Fuji GFX studio scene test on dpreview.com

[Akira]

It has just posted.

You can compare GFX, Nikon D810, Sony A7RII and Pentax 645Z.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-gfx-50s

To my eyes, at ISO 100, the image from Fuji is the most ordinary.  The peripheral area (green and brown feathers) are the least sharp among these four.

In short, it seems to coincide with our Michael's findings.

[Erik Lund]

Wow - What an amazing amount of pixels from the GFX,,,

To my eyes the Nikkor 85mm AFS 1.4G at f/5.6 helps the D810 produce an admirable comparative image to the GFX with the 63mm,,,

[Ilkka Nissilä]

The D810 images show a lot more false colour (moire) in the white text than the images from the GFX.

[Akira]

Yes, the fidelity of the printed letters is impressive.

I wonder whether the sensor has the AA filter?  I find no mention of the AA filter on their official webpage...

[Erik Lund]

I have read that they are without AA filter,,,

[gryphon1911]

While the Fuji is quite impressive, it is equally impressive at what Nikon is capable of pulling from the 135 sensor in the D800 series cameras.

[Akira]

The D810 images show a lot more false colour (moire) in the white text than the images from the GFX.

Apparently Pentax645Z shows less moire in the same white test.

I have read that they are without AA filter,,,

Thanks, Erik.  Pentax645Z doesn't have AA filter either, so Pentax seems to be able to control moire better.

While the Fuji is quite impressive, it is equally impressive at what Nikon is capable of pulling from the 135 sensor in the D800 series cameras.

Indeed.  Also, I'm surprised how Nikon retains rich, saturated color at high ISO.  D750 is even more impressive, despite the lower resolution.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Maybe it's just that the Nikon lens is so much higher resolution that with 36MP there is moire whereas the MF lenses are not. Not a fault of the camera as such but shows that the lenses would do better with a higher resolution sensor.

[Akira]

Possibly.  And maybe that proves the difficulty to retain the image quality (or the flatness of the field) in the larger area.

[simsurace]

Are you guys now seeing those problems with dynamic range that have been talked about recently on this forum?

[Erik Lund]

Yes and they mention it in the text,,, The histogram looks different than D810, more compressed and ETTL, when opened in Adobe RAW and this is at ISO 100 the D810 goes down to ISO64,,,

[simsurace]

If I may ask: how can you infer the dynamic range from the degree to which the histogram is bunched up in ACR (note that ACR does not display a RAW histogram, but a histogram after conversion)?

I do not refer to the dpreview text since I cannot test their findings now. I'm asking whether you are seeing the problems yourself.

[Akira]

Are you guys now seeing those problems with dynamic range that have been talked about recently on this forum?

In general, I don't think it really possible to assess the dynamic range from the studio scene shots.  The metal palettes on the above left and the below right corners are always clipped abruptly and the details are lost.  I mostly assess the resolution on the feathers, high-ISO noise on the wine bottle labels and the grey background and color saturation on the Macbeth color chart.

[Erik Lund]

Sorry, but I don't understand,,, 'bounced up' ? I do, but what is the problem, this is not a sciences lab,,,

I don't have the camera at hand, I have not shot any images with it, I'm just giving my opinion on what I see in ACR. And what people put up online. You are entitled to see something else with the same converter or another RAW converter 

Why will you not refer to what they write, this is just their opinion and thoughts, just as I have mine, but OK feel free to not comment on it,,,

To my eyes the samples are pretty close regarding most things, I said the GFX has a lot of pixels but the 85mm AFS 1.4 G looks like it is helping the D810,,, implying they should have done the test with the 120mm that seems to be a better performer according to reviewers all around, but I can only state what I see from looking at these samples,,, and what Michael said, and I agree with him on his exposures and the look and feel of the files,,,

You will not see me make a statement on if the GFX has a DR of 12 or 14, you should know that - I leave that for the number crushers out there

My point is sort of; We hear this GFX is a new wonder and much better than old obsolete cameras like the vintage D810 - Many people say they would like a new D820 since it would be much better,,, Not so, new is not always better I have learned over the years - just look at the D810 it has unforgivable flaws compared to some of it's predecessors,,,, for some users,,, Chassis/mount weak, small battery and need for an grip to mention just obvious ones,,,

[Erik Lund]

Here is the quote

Dynamic Range
,,,
However, the exposure latitude test, where we lift the shadows in images shot at progressively lower exposures shows that its performance is only slightly better than that of the D810, despite receiving more total light (double the exposure time and half the light per square cm, captured on a sensor with more square cm of area). Now consider the fact that the D810 has an ISO 64 mode, which would allow you to use a 2/3EV brighter exposure before the sensor clips. We expect this will give a real-world result similar to when we pitted the Pentax 645Z against the Nikon.However, Fujifilm does claim to have increased the 'Photic Saturation Point' (by which we assume they mean 'full well capacity'), by 1/3EV so we'll need to conduct a full expose-to-the-right side-by-side test to be sure.

I can't see an issue with this statement. Quite the opposite, it's a mighty fine sensor.