/1.7 is mediocre, only gets excellent at 2.8 and narrower. There's also a coma problem -- wouldn't use that lens for nighttime photography.
The 110/2 is the only top-tier lens here. It can replace my RF 85/1.2 in most cases.
Looking at the lens lineup, all the other primes are too slow for my use case. Appreciate they're meant to be smaller and cheaper, but I'm not looking for EDC glass in a medium format system. And here's the thing... the faults I pointed out in the 55 and 80 would be fine in compact glass, but those two are not that. Their heft, price and aperture puts them in the same category as the Canon and Nikon 1.2 glass. They don't live up to it, optically.
Then we come to macro. How is there no 1:1 lens in GFX? (No, I'm not ruining my quality and diffraction limit with extension tubes).
I don’t know whether or not this is relevant in this case… But in addition to other points mentioned above, but it may be time to remind that comparing 100% crops from two systems with quite different pixel dimensions can be very misleading.
Your Canon R system cannot have more than 45 MP, and if you aren’t using an R5 it may have even smaller pixel dimensions. The GFX system has 100 MP — at a minimum, more than twice as many.
Let’s say that you look closely at 500 x 500 pixel 100% crops from images from both cameras. You’ll be looking at a significantly smaller section of the 100MP images, which is, of course, equivalent to looking at them at a higher magnification. A flaw of any magnitude this is equal on both systems will look worse on the 100MP system… because you are looking more closely at a smaller section of the overall image.
A good and relevant way is to make images from both and produce the kind of output that you are likely to use them for. Will you make 13” x 19” prints? Make a few using whatever workflow you would apply to both source images. Will you just view electronically on the web? Make some images of that type and compare. Do you make really big prints? Again, use your best workflow, optimized for both images as you would with real photographs and produce sample prints in those sizes, or at least produce crops from such images.
Even better… show those test images pairs to someone whose judgment you trust (maybe several such “someone’s”) WITHOUT TELLING THEM ANYTHING ABOUT THE SOURCE IMAGES or what you are trying to find out, and just ask them what they notice about each pair.
Dan
Evection wrote:
Disclaimer: I don't use or care about zooms, so I'm not commenting on their quality here.
Canon RF and Fuji X shooter here. I'm contemplating replacing my RF system with GFX. I don't do action or wildlife and only ever use AF-S anyway, so bad medium format autofocus is not a concern for me. Don't need compact street/travel lenses either as I have my X system for that. When I bring my bulky RF L primes, I only care about image quality, which is why GFX seems like a logical next step. We're talking fine art, portrait and macro here.
So, I rented a GFX 100II with 55/1.7, 80/1.7 and 110/2.0. Those focal lengths suit me, as a starting kit. The test did not go well.
The 80/1.7 is optically subpar to the point I wouldn't even consider it.
The 55/1.7 is a lot better than that, but still disappointing. Corner performance at f/1.7 is mediocre, only gets excellent at 2.8 and narrower. There's also a coma problem -- wouldn't use that lens for nighttime photography.
The 110/2 is the only top-tier lens here. It can replace my RF 85/1.2 in most cases.
Looking at the lens lineup, all the other primes are too slow for my use case. Appreciate they're meant to be smaller and cheaper, but I'm not looking for EDC glass in a medium format system. And here's the thing... the faults I pointed out in the 55 and 80 would be fine in compact glass, but those two are not that. Their heft, price and aperture puts them in the same category as the Canon and Nikon 1.2 glass. They don't live up to it, optically.
Then we come to macro. How is there no 1:1 lens in GFX? (No, I'm not ruining my quality and diffraction limit with extension tubes).
