Re: GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
Given you make same statement again and again. I will beat the dead horse one more time here.
For anything with format ratio 4X3 such as 11,67,810. The area increase is 90%. That is almost double the sensor area. There is nothing magic about FF sensor size or 3X2 format. With larger sensor, you always have a lot more freedom to do thing you like.
The benefit is as simple as twice the signal light capture. This is not only for the case use all the resolution but also for anything downsampling used, less moire, less false color, sharper final image, less banding with very high DR scene, and better tonality, And you can crop…
Your argument make zero sense. A car with 400 horsepower is in another league to car with 200 ones and you might need to pay triple the price. FUji is a bargain for anyone want above advantages.
Don’t tell me your annual salary from 100k to 180k is less than 50k to 100k raise a few years back.
I just can’t stand experience or opinion based ignorance keep make center piece of the same topic over and over again.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Anyone who wants to see the actual data can visit the link I provided and compare for themselves.
The meaningful difference when it comes to sensor size comparisons the one expressed by crop factors.
I definitely don't want "to think that the difference between FF and the GFX format is half as large as the difference between APS-C and FF" for the simple reason is that it is not true. I've pointed this out to you and you still say it. Especially rich in this post accusing manufacturers of misleading information. I guess we are in a post-math world these days, just make it up.
Convert it to graphics or percentages all you want or even post it to your blog, its still wrong. To compare the size of a two dimensional objects, you use the calculated area. The term "difference" is subtraction in mathematics and using math, 1441-862=579 sq.mm (gfx to full frame) which is greater than 862-368=494 sq. mm (full frame to APSC). Spelled out, the difference between Gfx and FF is greater than the difference between FF and APSC. Feel free to DM me if you want to dispute the math and not further derail the thread. I only pointed it out because it was incorrect information as it was.
Re: GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
Given you make same statement again and again. I will beat the dead horse one more time here.
For anything with format ratio 4X3 such as 11,67,810. The area increase is 90%. That is almost double the sensor area. There is nothing magic about FF sensor size or 3X2 format. With larger sensor, you always have a lot more freedom to do thing you like.
The benefit is as simple as twice is signal light capture. This is not for the case use all the resolution but also for anything downsampling used, less moire, less false color, sharper final image, less banding with very high DR scene, and better tonality, And you can crop…
Your argument make zero sense. A car with 400 horsepower is in another league to car with 200 ones and you might need to pay triple the price. FUji is a bargain for anyone want above advantages.
Don’t tell me your annual salary from 100k to 180k is less than 50k to 100k raise a few years back.
I just can’t stand experience or opinion based ignorance keep make center piece of the same topic over and over again.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Anyone who wants to see the actual data can visit the link I provided and compare for themselves.
The meaningful difference when it comes to sensor size comparisons the one expressed by crop factors.
I definitely don't want "to think that the difference between FF and the GFX format is half as large as the difference between APS-C and FF" for the simple reason is that it is not true. I've pointed this out to you and you still say it. Especially rich in this post accusing manufacturers of misleading information. I guess we are in a post-math world these days, just make it up.
Convert it to graphics or percentages all you want or even post it to your blog, its still wrong. To compare the size of a two dimensional objects, you use the calculated area. The term "difference" is subtraction in mathematics and using math, 1441-862=579 sq.mm (gfx to full frame) which is greater than 862-368=494 sq. mm (full frame to APSC). Spelled out, the difference between Gfx and FF is greater than the difference between FF and APSC. Feel free to DM me if you want to dispute the math and not further derail the thread. I only pointed it out because it was incorrect information as it was.
Jun 02, 2026 at 11:35 AM
Previous versions of zhangyue's message #17048925 « GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses? »
