NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Michael Erlewine on March 02, 2017, 20:31:17
-
I feel this presentation by Fuji satisfies most of the gearhead in me, confirms why I should have ordered this camera, and provided the IQ is good, why it will make my work so much easier than it now is with the Nikon D810. I am sure most of you have seen this, but if you have not, it is very, very helpful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paVGe4_yJuw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmHHGq8cdSA&index=2&list=PLlWO-2S-UogrSLbG_QIKuuZ1ucrpMkIeu
-
I will have a live hands on presentation on Monday at my brick & mortar. I hope I can sleep before that ;-)
-
My system shipped Friday from B&H. Should be here Tuesday. This may well be in fact what I thought the Nikon D810-update was supposed to be.
-
My system shipped Friday from B&H. Should be here Tuesday. This may well be in fact what I thought the Nikon D810-update was supposed to be.
What did you think the D810-update was supposed to be?
-
What did you think the D810-update was supposed to be?
I thought there would be one by now. Period. End of story.
-
Fujifilm has announced a 120/4 macro, and my guess is that equipped with that lens on the GFX, one will not look back on "full frame" cameras.
-
Gentlemen, every system has its own niche to stay. I am sure the biggest sensor will deliver greater quality, especially for macro, groups, studio, so on. But what is the substitute for fast events, sport, dancing, wedding, airshow, laserhall, racing, journalism, you name it more... D810 with its fantastic AF, and its new incarnations, if any soon, will stay up for its own, for a lot of years ahead. Let us wait a little bit longer, see and compare. THX! LZ
-
Gentlemen, every system has its own niche to stay. I am sure the biggest sensor will deliver greater quality, especially for macro, groups, studio, so on. But what is the substitute for fast events, sport, dancing, wedding, airshow, laserhall, racing, journalism, you name it more... D810 with its fantastic AF, and its new incarnations, if any soon, will stay up for its own, for a lot of years ahead. Let us wait a little bit longer, see and compare. THX! LZ
I had Michael's purposes in mind in my previous post. For him, I think it will be great.
-
I had Michael's purposes in mind in my previous post. For him, I think it will be great.
. Out of questions, then! THX! LZ
-
"One" used in that way would normally be interpreted to refer to anyone/everyone/people in general.
-
"One" used in that way would normally be interpreted to refer to anyone/everyone/people in general.
This is a conversation, Ilkka. Disclaimers should be unnecessary, but of course everything I write, is written, using recycled electrons as ink. All errors, grammatical, linguistic, sematic or pragmatical are a part of the final product and constitute the bokeh. ;)
Neither you nor I are native English speakers, btw. :o
Edit: since I had only Michael's purposes in mind, the use of "one" holds true, since those purposes are traditionally associated with the medium format and even large format, and more slow paced, contemplative photography.
-
Fujifilm has announced a 120/4 macro, and my guess is that equipped with that lens on the GFX, one will not look back on "full frame" cameras.
So that gives it a crop factor of 158mm in a 35mm comparison. Better working distance than the Nikon 105 Micro, but less then the Nikon 200mm Micro? Or is that not correct?
-
So that gives it a crop factor of 158mm in a 35mm comparison. Better working distance than the Nikon 105 Micro, but less then the Nikon 200mm Micro? Or is that not correct?
I think you have it backwards. Field of view of that lens on GFX50 sensor would be same as what you see with a 90mm lens on 24x36mm sensor.
-
I figured the 35mm crop factor at .79 for the Fuji 200mm because the Fuji GF 63mm f/2.8 R WR is a 50mm equivalent lens. So I got the crop factor wrong?
-
Taking a horizontal measure of 35.9mm (FX) and 43.8 (GFX50s) gives a factor of 0.82 (39.5/43.8=0.82). A 120mm lens on the GFX50s will give the field of view of a 98mm lens on Nikon FX. The difference isn't that much to me.
Dave Hartman
I totally replaced the original post as it was confusing as hell. Sorry for any confusion.
-
I figured the 35mm crop factor at .79 for the Fuji 200mm because the Fuji GF 63mm f/2.8 R WR is a 50mm equivalent lens. So I got the crop factor wrong?
I thought you were talking about the 120/4 noted by bjornthun. Your math is correct, we just appear to be starting from a different point.
-
I am VERY sorry to report that Diglloyd (Lloyd Chambers), who has received a Fuji GFX, has almost nothing good to say about it, so far. In fact, this may be the most disparaging initial review of a camera I have ever seen him offer.
Since I will receive the camera in a few days, I will see for myself, but it definitely throws a cast on my happy expectations. You can read some of his comments here:
https://diglloyd.com/
If you want to read chapter and verse, as I did, you would have to subscribe to his Medium Format column, which for me is more than worth it. If his comments bear out, I may return the whole system or immediately sell it and retire from the wanting-a-medium-format-camera syndrome... for a while.
On a more positive note, what I need from the GFX is, essentially, what I hoped for in an update for my D810. I don't need a walk-around camera and I seldom use autofocus. I need a good EVF and better LiveView screen than the D810. Since the GFX is so programmable, it may take me a day or two to position the features I actually use so that I can easily get to them. Since I plan to (if all works well) use non-Fuji lenses with an adapter, I may be able to configure the camera for my uses and get some use out of it until Nikon decides to do... something in my behalf.
-
I think you have it backwards. Field of view of that lens on GFX50 sensor would be same as what you see with a 90mm lens on 24x36mm sensor.
Oh nuts, I'm brain dead! When I figured the crop factor I chose a (as it turns out, mythical) 200mm Fuji lens, instead of the plainly stated 120mm. Don't ask me why I made that stupid switch, no telling what my answer might be. :(
I was wanting to compare working distances between the Nikon 105 Micro, the Nikon 200 mm Micro, and this new Fuji lens. Then for some reason 200mm was on my brain. Isn't old age fun.........
-
Neither you nor I are native English speakers, btw. :o
You can ask any English scholar to find out whether I am correct or not. Your words were already misunderstood by someone else which is why I responded to clarify how people would likely interpret those words. I'm not trying to be a smart ass, and I understand the value of personal expression but I feel one should do one's best to avoid being misunderstood since conversations online get archived and it can be difficult to find the real information if many of the posts are not easily understood. I think forum discussion should be written in such a way that it will be easy to do a search and find the good information that one is looking for, quickly. I realize this is often not the case in practice. However, it is a worthwhile goal in my opinion, and one that I aspire to, even if sometimes it is forgotten.
-
I am VERY sorry to report that Diglloyd (Lloyd Chambers), who has received a Fuji GFX, has almost nothing good to say about it, so far. In fact, this may be the most disparaging initial review of a camera I have ever seen him offer.
Since I will receive the camera in a few days, I will see for myself, but it definitely throws a cast on my happy expectations. You can read some of his comments here:
https://diglloyd.com/
If you want to read chapter and verse, as I did, you would have to subscribe to his Medium Format column, which for me is more than worth it. If his comments bear out, I may return the whole system or immediately sell it and retire from the wanting-a-medium-format-camera syndrome... for a while.
On a more positive note, what I need from the GFX is, essentially, what I hoped for in an update for my D810. I don't need a walk-around camera and I seldom use autofocus. I need a good EVF and better LiveView screen than the D810. Since the GFX is so programmable, it may take me a day or two to position the features I actually use so that I can easily get to them. Since I plan to (if all works well) use non-Fuji lenses with an adapter, I may be able to configure the camera for my uses and get some use out of it until Nikon decides to do... something in my behalf.
Someone suggested on another forum that Loyd Chambers might have put the camera into a bracketing mode without realizing it. If it's a firmware bug, Fuji will fix it.
-
I does sound like a 'auto' bracketing issue or something similar, let see when people start using them for real how the images look like.
They are available as demo units here in Copenhagen.
-
Fujifilm has announced a 120/4 macro, and my guess is that equipped with that lens on the GFX, one will not look back on "full frame" cameras.
It's a little disappointing to note the Fuji 120/4, and the recently announced Hasselblad 120/3.5 macro both only go to 1:2. Put together with the larger sensor size, an FX camera with 1:1 macro lens can crop about 2.4x smaller (linear). These new "medium format" macro lenses won't allow you to get very close... Even my ancient Pentax 645 120/4 macro gets to 1:1, and it has larger coverage, is a more compact lens, and it performs extremely well.
-
It's a little disappointing to note the Fuji 120/4, and the recently announced Hasselblad 120/3.5 macro both only go to 1:2. Put together with the larger sensor size, an FX camera with 1:1 macro lens can crop about 2.4x smaller (linear). These new "medium format" macro lenses won't allow you to get very close... Even my ancient Pentax 645 120/4 macro gets to 1:1, and it has larger coverage, is a more compact lens, and it performs extremely well.
The downside to (modern) macro lenses going all the way to 1:1 is, that they do so by shortening the focal length and thus reduce the resulting working distance at 1:1. Hopefully for their users, Fujifilm and Hasselblad will make matched closeup lenses or extension tubes to go to 1:1. The Zeiss 100/2 Makro Planar goes only to 1:2 and maintains its focal length almost completely, and you'll require the Nikon PN-11 to get to 1:1 magnification.
-
Michael, hope you won't lose any hairs...
-
There are even more adapters coming for the Fuji GFX, namely for Bronica ETRS and Pentax 645 and Pentax 67, according to mirrorlessrumors.
-
The downside to (modern) macro lenses going all the way to 1:1 is, that they do so by shortening the focal length and thus reduce the resulting working distance at 1:1. Hopefully for their users, Fujifilm and Hasselblad will make matched closeup lenses or extension tubes to go to 1:1. The Zeiss 100/2 Makro Planar goes only to 1:2 and maintains its focal length almost completely, and you'll require the Nikon PN-11 to get to 1:1 magnification.
True. Even the older medium format macro lenses shorten at close range, the Pentax 645 120/4 macro shortens to about 100mm at 1:1. This still leaves plenty of working distance. I quote the Pentax because I have one, I believe the equivalent Mamiya lens is similar.
By comparison, most common "FX" macro lenses start at 100 or 105mm at infinity, and shorten to less than 80mm at 1:1. At this point the working distance is getting a little short for some subjects. I wonder why slightly longer 120mm macro lenses aren't more common? I can think only of the CV 125/2.5. Lenses in this class would be relatively compact compared to 180/200mm macro lenses, and have a more useful working distance than 100mm macros...
-
Fujifilm has announced a 120/4 macro, and my guess is that equipped with that lens on the GFX, one will not look back on "full frame" cameras.
I could have had one today at my brick and mortar for 10.000 Euros with the 120mm and the Body and Viewfinder.
-
As it Turns Out, No GFX for Me
I am sorry to report that after examining the Fuji GFX 50s system in some detail, for my work mind you, it is not quite ready for prime time. I am sure many will be happy to have it, but for the particular type of close-up work I do, it just does not quite make it. I can mention a few things, but keep in mind most of these are probably particular to me.
Although it was not that important to me, the GFX is boxy and unattractive physically. I could not have cared less, as long as it was a workhorse for the particular kind of photo work I do. Sadly, I remain unimpressed by the GFX as a workhorse, and this after putting it through its paces as to what most concerns me.
The two lenses that I purchased with it (63mm and 120mm) did not cut the mustard. The 63mm lens simply is not what I was led to expect in Fuji lenses. There was nothing I could find to recommend it, and I would have returned it if I had kept the system.
The 120mm Macro is a different story. It actually is sharp and generally OK. However it is big as all get-out and extends so far out (with its hood) from the body of the GFX that in magnified mode I picked up vibrations of the tiniest floor movement in the studio. That and the fact that its widest aperture is f/4 made it not something I would actually find myself using. And the results did not compare to many of the lenses I have for FF, like the Zeiss Otus series, and others. I had hoped it would sweep me off my feet, but here I stand.
After that, I told myself that the GFX is the least expensive 50 Mpx digital back on the market, and I have dozens of lenses (non-Fuji) that I am waiting to use on the camera. And so I did. I found out, for instance that all of the Zeiss Otus APO lenses (plus the 135mm APO Zeiss) all work well on the GFX. No vignetting, aside from the Otus 28mm, which has a slight corner darkening, but still (for my interests) very usable. That was all good, but there was bad news after that.
While your use may vary, I soon found out that mounting these non-Fuji lenses on the Fotodiox Nikon adapter (which does both “G” and older F-mount lenses) worked, but a price was paid for doing so in terms of IQ. Wanting to keep the GFX, I did my best to give the GFX the benefit of the doubt with these alternative lenses, but common sense overtook me and instead I began to doubt the benefit of doing all this. And hanging heavy glass off the end of the GFX led me to go looking around the studio for some rails I have to support the larger lenses.
And lastly, and perhaps most important for me was that (at least I found) in post-processing the raw files (using ACR) did not have the bandwidth I am used to in the Nikon D810. In particular the blacks, which on the Nikon D810 seem to stretch out forever, on the GFX were there and blown in a flash. What is this? It is almost like their files are not true raw. Perhaps they are some pre-processed form of raw, and I will await the techsperts to tell me what is happening there. As for me, I REALLY didn’t like it. If there is one thing that sealed the deal for returning the system, that was it. I need raw files with at least as much bandwidth as the Nikon raw files.
I had no trouble using the menus, and while the EVF (and LiveView) screens were not totally as nice as I had imagined, they were nicer than the ones on my Nikon D810. Still, when they get dark and grainy, they get dark and grainy. After waiting seven months for the X1D and since January for the GFX, I was loathe not to have a MF mirrorless camera, but as it turns out, I don’t have one.
Again, don’t mind me. I have a very narrow range of what I appear to need to be happy with photo gear. I wouldn’t even bother to post this report, except that I made so much noise about the advent of the GFX, that I feel I owe a report to someone, if only to myself. So, there we have it.
I will wait for the MF scene to continue to develop and perhaps Nikon might actually come across with a 50 Mpx D820 and I would be happy with that. Certainly the Nikon D810 is the finest (all around) camera I have ever used and I will continue to use it. I might even purchase a second copy!
-
Thank you for your report/review! You did what you could to put it through it's paces I'm sure.
I have heard some of the points from other photographers, if that is any conciliation,,,
The hunt continues, good you didn't loose hope.
-
As Eric said, thanks for reporting your continuing saga. All info is valuable, especially from an individual that has provided as much ongoing background info as you have for us.
-
Shocking news for me. I was so sure Fuji would cut it but file quality below D810 standard is a killer argument. The wait for the D820 or whatever they might call it gets more urgent. I even contemplate to add a used D810 to my arsenal soon. Thank you, Michael. Big disappointment.
I guess the results would be better if Fuji would have sticked to what the know and can do. XTrans with superb JPEG and genious RAF.
-
Shocking news for me. I was so sure Fuji would cut it but file quality below D810 standard is a killer argument. The wait for the D820 or whatever they might call it gets more urgent. I even contemplate to add a used D810 to my arsenal soon. Thank you, Michael. Big disappointment.
I guess the results would be better if Fuji would have sticked to what the know and can do. XTrans with superb JPEG and genious RAF.
That is just my experience. For all I know, perhaps I did something wrong in the post-processing, but I was carefully to set all of the raw file selections. Others may find a better experience, but the only reason I use raw is for the ability to recover from my various mistakes in lighting, etc. And I always expose to the left, not the right, so not being able to get the range in the blacks affected me a lot. I need that range for recovery, etc.
-
And I always expose to the left, not the right, so not being able to get the range in the blacks affected me a lot. I need that range for recovery, etc.
Just a general remark: exposing to the left is not even a well-defined concept. What do you mean exactly? And why do you do it?
Anyway, if you have a choice, intentionally underexposing is a terrible idea. There is nothing at all to be gained from it. On the contrary: you are guaranteed to get the performance of a sensor that is several generations older (depending on how much you underexpose).
Please do yourself a favor and learn to expose to the right (it's not that hard). You are otherwise wasting a big chunk of the potential of whatever gear you are using.
As for being able to pull up shadows, a lot depends on how the controls are applied to the RAW data, which differs between RAW converters. You have to examine the RAW data itself e.g. in RawDigger or a similar program in order to see what's going on (e.g. whether there is a high noise floor due to read noise and thermal noise). It may well be that the next update for the RAW converter gives better control. But this has nothing to do with the sensor hardware.
Maybe you remember the day when Adobe released the 2012 process version for ACR: it suddenly became much easier to pull out detail even from older files.
-
Just a general remark: exposing to the left is not even a well-defined concept. What do you mean exactly? And why do you do it?
Anyway, if you have a choice, intentionally underexposing is a terrible idea. There is nothing at all to be gained from it. On the contrary: you are guaranteed to get the performance of a sensor that is several generations older (depending on how much you underexpose).
Please do yourself a favor and learn to expose to the right (it's not that hard). You are otherwise wasting a big chunk of the potential of whatever gear you are using.
As for being able to pull up shadows, a lot depends on how the controls are applied to the RAW data, which differs between RAW converters. You have to examine the RAW data itself e.g. in RawDigger or a similar program in order to see what's going on (e.g. whether there is a high noise floor due to read noise and thermal noise). It may well be that the next update for the RAW converter gives better control. But this has nothing to do with the sensor hardware.
Maybe you remember the day when Adobe released the 2012 process version for ACR: it suddenly became much easier to pull out detail even from older files.
Of course I know how to expose to the right. I find that I like my results better when i don't expose too much to the right, but rather make sure my shadows (black) is ample. I should not have shared that with some of you folks, but in truth the fun in photography for me comes with the lowest legitimate ISO and the ability to have plenty of play in the blacks. You know what you like; so do I. :)
-
It is not so surprising; most cameras don't match the D810's base ISO dynamic range but I guess with a slightly larger sensor it should have been in the same ball park for the Fuji. However, from ISO 400 up it should be a really big surprise if the Fuji were not ahead. Perhaps soon there will be some formal tests of the raw data which can distinguish between the quality of the raw data and differences in processing. Since it's a Bayer sensor more sites can analyse it than with X-Trans.
-
It is not so surprising; most cameras don't get close to the D810's base ISO dynamic range. However, from ISO 400 up it should be a really big surprise if the Fuji were not ahead. Perhaps soon there will be some formal tests of the raw data which can distinguish between the quality of the raw data and differences in processing. Since it's a Bayer sensor more sites can analyse it than with X-Trans.
In my case, I (seldom to) never use that high an ISO; I am a bottom feeder when it comes to dynamic range.
-
Of course I know how to expose to the right. I find that I like my results better when i don't expose too much to the right, but rather make sure my shadows (black) is ample. I should not have shared that with some of you folks, but in truth the fun in photography for me comes with the lowest legitimate ISO and the ability to have plenty of play in the blacks. You know what you like; so do I. :)
You can always dial back the exposure in the RAW converter. But if you start out with the brightest part of the image 2 stops below the clipping point, you are giving up 2 stops of dynamic range, and they will never come back.
Of course exposing to the right does not mean bumping the ISO, it means giving more exposure.
-
It is not so surprising; most cameras don't match the D810's base ISO dynamic range but I guess with a slightly larger sensor it should have been in the same ball park for the Fuji. However, from ISO 400 up it should be a really big surprise if the Fuji were not ahead. Perhaps soon there will be some formal tests of the raw data which can distinguish between the quality of the raw data and differences in processing. Since it's a Bayer sensor more sites can analyse it than with X-Trans.
Shouldn't the Fuji have roughly 2/3 of a stop advantage based on sensor size alone? Of course performance can be worse than what is predicted from the increase in sensor size if for some reason there are other noise sources. But to me it would be quite a big surprise and a serious failure in design if the Fuji came out worse than the D810 at the same ISO. I'm also looking forward to some more 'scientific' tests.
On the other hand, this same argument would predict that we are unlikely to see a one stop advantage or more in dynamic range. Thus any dynamic range advantage over the D810 can only be exploited by using optimal shooting parameters.
-
The D810 has ISO 64 as base ISO, the Fuji has 100.
-
Sad to hear that the Fuji didn't scratch your itch. I guess it shows that your current equipment is really quite good.
-
The problem for the GFX sensor/in-camera RAW file processing, seems to be that it is sensitive or unforgiving with regards to highlights, then ETTR is flawed/hindered since your only option is to turn down the exposure to avoid blooming etc,,, Sort of how it was in the beginning with Nikon D1
The sensor in the D810 seems to be extremely forgiving with regards to blown highlights,,, recovery in PP is mind boggling - To me it seems like Nikon has stumbled upon a sensor and in-camera RAW firmware processing Fine line that is extremely capable even though its a 36MP FF sensor.
We can hope Fuji is able to tweak the firmware on the GFX, but so far it doesn't look promising,,, all test I have seen has had these blocked shadow/dark areas more or less,,,
Sony has similar Fine line performance for the A7R II,,, really an impressive camera!
-
The problem for the GFX sensor/in-camera RAW file processing, seems to be that it is sensitive or unforgiving with regards to highlights, then ETTR is flawed/hindered since your only option is to turn down the exposure to avoid blooming etc,,, Sort of how it was in the beginning with Nikon D1
The sensor in the D810 seems to be extremely forgiving with regards to blown highlights,,, recovery in PP is mind boggling - To me it seems like Nikon has stumbled upon a sensor and in-camera RAW firmware processing Fine line that is extremely capable even though its a 36MP FF sensor.
We can hope Fuji is able to tweak the firmware on the GFX, but so far it doesn't look promising,,, all test I have seen has had these blocked shadow/dark areas more or less,,,
Sony has similar Fine line performance for the A7R II,,, really an impressive camera!
My understanding is that the Nikon D810 base ISO was a specially-designed hardware implementation in order to feature that particular ISO 64, and it works really well. I found it hard to be without that kind of quality, which I did not (to the best of my ability) find in the GFX. Nikon does a lot of things right. They just are behind the curve (for me) in updating their high-end landscape DSLR.
-
The D810 has ISO 64 as base ISO, the Fuji has 100.
Thanks!
-
Not to be pessimistic but sometimes new is not always better in all regards/ on all specs,,,
This is clearly demonstrated with the D5 on Dynamic range, where the D4s is clearly and by far superior at the lower ISO values - Yes I know its PJ action camera but still,,,
So a new D820 might not even be better dynamic range or what ever, than the D810 at base ISO 64,,,
BTW I also by far prefer to capture my images at ISO 64 disregarding ETTR or ETTL,,,
-
Not to be pessimistic but sometimes new is not always better in all regards/ on all specs,,,
This is clearly demonstrated with the D5 on Dynamic range, where the D4s is clearly and by far superior at the lower ISO values - Yes I know its PJ action camera but still,,,
So a new D820 might not even be better dynamic range or what ever, than the D810 at base ISO 64,,,
BTW I also by far prefer to capture my images at ISO 64 disregarding ETTR or ETTL,,,
Well, if the D810 update gives up the ISO 64, I will just buy a second D810 or look for whatever next mirrorless medium-format beast comes down the pike.
-
BTW I also by far prefer to capture my images at ISO 64 disregarding ETTR or ETTL,,,
Of course. My point is (and this is why I bring this up in the context of Micheal chasing the holy grail of sensor performance) that if you consistently underexpose your images, even at ISO 64, you are not exploiting the potential of your sensor, and by far. E.g. if you consistently underexpose by two stops (compared to ETTR), you could improve your DR by almost 2 stops (I say almost because you have to be careful not to blow anything, so it's usually worth stopping a bit earlier unless you are tethering and can see your RAW histogram while shooting) without buying any new piece of gear.
To get the same performance, you could also wait a decade or two until they release cameras with a base ISO of 16, if that will ever happen, just so you can continue exposing the same way (i.e. two stops under).
Anyway, we won't get 16 stops of dynamic range with a 14 bit ADC, however you define DR.
In summary, my point is that if you are trying to squeeze every last tenth of a stop of DR from your gear, you cannot afford NOT to apply ETTR.
-
There is a lot between the lines here,,, and I believe all interested are familiar with ETTR so let's keep at the topic at hand before this derails too much ;)
Please share if and when you see reports on the GFX,,,
-
Here a Danish review,,, Did I mention the shadows,,, yes they are gone :o
https://jonasraskphotography.com/2017/01/19/the-fujifilm-gfx-50s-review-portable-beast/
-
Here a Danish review,,, Did I mention the shadows,,, yes they are gone :o
https://jonasraskphotography.com/2017/01/19/the-fujifilm-gfx-50s-review-portable-beast/
very nice photography
-
Here a Danish review,,, Did I mention the shadows,,, yes they are gone :o
https://jonasraskphotography.com/2017/01/19/the-fujifilm-gfx-50s-review-portable-beast/
This seems to be his style, judging from the portfolio.
He had no RAWs to work with on the computer.
Now ACR 9.9 seems to support the GFX 50s files.
If anyone cares to put some RAWs on a dropbox folder, I would love to play with them a little bit.
-
Dpreview posted some samples (jpeg). Hi-res, but pretty much as expected. I'm not sure how the IQ compares with that of D810 or A7RII with excellent sensors. I'm curious about the test result of DXOmarks. They have ignored the Trans-X sensros but would not ignore GFX.
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6143051542/fujifilm-gfx-50s-on-the-streets-of-tokyo-a-shooting-experience
-
Again very very dark shadows blocking,,, in all images
-
This seems to be his style, judging from the portfolio.
He had no RAWs to work with on the computer.
Now ACR 9.9 seems to support the GFX 50s files.
If anyone cares to put some RAWs on a dropbox folder, I would love to play with them a little bit.
Funny since he is talking about exposing really hot on the x-trans sensor blowing out highs, ETTR,,,
-
Well, I would not put too much weight on this. It seems that he is working a lot with film simulation modes. Most of them will bump the contrast quite a bit, i.e. they are far away from a 'flat' profile. ETTR mandates a flat profile and unitary white balance, otherwise you never now whether the raw file has been clipped or not.
He says
All the images for this review are jpegs that I have “developed” in the in camera RAW converter. At the time of testing there was no way for me to use the RAW files. So all the images you see here are straight from camera jpegs. Now isn’t that something!
and
The one thing that struck me most about the IQ was the incredible dynamics of the files. The colors are abundantly clear and rich. The textures are vibrant and lively and the in/out of focus transitions are a sight to behold. All of this naturally comes from a larger physical sensor, but also due to the image processing power of the GFX.
This is a very warm appraisal of the technical qualities of the camera, but it's hard to see what is going on below the hood. I understand that he is quite fond of the JPEG output of the camera. We have known this about Fuji for quite some time; they produce great JPEGs out of camera.
The color processing and the film simulations that you can use with the GFX is great for nature and landscape photography. This is clearly one of the strength of larger sensor format cameras.
Here, it is not clear to me what his reasoning is. I don't see the connection between film simulations and sensor size. The same (or very similar) film simulations are also available on Fuji's APS-C cameras.
His shots are quite interesting, but it is hard to extract any information about the real behavior of the sensor.
For that, we will have to wait for some RAWs.
-
Funny since he is talking about exposing really hot on the x-trans sensor blowing out highs, ETTR,,,
From ny XTrans X100T I can recover highlights like I have never seen it on any Bayer sensor. ETTR is easily done if you can recover skin from white up to 3 stops.
-
After sleeping over Michael's news I feel it is to early to judge.
RAW converters have to mature on this new Sony offering and people need experience with its characteristics to get the most from the files.
As I wait for sinar to make my bellows I will not be an early adopter anyway.
Firmware updates are to be expected too.
-
After sleeping over Michael's news I feel it is to early to judge.
RAW converters have to mature on this new Sony offering and people need experience with its characteristics to get the most from the files.
As I wait for sinar to make my bellows I will not be an early adopter anyway.
Firmware updates are to be expected too.
I agree with Frank. The GFX is still in the development stage. For me, there were too many variables that required some attention for me to actually use it happily, when the IQ of the Nikon D810 is very close. I will wait for Nikon's D820 or perhaps the rumored Sony 72mm mirrorless camera. While I liked a lot of the features on the GFX, I seem to have had a little culture shock, with the response being how very "nice" the D810 actually is. It is hard to move away from a camera like the D810, unless there are factors that compel one to. I could not find enough of those factors in the GFX, although I am sure that those who stick with the GFX will find a way to be comfortable. My time, right now, is better spent in being more careful with the D810 and seeing if I can't get what I feel I need from that camera.
And it might help to understand that I am really fussy about what cameras I want to invest my time in, aside from any monetary considerations. As an early Internet developer, I am pretty teched out at this point. I have lived on the bleeding edge for some 44 years. These days I am looking for products that work for me more than I work for them. Fine lenses have been my priority, but ultimately I do have to have a camera to mount them on. LOL.
-
Is there really much to gain from D810 and 36 MP to, let´s say 42-44 in IQ? I struggle with macro images and can get by with my Zeiss 135 and a Raynox 150 on the front. It is not perfect in any way but so far I have nothing better in my drawer. I shoot at ISO 64 but are hard pressed to use f16-20 for that thin DoF. On it´s way is an old bellows lens 105mm f4.0 to be mounted in front of a 105mm f4.0 Ais with the help of a K3 ring and maybe, just maybe that would do it for me. I have been looking for a MF camera and was close to get a Hasselblad H4 and a 120mm macro lens but think it is way to cumbersome to handle in front of the aquarium tank.