Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: henrikfoto on November 05, 2017, 03:29:43 pm
-
I am tempted to buy one of these medium format cameras. Mostly I want it to use my old
Hasselblad V and Contax 645 lenses. Manually with live view. My question is this:
Is the one camera really better than the other? Size and stylichness is not important to me.
Just functions and iq matters.
The lenses I hope to use is the Apo macro Planar Contax, 55 mm Contax, 35 mm Contax,
Hasselblad 100mm cfi, Hasselblad 180mm cfi, Hasselblad 250mm sa, Hasselblad 300 sa.
etc.
Henrik
-
I am tempted to buy one of these medium format cameras. Mostly I want it to use my old
Hasselblad V and Contax 645 lenses. Manually with live view. My question is this:
Is the one camera really better than the other? Size and stylichness is not important to me.
Just functions and iq matters.
The lenses I hope to use is the Apo macro Planar Contax, 55 mm Contax, 35 mm Contax,
Hasselblad 100mm cfi, Hasselblad 180mm cfi, Hasselblad 250mm sa, Hasselblad 300 sa.
etc.
Henrik
With the native lenses for both systems mounted on the GFX and the X1D, I personally don't think there is much to choose between the systems in terms of image quality. Both are very capable of superb results. The camera systems are different in terms of size, weight, ergonomics and "feel." Those things apparently don't matter to you. However, depending upon subject matter, the only realistic choice may be the GFX, given the lenses you want to use. The GFX has a focal plane shutter and should work well with those lenses and an adapter. With the X1D, you would have to use the electronic shutter, which may not work for you depending upon what you want to shoot. ES is not practical with hand holding or anything that moves.
-
Thank you! That is very interesting and seems to be the chapest option too :)
-
Thank you! That is very interesting and seems to be the chapest option too :)
Yes, that's a nice side benefit. I personally chose the X1D over the GFX after trying both, but what was of critical importance to me is not important to you.
-
Also, the Contax 645 lenses are a little bit tricky to adapt, as they are controlled electronically.
The only existing adapter (Leica S not included), I know about, comes from "fringeradapter" and works with Fuji GFX only (AF and aperture control).
As regards V lenses, for Fuji (Fotodiox, Novoflex) and Hasselblad (Kipon), adapters are already available, even Hasselblad is developing an adapter for the X1D.
As regards quality: after testing both cameras with basically the same sensor, I concluded that the colors and noise performance are a bit different and I preferred the Hasselblad. But that depends a lot on the post-processing pipeline which I do not like so much for the Fuji. It's a shame that both camera-raw-files do not work with P1 software.
-
With the native lenses for both systems mounted on the GFX and the X1D, I personally don't think there is much to choose between the systems in terms of image quality. Both are very capable of superb results.
I have both cameras. Totally agree with this assessment.
-
The only existing adapter (Leica S not included), I know about, comes from "fringeradapter" and works with Fuji GFX only (AF and aperture control).
Thank you! This is very important to me!
I hope that C1 will be usable in the future for the Fuji-files.
-
Hi,
That is not probable. Phase One has a long tradition of not supporting competing MFD.
Best regards
Erik
The only existing adapter (Leica S not included), I know about, comes from "fringeradapter" and works with Fuji GFX only (AF and aperture control).
I hope that C1 will be usable in the future for the Fuji-files.
-
It's not entirely impossible now, two simple changes to the raw files (raf) and C1 works fine with the GFX files. Only works on captured to card images, no tethering, probably ever due to the current P1 policy.
Paul Caldwell
-
Paul - I tried that - with no built in profile I tried tons, the images looked like crap. Maybe I missed something?
-
If the process is done correct, the images will load with the C1 default profile for a IQ250 or 350 depending what you named them. You also need to make sure the files are seen in C1 as a IQ back with a IQ back profile loaded. If you don't leave a space between name, the files will load but will look like crap as you mention.
PM me if you like.
I do all the name changing on my Mac, with a batch tool. You have to do the raf to dng first. I use the Adobe dng converter for this, then change the names required. I tried the Iridient raf to dng and did not like the way the files looked, however no problems with the adobe dng converter.
Paul Caldwell
-
Ah, I just converted to dng and tried the cmos IQ and Leaf profiles. It was a rental though, I didn't buy one, but this is good to know going forward.
-
I'd say test both cameras to see which you like better. The X1D is smaller and lighter than the Fuji so if you want a walk-around camera, it's probably the better choice. The smaller, sleeker size has allowed me to shoot MF in many cases where I would have otherwise shot small format. If you're shooting in studio or locked down on a tripod, then size won't matter so much. For me, the deciding factor was the leaf shutter in the Hasselblad. I need it to overpower sunlight. If neither size nor shutter is a concern, the I'd probably go with Fuji. Their customer service is way more responsive than Hasselblad as far as I can tell. A Hasselblad repair can take months while they send your camera on a slow boat to Sweden.
-
same sensor, cameras could not be more different..."hasselblad is the gem, fuji the workhorse" whatever that means....IQ should be pretty much the same, difference is probably more down to lenses used....
if you want to use any other lenses then the original system lenses, GFX really is the only way to go....X1D can now adapt 3rd party lenses but e shutter is more or less useless on both cameras because of sensor read out time....so any kind of movement (within the frame or with camera) brings "interesting and artistic" shots....
biggest drawback on the GFX could be considered rear shutter because of limited flash sync speed (compared to X1D lens shutter) but it in turn allows to use pretty much any lens....there is also very well documented HSS, HS....
-
Could not disagree more on the E shutter on the GFX. I personally use it all the time outdoors in windy conditions. It's just like the E shutter on the IQ3100. You have to be on a tripod for sure as any movement by the photographer will be easily seen, but moving subject matter unless the winds are blowing 20mph or faster are fine. You can't use it on a moving person, or car or any object moving at a high rate of speed across the entire sensor. Leaves OK I guess as they are individually not taking up a lot of sensor space.
E Shutter on both cameras and now on the D850 work all about the same IMO. Not for hand holding, but on tripod out outdoor conditions, fine.
I guess since you have two varied opinions, you will need to demo both cameras to see, but for me the E shutter is used daily.
Paul Caldwell
-
Could not disagree more on the E shutter on the GFX. I personally use it all the time outdoors in windy conditions. It's just like the E shutter on the IQ3100. You have to be on a tripod for sure as any movement by the photographer will be easily seen, but moving subject matter unless the winds are blowing 20mph or faster are fine. You can't use it on a moving person, or car or any object moving at a high rate of speed across the entire sensor. Leaves OK I guess as they are individually not taking up a lot of sensor space.
E Shutter on both cameras and now on the D850 work all about the same IMO. Not for hand holding, but on tripod out outdoor conditions, fine.
I guess since you have two varied opinions, you will need to demo both cameras to see, but for me the E shutter is used daily.
Paul Caldwell
read out time is 1/4? sec for both cameras
not sure when the last time was that i have used a shutter speed that slow.....
i use the e shutter on the A7RII all the time at any speed.....not sure what read out time is but i haven't had any issues.....people, moving objects, handheld......
i never said that e shutter isn't useable on the X1D or GFX but to me being limited to 1/4 sec shutter is un workable....others might be fine, either way it needs to be pointed out....
-
Hi,
E-shutter on the IQ3100MP is even much slower, but many photographers still feel it is beneficial. It probably works well for small objects not moving very fast.
The GFX does have electronic first curtain and that makes it more general use.
If you make significant use of third party lenses, like T&S or technical cameras, the GFX would probably make a lot of sense.
A significant number of new lenses for the X1D are promised for 2018. That indicates that Hasselblad is really serious about the X-system.
It may also indicate a bit that mirrorless is where the future of MFD is.
Which one is better? That would be hard to say. Sensor is essentially same. It seems that Fujifilm is putting a lot of design effort in the GFX lenses. Hasselblad publishes real world MTF data for the X-lenses and last time I checked they were very good.
It may be that it matters little which one is better. They are probably very good and it takes a lot of care to get maximum performance from either. An don't forget, diffraction limit is always around and it is essentially the same for any lens on the planet.
Best regards
Erik
Could not disagree more on the E shutter on the GFX. I personally use it all the time outdoors in windy conditions. It's just like the E shutter on the IQ3100. You have to be on a tripod for sure as any movement by the photographer will be easily seen, but moving subject matter unless the winds are blowing 20mph or faster are fine. You can't use it on a moving person, or car or any object moving at a high rate of speed across the entire sensor. Leaves OK I guess as they are individually not taking up a lot of sensor space.
E Shutter on both cameras and now on the D850 work all about the same IMO. Not for hand holding, but on tripod out outdoor conditions, fine.
I guess since you have two varied opinions, you will need to demo both cameras to see, but for me the E shutter is used daily.
Paul Caldwell
-
I think the electronic shutter is very interesting for macrowork and most nature photography etc.
Will the readout-time likely be shorter after later opdates to the firmware?
Has any of you used Phase, Hasselblad or Contax 645 lenses on the Fuji with adapters?
-
I think the electronic shutter is very interesting for macrowork and most nature photography etc.
Will the readout-time likely be shorter after later opdates to the firmware?
This would be very surprising, I understand this is a physical characteristic of the sensor.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
So, would this mean that with the constant increase in megapixels, we are not going to get a true global shutter anytime soon?
Eduardo
This would be very surprising, I understand this is a physical characteristic of the sensor.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
So, would this mean that with the constant increase in megapixels, we are not going to get a true global shutter anytime soon?
Eduardo
the sensor in both GFX and X1D is not really latest tech, but you are right, we are not really close to a true global shutter and especially not with those dimensions.....sony cant do it for their cinema cameras or FF....right now....
fuji included the e shutter option right from the start, did not really make a big deal about it, its very limited application was pointed out in every early review....
hasselblad adding it later (obviously because of the 3rd party lens options) and announcing it as a great new functionality is strange to me.....i guess it was the only option to get other lenses to work with the X1D and it obviously is better to have then not to have but there has been a lot of misinformation about this out there.....
but i guess an announcement of "now with e shutter, all lenses can be used with adapters for shutter speeds equivalent up to 1/4 sec" does not sound too exciting....
-
I guess I don't understand the issue of fastest shutter of 1/4 second. I use the e shutter at speeds of 1/4 to 1/500 of a second even faster. Net, the shutter for me records the correct speed. I understand it's reading as a scan across the face of the sensor like a scanning back, however it's just not that limiting unless you are wanting to hand hold it. But to describe it like it's always going to record 1/4 of second results is to me not a good description. Yes large object crossing the sensor can and will give you a rolling shutter look, but so far for landscape work, it's just not an issue for me, besides the need for a tripod.
If that was the case, then in my work I would see a ton of movement in leaves and similar subject matter, and at a true 1/4 of a second, you would, however at 1/250, the results look just the same as if I was using the focal shutter at 1/250th. This is on a tripod, not hand held.
The ES on the GFX is not as important as the ES is on the IQ3100, as it makes a huge difference with longer glass. The results of shots taken from 100mm and up to 300mm are much better with no vibration issues, which the P1 XF has plenty of.
Works very well on a tech camera also.
Paul Caldwell
-
I guess I don't understand the issue of fastest shutter of 1/4 second. I use the e shutter at speeds of 1/4 to 1/500 of a second even faster. Net, the shutter for me records the correct speed. I understand it's reading as a scan across the face of the sensor like a scanning back, however it's just not that limiting unless you are wanting to hand hold it. But to describe it like it's always going to record 1/4 of second results is to me not a good description. Yes large object crossing the sensor can and will give you a rolling shutter look, but so far for landscape work, it's just not an issue for me, besides the need for a tripod.
If that was the case, then in my work I would see a ton of movement in leaves and similar subject matter, and at a true 1/4 of a second, you would, however at 1/250, the results look just the same as if I was using the focal shutter at 1/250th. This is on a tripod, not hand held.
The ES on the GFX is not as important as the ES is on the IQ3100, as it makes a huge difference with longer glass. The results of shots taken from 100mm and up to 300mm are much better with no vibration issues, which the P1 XF has plenty of.
Works very well on a tech camera also.
Paul Caldwell
the sensor because of its read out time cant handle anything moving faster then 1/4 sec.....regardless of shutter speed used.....you will get a proper exposure and depending on what and how it moves there will be more or less of a smearing effect.....but to get a "perfect" image, the camera and the object/subject will have to be still enough for (about) 1/4 sec.....
the effect will be different then a "normal" motion blur but a "rolling shutter" effect.....
for landscape, architecture and obviously still life this can be completely fine....nobody might notice that some leafs might appear bent when checked at 50%.....
for anything handheld or with anything remotely alive in the image, there will be an obvious effect....regardless of actual shutter speed....
you can easily test it by setting up your camera and having someone move across the frame.....
if your shutter speed usually stays in the 1/8 to 1 sec range the ES is completely fine.....i never shoot in that range and i almost never shoot on tripod, so i have even come across the effect on my sony when using the silent e shutter.....
-
I fully agree, yes anything moving across the entire frame will have rolling shutter effects.
However at least on the P1, Fuji and now D850 ES implementation, for landscape unless you have wind enough to move a tree trunk, the are no issues, leaves appear fine, not bent. I have tested this many times, taking a focal shot, then ES shot side by side, identical conditions. For landscape work at least for the work I do, so far the ES is fine. With really high winds, I will switch back to Focal.
I agree 100%, you are not going to hand hold it, you can see the effects just by looking at the LiveView.
The perfect solution will be global, but that's years off at least for larger MP implementations.
Not a 100% workable solution but for for many landscape requirements very workable. Not for large objects moving across the frame for sure.
Paul Caldwell
-
Hi,
Global shutter is a different technology.
Best regards
Erik
So, would this mean that with the constant increase in megapixels, we are not going to get a true global shutter anytime soon?
Eduardo
-
I fully agree, yes anything moving across the entire frame will have rolling shutter effects.
However at least on the P1, Fuji and now D850 ES implementation, for landscape unless you have wind enough to move a tree trunk, the are no issues, leaves appear fine, not bent. I have tested this many times, taking a focal shot, then ES shot side by side, identical conditions. For landscape work at least for the work I do, so far the ES is fine. With really high winds, I will switch back to Focal.
I agree 100%, you are not going to hand hold it, you can see the effects just by looking at the LiveView.
The perfect solution will be global, but that's years off at least for larger MP implementations.
Not a 100% workable solution but for for many landscape requirements very workable. Not for large objects moving across the frame for sure.
Paul Caldwell
don't know about the 850 but the A7RII (and probably A7RIII as well) are ok to use with ES....but i have had funny stuff going on as well....oddly shaped heads....with those smaller sensors (with much faster read out time) the effect is usually not really noticeable.....but even there, side by side, shapes will appear different....
i am sure the next gen sensors for the XD and GFX will be much better in that regard as well......
still a long way from global shutter though....
-
This analogy with 1/4 sec shutter speed is not very helpful, as this would mean that e-shutter is not usable handhold.
And this is not the case at all !
I use it all the time with my XCD 90mm without issues (non-moving objects). The results with 1/4 sec shutter speed would be unusable.
-
This analogy with 1/4 sec shutter speed is not very helpful, as this would mean that e-shutter is not usable handhold.
And this is not the case at all !
I use it all the time with my XCD 90mm without issues (non-moving objects). The results with 1/4 sec shutter speed would be unusable.
ok....i give up....
i don't know why you would use the eshutter if you don't have to, especially for shorter exposures.....
i am not making this stuff up, the read out time of the sensor is what it is.....
i guess a good test would be to take a normal scene without moving objects (which is hard because everything moves, leaves move, houses don't) and take the same shot handheld and on tripod......compare....most likely there will be distortions....this is not long exposure smear.....this might be a bent line or something like it....
-
Hi Paul,
Are you talking about the GFX or the IQ3100MP?
The reason I am asking that the GFX also has EFCS. Do you see a practical advantage of using ES over EFCS on the GFX?
I would agree that ES is usable in many conditions, but it is known to have issues with non-continuous lighting and of course the rolling shutter effect.
Best regards
Erik
I guess I don't understand the issue of fastest shutter of 1/4 second. I use the e shutter at speeds of 1/4 to 1/500 of a second even faster. Net, the shutter for me records the correct speed. I understand it's reading as a scan across the face of the sensor like a scanning back, however it's just not that limiting unless you are wanting to hand hold it. But to describe it like it's always going to record 1/4 of second results is to me not a good description. Yes large object crossing the sensor can and will give you a rolling shutter look, but so far for landscape work, it's just not an issue for me, besides the need for a tripod.
If that was the case, then in my work I would see a ton of movement in leaves and similar subject matter, and at a true 1/4 of a second, you would, however at 1/250, the results look just the same as if I was using the focal shutter at 1/250th. This is on a tripod, not hand held.
The ES on the GFX is not as important as the ES is on the IQ3100, as it makes a huge difference with longer glass. The results of shots taken from 100mm and up to 300mm are much better with no vibration issues, which the P1 XF has plenty of.
Works very well on a tech camera also.
Paul Caldwell
-
An update - I've had the GFX now for about 7 weeks. Shooting landscapes and panoramas.
Moved from Hasselblad H5D 50c WiFi to the GFX (brief dance with the Sony aR7II which I did not like).
I am delighted with the GFX.
The 23mm lens is outstanding and I just recently got the 110mm.
Frankly, the X1D looks cool! I lust for the look of it BUT I feel the GFX retro look is fine and the features, far more user customized buttons, AND image quality is excellent, at least for my landscape work.
At this point, there is no way to justify the thousands more for the X1Dn let alone the H5/6, in my mind.
Test it out and you will understand.
Forget all of the back and forth discussions and go take shots with it.
I think you'll be as pleased as I am.
Jack
-
Hi Jack,
Thanks for sharing! Happy to hear you are pleased with the GFX.
Best regards
Erik
An update - I've had the GFX now for about 7 weeks. Shooting landscapes and panoramas.
Moved from Hasselblad H5D 50c WiFi to the GFX (brief dance with the Sony aR7II which I did not like).
I am delighted with the GFX.
The 23mm lens is outstanding and I just recently got the 110mm.
Frankly, the X1D looks cool! I lust for the look of it BUT I feel the GFX retro look is fine and the features, far more user customized buttons, AND image quality is excellent, at least for my landscape work.
At this point, there is no way to justify the thousands more for the X1Dn let alone the H5/6, in my mind.
Test it out and you will understand.
Forget all of the back and forth discussions and go take shots with it.
I think you'll be as pleased as I am.
Jack
-
An update - I've had the GFX now for about 7 weeks. Shooting landscapes and panoramas.
Moved from Hasselblad H5D 50c WiFi to the GFX (brief dance with the Sony aR7II which I did not like).
I am delighted with the GFX.
The 23mm lens is outstanding and I just recently got the 110mm.
Frankly, the X1D looks cool! I lust for the look of it BUT I feel the GFX retro look is fine and the features, far more user customized buttons, AND image quality is excellent, at least for my landscape work.
At this point, there is no way to justify the thousands more for the X1Dn let alone the H5/6, in my mind.
Test it out and you will understand.
Forget all of the back and forth discussions and go take shots with it.
I think you'll be as pleased as I am.
Jack
Thank you, Jack!
Glad to hear you like the gfx!
I am a long time Phase one fan, and I like the Phase one backs a lot.
But as you say, it is increasingly difficult to justify these prices when you can get this good
cameras and lenses for a few % of the price.
Have you tried any old lenses on the camera with adapters?
Henrik
-
Hi,
If you plan on shooting 44x33mm it is better to having lenses designed for that format. Designing for a larger format gives up a bit of quality.
I am no expert on optics, but it seems that there are some scaling laws for format sizes. A lens covering a smaller format will be sharper (have higher MTF) than a lens designed for a larger format, assuming the same design effort.
Consider this, let's say you have a 63 mm lens for 44x33 mm. That is a standard lens and can be designed as a typical standard lens with 6-7 elements. The Fuji GFX lens goes beyond that design effort, but a good normal lens can be built using the traditional double Gauss + field flattener design.
Now, on a 54x44 sensor it will act as a wide angle lens. In addition, it will need to take the mirror box into account. So, inevitably the 63 mm lens for for the larger sensor will become an inverted telephoto design. Such a design breaks symmetry. Symmetry is often used to reduce aberrations, the front element causes an aberration and the rear element inverts it. So symmetrical designs are simple and perform well.
That said, the lenses for the X1D and the GFX are far more elaborate than lenses used to be, that is probably because they are designed for 100 MP and beyond.
So, it is smaller, better and probably cheaper, as long as you are shooting 44x33 mm.
Best regards
Erik
Thank you, Jack!
Glad to hear you like the gfx!
I am a long time Phase one fan, and I like the Phase one backs a lot.
But as you say, it is increasingly difficult to justify these prices when you can get this good
cameras and lenses for a few % of the price.
Have you tried any old lenses on the camera with adapters?
Henrik
-
Hi,
If you plan on shooting 44x33mm it is better to having lenses designed for that format. Designing for a larger format gives up a bit of quality.
I am no expert on optics, but it seems that there are some scaling laws for format sizes. A lens covering a smaller format will be sharper (have higher MTF) than a lens designed for a larger format, assuming the same design effort.
Consider this, let's say you have a 63 mm lens for 44x33 mm. That is a standard lens and can be designed as a typical standard lens with 6-7 elements. The Fuji GFX lens goes beyond that design effort, but a good normal lens can be built using the traditional double Gauss + field flattener design.
Now, on a 54x44 sensor it will act as a wide angle lens. In addition, it will need to take the mirror box into account. So, inevitably the 63 mm lens for for the larger sensor will become an inverted telephoto design. Such a design breaks symmetry. Symmetry is often used to reduce aberrations, the front element causes an aberration and the rear element inverts it. So symmetrical designs are simple and perform well.
That said, the lenses for the X1D and the GFX are far more elaborate than lenses used to be, that is probably because they are designed for 100 MP and beyond.
So, it is smaller, better and probably cheaper, as long as you are shooting 44x33 mm.
Best regards
Erik
That is very interesting. Is is too advanced for me, but seems only partially right.
If you mount a sony on a large format camera with a LF-lens, you get the feeling this optics is sharper and better than the normal small lenses. That is hard to explain when the optics are made for at least
FF medium format.. I am just thinking..
-
That is very interesting. Is is too advanced for me, but seems only partially right.
If you mount a sony on a large format camera with a LF-lens, you get the feeling this optics is sharper and better than the normal small lenses. That is hard to explain when the optics are made for at least
FF medium format.. I am just thinking..
I think it has to do with this:
erik said:
A lens covering a smaller format will be sharper (have higher MTF) than a lens designed for a larger format, assuming the same design effort.
Clearly at a pricetag that comes with MF lenses the effort made is usually a bit higher...
In the light of this it is interesting to see that Fuji seems produce such good lenses at a relatively low pricetag. Take the 23mm as an example.
-
I think it has to do with this:
erik said:
A lens covering a smaller format will be sharper (have higher MTF) than a lens designed for a larger format, assuming the same design effort.
Clearly at a pricetag that comes with MF lenses the effort made is usually a bit higher...
In the light of this it is interesting to see that Fuji seems produce such good lenses at a relatively low pricetag. Take the 23mm as an example.
Also, MF lenses seem to be optimized for sharpness whereas the top 35mm primes are optimized for large apertures (e..g otus )
-
Hi,
I would not suggest that any older generation MF lens would be a fair match for the Otus at 44x33 mm. If you design a lens that is sharp at large apertures it will outshine lenses that are doing well at smaller apertures.
On the other hand, all lenses run into the diffraction limit when stopped down beyond their optimum aperture. The Otus peaks around f/4, that actually means it is twice as sharp as a lens that needs to be stopped down to f/8.
My actual experience is limited to bunch of Zeiss lenses for the Hasselblad, 40/4CF, 50/4CF, 60/3.5CF, 80/2.8 CFE, 100/3.5 CF, 120/4CF, 120/4 CFi, 150/4 CB, 150/4CF and 180/4 CFi.
Of those I would regard the Planar 100/3.5CF, the Sonnars 150/4 and the Sonnar 180/4CFi to be very good. Compared to the other lenses I feel that my zoom lenses used on the Sony A7rII are superior. I have used the Hasselblad lenses with P45+ back, mostly.
The best performers would give very good performance over 36x48 mm at 80MP, the weaker performers would be quite OK, but not great.
I did not do a lot of comparisons between Sony A7rII and the P45+, but some cases:
- Planar 100/3.5 on the P45+ vs Sony 90/2.8G on the A7rII, Sony wins easily
- Planar 100/3.5 on the P45+ vs Canon 24-105/4L on the A7rII, about even
- Distagon 40/4 on the P45+ vs Canon 16-35/4L on the A7rII. The Sony plays in a different league, higher one.
Jim Kasson has tested a lot of lenses on his GFX. What he has found was that the Fuji GFX lenses were essentially Otus class. That said, the Otuses performed very well on the GFX, but they would not cover the whole field.
Jim has found that his HC lenses were not up to the class. Regarding the Zeiss lenses he found that the 250/4 Superachromat was a good performer, but it was not very practical. So, he sold all his HC and V-lenses.
I would suggest that both Hasselblad and Fuji make great lenses for their 44x33 mm camera systems. I would be 100% sure that the new GFX lenses widely outperform older lenses designed for 6x6, especially if axial chroma is taken into account. Some exceptions may exist, however.
Best regards
Erik
Also, MF lenses seem to be optimized for sharpness whereas the top 35mm primes are optimized for large apertures (e..g otus )
-
i was really excited about using old glass on the GFX, did it a lot with the A7RII.....leica m, voigtlander, some nikon, canon as well as some funky russian glass...
first thing i tried on the GFX were pentax 6x7 lenses because that was available....to make a long story short, nothing i have tried comes close to the GF lenses...not even close.....i have thought about using the 35mm glass in a similar way i use them on the sony, for a certain look, flares, super shallow dof....most of the lenses don't really cover the 33x44 sensor, which is ok, but again, it just questions the whole point....
the pentax lenses just don't resolve enough detail...again, maybe for an effect, but in a way they aren't bad enough to really show much of an effect.....
i also find manual focus to be easier on the sony? not sure why? maybe peaking works better? the voigtlander 40 1.4 is probably one of my favorite lenses on the A7RII....i just don't get the same out of it on the GFX....probably has to do with the size (camera big, lens tiny)....
i was looking into contact glass and adapters when i stopped myself.....i know these lenses aren't as good as the fuji ones, but yet with an adapter they are not really cheap......going the AF adapter route makes it even less of a deal.....the fuji lenses really are pretty amazingly cheap for how good they are, so it makes cheaper solutions not really worth it IMO...
-
I am sure a lot of the dream of old and superior lenses are just unrealistic. I am sure the new Fuji-lenses are very good and would save us a lot of problems. But still.. too many old and legendary lenses are too good to sell.
-
a very good friend of mine was switching from canon, first he was obviously looking at sony but when the GFX came out, he remembered all his old MF glass (pentax and hasselblad) and asked me what i thought about going GFX and only using his old glass for the time being.....i told him that IMO he would get better files with A7RII and a few sony lenses then GFX with his old glass......and he could still use his old glass on the sony and probably get similar files (not the same crop of course)....but obviously he would be getting way more camera with the sony since the little margin of IQ goes away if one does not use the fuji glass.....
-
Hi,
Another part of that discussion is that there is something called good enough.
This is a 1:1 crop from an image on the P45+ using the Planar 100/3.5, probably at f/11.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/FocusCrop20160123-CF047059.jpg)
This is same compostion but shot on the A7rII with the Sony 90/2.8G macro.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/FocusCrop20160123-_DSC4107.jpg)
I would call those both very good. But neither would come even close to the corresponding GFX lens.
Now, take this image, it was shot with the Hasselblad 40/4 CF, probably at f/11.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/wa_full_image_20150227-CF047094.jpg)
Now check out 2/3 to border crop at actual pixels:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/wa_border_20150227-CF047094.jpg)
I would not call it acceptable performance viewed on screen.
Let's compare it to the Canon 16-35/4L at 24 mm and at f/8:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/wa_border_20160227-_DSC4378.jpg)
Much better!
But, what would happen if we made a large print? I cropped both images half size and printed on A2, det would correspond to about 84x119 cm or 33"x47". The crop was corresponding to the central part and including the image shown below.
So, what looked the prints like? Looking close, say 50 cm the Sony A7rII image was vastly superior, but backing off to arm's length distance the two images were very similar. At longer distance you don't see the very fine detail, and the Distagon actually handles coarser detail pretty well.
Sharpening is another component of the equation. Fine detail contrast is always lost in transition from subject to print and sharpening is always needed to compensate for it.
A way to see it, you can sharpen so that 100% contrast will be maintained up to half of sensor resolution, or so. On the samples shown, FocusMagic would do a very job on that at 2 pixel radius and perhaps 75% strength. With a better lens and a better sensor, less sharpening is needed. That reduces the risk of artifacts and keeps noise levels low. It is always better to start with a very sharp image.
We may also need to keep on mind that absolute sharpness is only possible in a single plane of focus. If we shoot architecture, at a distance, the subject will be flat and field curvature will not be acceptable and the same applies to landscape at infinity.
Shooting anything else, it may not be possible to maintain good focus across the field at non diffraction limited apertures (anything smaller than f/8, for decent lenses). A lens that has field curvature would still yield great sharpness in the point of focus. So, you can have a portrait with correct focus on the eyes and the rest is going to be out of focus anyway.
Field curvature may even help. The field is often bending towards the camera at the edges. That means foreground may come into focus. Many images have foreground at the bottom but often lack detail in the corners at the top.
The image below is extreme corner crop from the Distagon 40/4, same image as shown before:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/wa_extreme_corner_20150227-CF047094.jpg)
It is quite OK and it is actually better than the Canon 16-35/4L at 24 mm at the same crop:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/wa_extreme_corner_20160227-_DSC4378.jpg)
It is here the Canon 16-35/4L is loosing a lot of sharpness.
The images are here:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/index2.html
The raw images are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/P45+_vs_A7rII/
Best regards
Erik
I am sure a lot of the dream of old and superior lenses are just unrealistic. I am sure the new Fuji-lenses are very good and would save us a lot of problems. But still.. too many old and legendary lenses are too good to sell.
-
Excellent thread!
Thanks folks.
Eduardo
-
Sharpness is one thing. The Fuji lenses are very sharp.
The Fuji GFX sensor lens combo creates, from what I see so far, tonality and colour that is a bit on the dull side. That's not to say that it is bad - it's just missing the rendering sparkle that I look for and it leaves me feeling a little cold.
-
Sharpness is one thing. The Fuji lenses are very sharp.
The Fuji GFX sensor lens combo creates, from what I see so far, tonality and colour that is a bit on the dull side. That's not to say that it is bad - it's just missing the rendering sparkle that I look for and it leaves me feeling a little cold.
just wondering: can you point us to some files or camera/lens combo that does provide the sparkle?
this is the first time i have heard fuji color to be on the dull side?
-
Hi,
Tonality and colour is essentially entirely coming from colour profiles.
The enclosed file shows three images, shot with P45+, Sony Alpha 900 and Sony A7rII. DCP profiles were made from a ColorChecker passport that was part of the setup. WB on second lightest gray patch and Lab adjusted for L around 51 on 4-th gray patch.
P45+ image processed with two different tonal curves, one corresponding to ACR and the other one to Capture One's "film curve".
Three very different sensors, 2007 generation CCD, 2008 generation CMOS and 2015 generation CMOS.
Best regards
Erik
Sharpness is one thing. The Fuji lenses are very sharp.
The Fuji GFX sensor lens combo creates, from what I see so far, tonality and colour that is a bit on the dull side. That's not to say that it is bad - it's just missing the rendering sparkle that I look for and it leaves me feeling a little cold.
-
Hi,
Tonality and colour is essentially entirely coming from colour profiles.
The enclosed file shows three images, shot with P45+, Sony Alpha 900 and Sony A7rII. DCP profiles were made from a ColorChecker passport that was part of the setup. WB on second lightest gray patch and Lab adjusted for L around 51 on 4-th gray patch.
P45+ image processed with two different tonal curves, one corresponding to ACR and the other one to Capture One's "film curve".
Three very different sensors, 2007 generation CCD, 2008 generation CMOS and 2015 generation CMOS.
Best regards
Erik
No, that's really not true. A profile will augment the image envelope of a lens/senor combination to make to it more uniform but it does not change the physical properties of the lens/sensor envelope. Profiling can only go so far in neutralising everything to a standard. Take one body with two different lenses and they can and do give entirely different results for that reason.
Lens transmission, design and glass quality is a key contributor to colour and tone. Independently, but also in conjunction with sensor stack design. Some lenses are much better than others with things like shadow tonality, in particular - there is only so much a profile can do to fudge that.
Take the Leica S for example, it punches far above what it's pixel count might suggest because the lenses are so good and the sensor has been so well designed to work with them. Same goes for Leica M lenses, put them on a Sony A7r and they aren't as good because the sensor is not designed to cater for them. No amount profiling will change that.
Lens microcontrast in itself can not be fudged by profile yet it contributes significantly to tone.
-
No, that's really not true. A profile will augment the image envelope of a lens/senor combination to make to it more uniform but it does not change the physical properties of the lens/sensor envelope. Profiling can only go so far in neutralising everything to a standard. Take one body with two different lenses and they can and do give entirely different results for that reason.
Lens transmission, design and glass quality is a key contributor to colour and tone. Independently, but also in conjunction with sensor stack design. Some lenses are much better than others with things like shadow tonality, in particular - there is only so much a profile can do to fudge that.
Take the Leica S for example, it punches far above what it's pixel count might suggest because the lenses are so good and the sensor has been so well designed to work with them. Same goes for Leica M lenses, put them on a Sony A7r and they aren't as good because the sensor is not designed to cater for them. No amount profiling will change that.
Lens microcontrast in itself can not be fudged by profile yet it contributes significantly to tone.
i am reading a little bit of a contradiction in this.....
i agree that sensors can be optimized for certain lenses and that lenses can have profiles or corrections for certain sensor combos to make them look better....
if a lens does not look good on a sensor it is not the shortcoming of the sensor since in reality a great lens should really not need much digital correction to look good.....
if a leica m lens does not look as good on a 40mpix sony sensor it just cant stand up to that level of detail and resolving power....not the other way around....
i also thought we were talking about profiles as in the way a raw converter interprets a file and what is done to it from that point on....
lens profiles are just digital helpers to correct optical flaws....
i haven't seen anything from the leica S that punches above its weight....not files, not functionality....i am actually not really sure what its "weight class" is? DMF? pentax and now GFX and X1D runs circles around it in any way possible.....including lenses....at a much lower price...even the X1D.....
a good example of a good lens/sensor combo is the Q IMO....or the Rx1RII....obviously easier to really fine tune the sensor for the lens with a fixed lens body....but you can see even there that the margins are small and there is only so much that can (and should) be done digitally.....
i guess the iPhone is a great example how much processing can go into a raw file to make up for a limited lens....which in that case is obviously because of the physical limitations....
-
Hi,
What I would suggest is that the differences you mention are disappearing in controlled experiments. Shoot the same scene, shoot identically and you will get very similar results.
Sharp lenses on low resolution sensor will create artificial detail, also known as aliases. You get that as soon as the resolution of the lens exceeds the resolution of the sensor. That would be visible in controlled experiments.
The images below was shot with three different cameras, P45+ (2007 CCD), Sony Alpha 900 (2008 CMOS), Sony A7rII (2105 CMOS). Exposure and WB was matched against a ColorChecker and colour profiles were generated from the same ColorChecker:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Divstuff/3Images_s.jpg)
Original image: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Divstuff/3Images_s.jpg
The P45+ was processed with two different tone curves, the one that ACR uses and also with Capture One tone curve (approximated).
The three image cover CCD, CMOS, 1.1X crop MFD sensor, 24x36 mm and Hasselblad era Zeiss lenses and a modern Sony zoom lens. There may be visible differences, but for me they are more similar than different.
In the image below we have a sharp lens combined with a relatively low resolution sensor (P45+ / 39MP, 6.8 micron pitch):
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_a.png)
You can see that the sensor produces a hatch pattern that is not very credible.
The next image is taken with a good lens on a higher resolution sensor (Sony Alpha 77, 24 MP, 3.8 micron pitch):
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_na_small.png)
The sensor matches the resolution of the lens and causes insignificant hatching artifacts.
Why we don't see it so much in real world pictures? Main cause might be that we often don't have fine regular detail that is obviously distorted. Another reason may be that utilising the full sharpness of a good lens needs very careful work. Stopping down to f/16 eliminates almost all artefacts on the P45+, but that is because diffraction limits the resolution of the lens to what the sensor can resolve. Halving the pixel size on the P45+ would allow to shoot without aliasing artefacts at f/8. That sensor would have 154 MP.
The example here is a bit boring, of course, but it is pretty much a schoolbook example of the aliasing issues.
The samples here are not intended to prove anything, just as an illustration of colour profiles and aliasing artefacts.
Best regards
Erik
No, that's really not true. A profile will augment the image envelope of a lens/senor combination to make to it more uniform but it does not change the physical properties of the lens/sensor envelope. Profiling can only go so far in neutralising everything to a standard. Take one body with two different lenses and they can and do give entirely different results for that reason.
Lens transmission, design and glass quality is a key contributor to colour and tone. Independently, but also in conjunction with sensor stack design. Some lenses are much better than others with things like shadow tonality, in particular - there is only so much a profile can do to fudge that.
Take the Leica S for example, it punches far above what it's pixel count might suggest because the lenses are so good and the sensor has been so well designed to work with them. Same goes for Leica M lenses, put them on a Sony A7r and they aren't as good because the sensor is not designed to cater for them. No amount profiling will change that.
Lens microcontrast in itself can not be fudged by profile yet it contributes significantly to tone.
-
i am reading a little bit of a contradiction in this.....
i agree that sensors can be optimized for certain lenses and that lenses can have profiles or corrections for certain sensor combos to make them look better....
if a lens does not look good on a sensor it is not the shortcoming of the sensor since in reality a great lens should really not need much digital correction to look good.....
if a leica m lens does not look as good on a 40mpix sony sensor it just cant stand up to that level of detail and resolving power....not the other way around....
i also thought we were talking about profiles as in the way a raw converter interprets a file and what is done to it from that point on....
lens profiles are just digital helpers to correct optical flaws....
i haven't seen anything from the leica S that punches above its weight....not files, not functionality....i am actually not really sure what its "weight class" is? DMF? pentax and now GFX and X1D runs circles around it in any way possible.....including lenses....at a much lower price...even the X1D.....
a good example of a good lens/sensor combo is the Q IMO....or the Rx1RII....obviously easier to really fine tune the sensor for the lens with a fixed lens body....but you can see even there that the margins are small and there is only so much that can (and should) be done digitally.....
i guess the iPhone is a great example how much processing can go into a raw file to make up for a limited lens....which in that case is obviously because of the physical limitations....
No it's the sensor design, the M lenses have exceptional resolution (The APO-Summicron out performs the 55 Otus) and will otherwise work well on the Sony bodies with the Kolari Modification. The M lenses have a very steep ray angle and the thicker filter of the Sony causes problems. Also Leica developed their sensors with specially designed micro lenses to accommodate the lens design.
The S Lens and Sensor combo is very very good.
-
Hi,
What I would suggest is that the differences you mention are disappearing in controlled experiments. Shoot the same scene, shoot identically and you will get very similar results.
Sharp lenses on low resolution sensor will create artificial detail, also known as aliases. You get that as soon as the resolution of the lens exceeds the resolution of the sensor. That would be visible in controlled experiments.
The images below was shot with three different cameras, P45+ (2007 CCD), Sony Alpha 900 (2008 CMOS), Sony A7rII (2105 CMOS). Exposure and WB was matched against a ColorChecker and colour profiles were generated from the same ColorChecker:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Divstuff/3Images_s.jpg)
Original image: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Divstuff/3Images_s.jpg
The P45+ was processed with two different tone curves, the one that ACR uses and also with Capture One tone curve (approximated).
The three image cover CCD, CMOS, 1.1X crop MFD sensor, 24x36 mm and Hasselblad era Zeiss lenses and a modern Sony zoom lens. There may be visible differences, but for me they are more similar than different.
In the image below we have a sharp lens combined with a relatively low resolution sensor (P45+ / 39MP, 6.8 micron pitch):
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_a.png)
You can see that the sensor produces a hatch pattern that is not very credible.
The next image is taken with a good lens on a higher resolution sensor (Sony Alpha 77, 24 MP, 3.8 micron pitch):
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_na_small.png)
The sensor matches the resolution of the lens and causes insignificant hatching artifacts.
Why we don't see it so much in real world pictures? Main cause might be that we often don't have fine regular detail that is obviously distorted. Another reason may be that utilising the full sharpness of a good lens needs very careful work. Stopping down to f/16 eliminates almost all artefacts on the P45+, but that is because diffraction limits the resolution of the lens to what the sensor can resolve. Halving the pixel size on the P45+ would allow to shoot without aliasing artefacts at f/8. That sensor would have 154 MP.
The example here is a bit boring, of course, but it is pretty much a schoolbook example of the aliasing issues.
The samples here are not intended to prove anything, just as an illustration of colour profiles and aliasing artefacts.
Best regards
Erik
No, the physical attributes of lens design characteristics don't just magically disappear in controlled environments. Shadow detail, micro contrast and contrast at focal point compared with contrast in out of focus areas and the degree to which drops off are inherent in the DNA of the lens design and no amount of profiling will ever change that.
-
No it's the sensor design, the M lenses have exceptional resolution (The APO-Summicron out performs the 55 Otus) and will otherwise work well on the Sony bodies with the Kolari Modification. The M lenses have a very steep ray angle and the thicker filter of the Sony causes problems. Also Leica developed their sensors with specially designed micro lenses to accommodate the lens design.
The S Lens and Sensor combo is very very good.
i am not sure where you are going with this....i have compared M lenses with voigtlander (and other) glass on digital M bodies and some of the M glass did not look so good in comparison....
i have seen absolutely nothing coming from leica (no matter which body/lens combination) that makes it to the top compared to the direct competition....the lenses aren't the problem, the sensors are, no matter how much you fine tune and tweak one for the other.....
not even taking price into consideration, the S was not very good with CCD and is barely much better with CMOS....no matter how good the lenses are, they cant make up for the sensor.....
i mean both X1D and GFX are in a different class.....and i think those are the cameras we are talking about here?
-
Hi,
The examples shown are with regard to tonality and colour, that is what DCP profiles are about.
Shadow detail is little affected by lens design, although some lenses have better control of flare than others. You were talking about tonality.
Jim Kasson has tested a lot of gear and sold all his M-lenses after getting the GFX. He found that the GFX lenses were a good match for the Otuses but offered sharper images due to the size of the sensor.
Jim also found that some of the APO-telephotos for the R-Leica work well with the GFX.
Best regards
Erik
No, the physical attributes of lens design characteristics don't just magically disappear in controlled environments. Shadow detail, micro contrast and contrast at focal point compared with contrast in out of focus areas and the degree to which drops off are inherent in the DNA of the lens design and no amount of profiling will ever change that.
-
i am not sure where you are going with this....i have compared M lenses with voigtlander (and other) glass on digital M bodies and some of the M glass did not look so good in comparison....
i have seen absolutely nothing coming from leica (no matter which body/lens combination) that makes it to the top compared to the direct competition....the lenses aren't the problem, the sensors are, no matter how much you fine tune and tweak one for the other.....
not even taking price into consideration, the S was not very good with CCD and is barely much better with CMOS....no matter how good the lenses are, they cant make up for the sensor.....
i mean both X1D and GFX are in a different class.....and i think those are the cameras we are talking about here?
Which lenses did you test against which Voigtlander? I have never found that to be true and in my testing with 35mm Summilux ASPH FLE, 50mm APO-Summicron, 50mm Noctilux ASPH, 75mm APO-Summicron, 90mm APO-Summicron, 135mm APO-Telyt there is no Voigtlander and Zeiss nearest equivalent that comes close and only the newest Zeiss ZM 35mm Distagon equals the Summilux. The Zeiss 50mm Planar is also very good. The 21mm Ultron is one of the only Voigtlanders that I would say is equal to the Leica, being the 21mm Summilux. But again, while it is as sharp, the colour and tonality is not as nice. The lens transmission is not up to the standard of the Leica.
I agree that the X1D and GFX are now marginally better than the S. Which is why I said the S punches above it's weight being 37MP instead of 50. The incoming S3 or 008 will take things to a new level so best to compare then. But he difference in all three of these cameras ***in print*** will be insignificant.
I spoke of the S as a reference point of a good sensor/lens combination and I maintain that the Fuji's rendering is relatively cold and dull compared with the X1D, The Phase One IQ50 and also, the S.
-
Hi,
The examples shown are with regard to tonality and colour, that is what DCP profiles are about.
Shadow detail is little affected by lens design, although some lenses have better control of flare than others. You were talking about tonality.
Jim Kasson has tested a lot of gear and sold all his M-lenses after getting the GFX. He found that the GFX lenses were a good match for the Otuses but offered sharper images due to the size of the sensor.
Jim also found that some of the APO-telephotos for the R-Leica work well with the GFX.
Best regards
Erik
No - shadow detail, tonality, contrast, colour, the difference in contrast between out of focus and in focus areas are all affected by lens design. A very well designed lens like the Leica 50mm APO-Summicron will have greater contrast in the focal plane and then drop off quickly in the out of focus areas.
-
Which lenses did you test against which Voigtlander? I have never found that to be true and in my testing with 35mm Summilux ASPH FLE, 50mm APO-Summicron, 50mm Noctilux ASPH, 75mm APO-Summicron, 90mm APO-Summicron, 135mm APO-Telyt there is no Voigtlander and Zeiss nearest equivalent that comes close and only the newest Zeiss ZM 35mm Distagon equals the Summilux. The Zeiss 50mm Planar is also very good. The 21mm Ultron is one of the only Voigtlanders that I would say is equal to the Leica, being the 21mm Summilux. But again, while it is as sharp, the colour and tonality is not as nice. The lens transmission is not up to the standard of the Leica.
I agree that the X1D and GFX are now marginally better than the S. Which is why I said the S punches above it's weight being 37MP instead of 50. The incoming S3 or 008 will take things to a new level so best to compare then. But he difference in all three of these cameras ***in print*** will be insignificant.
I spoke of the S as a reference point of a good sensor/lens combination and I maintain that the Fuji's rendering is relatively cold and dull compared with the X1D, The Phase One IQ50 and also, the S.
we are obviously so far apart in our taste or what each of us consider better that it is pointless to clog up this thread.....i have owned leica film cameras, always maintained that there is something special about them....starting with m8 and m9 and the ability to use m lenses on all kinds of bodies this opinion has changed dramatically.....my last (worst) experience was the SL with 50 m summicron....
i am happy and glad that leica is still in business but at this point they are not competing with the rest of the market and probably aren’t really trying to either.....nothing wrong to appealing to a more emotional response and their products do look and feel nice....the problem i see is that while a historic m might be a collectors item....a m8,m9,S or SL never will....
time to get that new thambar m.....i am positive the color and rendering is beyond words or reason....
-
Why even consider the S, especially for the asking price? I don't know what niche it fills in this age of medium format
-
Has any of you used Phase, Hasselblad or Contax 645 lenses on the Fuji with adapters?
I'm using the fringer electronic adapter on a Contax 645 45-90mm f4.5 with my GFX. The adapter arrived this week.
I'm not totally comfortable with the logic behind the coding options with this fringer adapter (like loosing the smallest aperture to a 'manual' focus option even though the lens has a manual 'slip' override) but the resulting image is certainly a little sharper and has slightly more contrast from the Contax (zoom) than the FujiFilm G 63mm (prime). No question. This supports other claims I've read about the Contax 45-90mm.
However, the characteristic of the Contax lens is VERY similar to the Fuji. Clean and very revealing... but a little so what. In saying this, I'm comparing the Contax lens to a Hasselblad XPAN 45mm f4, a Mamiya 45mm f/2.8 and the Fuji G 63mm f/2.8—all four have been on the GFX. I'm finding internal white balance is shifting with each piece of glass—fascinating and annoying. I'm now just setting temp in K. I've 'seen' more potential in the Contax lens versus the Fuji (which I will probably sell).
The older XPAN 45mm lens is charming in both film and digital AND tiny when compared to the Contax.
The other huge issue is the Bayer sensor—the Toyota Camry of digital sensors. It seems to swallow the character of lenses when compared to the smaller Fuji X-Trans sensor (from studio tests).
My gut is telling me that between the Contax lens and bayer sensor I'm going to have to work for everything. Unlike the 45mm XPAN lens on film which could be spooky-at-a-distance beautiful (while also delivering it's fair share of tilted horizons). At this stage the cost for the Contax and adapter is a little less than the Fuji G zoom. Add the gym subscription needed to carry this lens on the GFX and it's even odds.
The new Fuji G series glass just isn't rocking my world (but then I'm not a fan of Toyota Camry's either).
:o
-
I would like to tell my story:
I finally bought the gfx50s.
I first thought I would use all my old lenses.
I bought adapter for: Hasselblad V, Mamiya 645, Contax 645 af, Nikon, Canon, M42, Contax y.
Many of the lenses I have tried works very very good on the gfx50s.
Only one «problem»: I have the original Fujilenses: 23mm, 110mm and 120mm macro.
All these lenses are so extremely good. I would say that these lenses are some of the very
best lenses I have ever used! And the af system is all over the sensor almost as good as
modern Sonys etc.
After buying the gfx50s I have not used my Phase one system. Now itˋs just Fuji for me.
C1 is now Lightroom.😄
-
Hi,
Lightroom is a great tool, learn to use it and you will be happy! All tools have upsides and downsides. Lightroom has great tone mapping capabilities. It may be that C1 is much faster. I would not know, have been with LR since 2006 and I handle over 100 000 images. Switching tools would be a tremendous task.
Dabbling around with a couple dozen of images will not give enough experience to judge a workflow. I have dabbled with a few hundred images in C1. Once upon the time it installed itself as default application for raw files and I hated it. Now times it doesn't do that, and I can live with it.
The great advantage that Ligthroom may have over C1 is handling scenery with large luminescence range. Here Lightroom has algorithms to handle HDR using local adaption, while C1 just deliver muddy highlight compression.
Anyway, Phase One choose not to support competing systems. That is a marketing choice.
Nice to hear you enjoy your GFX. Seems to be a great tool.
Best regards
Erik
I would like to tell my story:
I finally bought the gfx50s.
I first thought I would use all my old lenses.
I bought adapter for: Hasselblad V, Mamiya 645, Contax 645 af, Nikon, Canon, M42, Contax y.
Many of the lenses I have tried works very very good on the gfx50s.
Only one «problem»: I have the original Fujilenses: 23mm, 110mm and 120mm macro.
All these lenses are so extremely good. I would say that these lenses are some of the very
best lenses I have ever used! And the af system is all over the sensor almost as good as
modern Sonys etc.
After buying the gfx50s I have not used my Phase one system. Now itˋs just Fuji for me.
C1 is now Lightroom.😄
-
I would like to tell my story:
I finally bought the gfx50s.
I first thought I would use all my old lenses.
I bought adapter for: Hasselblad V, Mamiya 645, Contax 645 af, Nikon, Canon, M42, Contax y.
Many of the lenses I have tried works very very good on the gfx50s.
Only one «problem»: I have the original Fujilenses: 23mm, 110mm and 120mm macro.
All these lenses are so extremely good. I would say that these lenses are some of the very
best lenses I have ever used! And the af system is all over the sensor almost as good as
modern Sonys etc.
After buying the gfx50s I have not used my Phase one system. Now itˋs just Fuji for me.
C1 is now Lightroom.😄
Fuji is very well known in motion industry for very high-end glasses,
Some of which were so expensive that makes sense on rental.
They know a thing or 2 when it comes to build top quality lenses.
Now they focussed the business in cost/effective cine lenses though,
But Fuji experience in high-end optics/cost is optimum.
No surprise you found them good.
-
True. But I have used Fuji-lenses before (Hasselnlad H). And these Fujifilm lenses are much better!
I never liked the Hasselblad H lenses much, but these lenses are the best madium format lenses I have
used. And the prices are not bad when we are used to Hasselblad and Phase one.
-
I would like to tell my story:
I finally bought the gfx50s.
I first thought I would use all my old lenses.
I bought adapter for: Hasselblad V, Mamiya 645, Contax 645 af, Nikon, Canon, M42, Contax y.
Many of the lenses I have tried works very very good on the gfx50s.
Only one «problem»: I have the original Fujilenses: 23mm, 110mm and 120mm macro.
All these lenses are so extremely good. I would say that these lenses are some of the very
best lenses I have ever used! And the af system is all over the sensor almost as good as
modern Sonys etc.
After buying the gfx50s I have not used my Phase one system. Now itˋs just Fuji for me.
C1 is now Lightroom.😄
That's a really great account of what is already an interesting camera system.
Which Phase One back and which Camera system has is replaced for you?
-
I was using an XF with the IQ180.
Very good also, but the lenses Fujifilm is makig now are fantastic! This is really a system to
invest in. I think th best one for most work if you donˋt need the speed of smaller cameras.
-
Hi,
It makes a lot of sense to decide on one size of sensor and design a system around it.
It seems that Fuji has made just that with the GFX. If you are happy with the GFX, that is all that matters. I would hope the X1D is a good alternative to the GFX.
If there are glitches with new cameras, that is no surprise. Fuji have built mirrorless systems for a long time. So, I would think they have a head start on technology.
Best regards
Erik
I would like to tell my story:
I finally bought the gfx50s.
I first thought I would use all my old lenses.
I bought adapter for: Hasselblad V, Mamiya 645, Contax 645 af, Nikon, Canon, M42, Contax y.
Many of the lenses I have tried works very very good on the gfx50s.
Only one «problem»: I have the original Fujilenses: 23mm, 110mm and 120mm macro.
All these lenses are so extremely good. I would say that these lenses are some of the very
best lenses I have ever used! And the af system is all over the sensor almost as good as
modern Sonys etc.
After buying the gfx50s I have not used my Phase one system. Now itˋs just Fuji for me.
C1 is now Lightroom.😄
-
I would like to tell my story:
I finally bought the gfx50s.
I first thought I would use all my old lenses.
I bought adapter for: Hasselblad V, Mamiya 645, Contax 645 af, Nikon, Canon, M42, Contax y.
Many of the lenses I have tried works very very good on the gfx50s.
Only one «problem»: I have the original Fujilenses: 23mm, 110mm and 120mm macro.
All these lenses are so extremely good. I would say that these lenses are some of the very
best lenses I have ever used! And the af system is all over the sensor almost as good as
modern Sonys etc.
After buying the gfx50s I have not used my Phase one system. Now itˋs just Fuji for me.
C1 is now Lightroom.😄
sounds like my experience...i got all these adapters to use lenses i have been happy with and used on sony and leica.....as well as older pentax MF glass....compared to the fuji GF glass it just does not cut it.....
my first MF film cameras were all fuji...gx 680, 690, 645....and the lenses on these were all outstanding....
-
I just tested the new firmware 3.00. The focus-stacking is made so easy.
Now you can do stacking away from computers and studio. Very fast and easy.
Just made the gfx even better😊😊😊
-
I just tested the new firmware 3.00. The focus-stacking is made so easy.
Now you can do stacking away from computers and studio. Very fast and easy.
Just made the gfx even better😊😊😊
Are you sure you tried the new firmware and your GFX created a single image file in camera from multiple image files? My understanding is that the firmware does not permits direct, in camera, focus STACKING of multiple images. I believe it facilitates focus BRACKETING, where the firmware facilitates the automated creation of multiple images with different focus points. Those images still have to be assembled into a single image file with the use of image STACKING software like Helicon focus.
-
The camera does not combine the different pictures. You have to export the frames to Helicon etc
after the shots. But that is not at all difficult.
-
Hi,
The firmware update talks about focus bracketing. It may be usable for stacking. Ideally, one would like to set minimum and maximum focus distance and steps between.
If the setable interval is wide enough and the steps are fine enough it may work very well with stacking.
Neither focus bracketing nor focus stacking is really easy using focusing rings made for AF, so firmware based solutions may be a great help.
Best regards
Erik
Are you sure you tried the new firmware and your GFX created a single image file in camera from multiple image files? My understanding is that the firmware does not permits direct, in camera, focus STACKING of multiple images. I believe it facilitates focus BRACKETING, where the firmware facilitates the automated creation of multiple images with different focus points. Those images still have to be assembled into a single image file with the use of image STACKING software like Helicon focus.
-
Sorry I use the term stacking when I really talk about the first step which is focus bracketing.
The steps can be adjusted in different steps and it seems very accurate. I have just tested it for macro.
That works great. But I am sure it will be just as great for nature. This is the best focus-bracketing system I have used so far.
-
This is the best focus-bracketing system I have used so far.
Really? Don’t you have a Phase XF, which I believe allows you set minimum and maximum focus points? I would think the XF would provide a more accurate approach to the required number and placement of focus points. With the GFX firmware, I think you ( or the camera) are sort of guessing. Can you explain in more detail how the GFX is determining the number and placement of focus points?
-
[The GFX] is the best focus-bracketing system I have used so far.
Really? Don’t you have a Phase XF, which I believe allows you set minimum and maximum focus points? I would think the XF would provide a more accurate approach to the required number and placement of focus points. With the GFX firmware, I think you ( or the camera) are sort of guessing. Can you explain in more detail how the GFX is determining the number and placement of focus points?
Focus Bracketing and Focus Stacking are two separate use cases.
With focus bracketing the goal is to have one master point of focus and capture a couple of safety shots in front or behind that plane of focus. It tends to be most useful in the field and only sometimes useful in the studio. Subject matter movement in between frames is usually not very important. The goal is to capture multiple frames with the intent of selecting the one individual frame that is focused where/how you intended, and saves time fine tuning the focus in situations where time is short or confidence in focus assessment is low.
With focus stacking the goal is to have a front plane and a rear plane, and to capture as many shots (whether that be 2 or 100) required to have focus continuously in between. It tends to be most useful in the studio and is only sometimes useful in the field. The goal is to capture multiple frames which will be combined into one composite frame with greater depth of field. Therefore subject matter movement between frames is often a significant issue.
They are not unrelated (they both involve taking more than one picture with different focus points) but the interface should match the fundamentally different goals of each. You can use a Focus Bracketing feature for focus stacking, but it will be a bit awkward* for it. Likewise you can use a Focus Stacking tool for focus bracketing but it will be a bit awkward*.
If XF users are interested in Focus Bracketing being added to the XF I'd encourage them to share that interest with their dealer or, if they don't have a dealer, by starting a support case at phaseone.com. If there is enough interest it seems simple enough to implement; they have all the technical capability required in the body and have illustrated over and over (FU1, FU2 (https://digitaltransitions.com/announcement-xf-body-feature-update-2-capture-one-9-1-2-new-blue-ring-lenses/), FU3 (https://digitaltransitions.com/feature-update-3-phase-one-xf/), FU4 (https://digitaltransitions.com/phase-one-xf-feature-update-4/)) a desire to add tools that are desired by a meaningful part of their user base.
Personally I hope Fuji adds Focus Stacking to the GFX (or future camera) and Phase One adds Focus Bracketing to the XF.
*Awkward doesn't mean unworkable. Just that it's not native/elegant feeling in that use case, especially when compared to the experience of using a feature purpose-built for that use case.
-
Focus Bracketing and Focus Stacking are two separate use cases.
With focus bracketing the goal is to have one master point of focus and capture a couple of safety shots in front or behind that plane of focus. It tends to be most useful in the field and only sometimes useful in the studio. Subject matter movement in between frames is usually not very important. The goal is to capture multiple frames with the intent of selecting the one individual frame that is focused where/how you intended, and saves time fine tuning the focus in situations where time is short or confidence in focus assessment is low.
With focus stacking the goal is to have a front plane and a rear plane, and to capture as many shots (whether that be 2 or 100) required to have focus continuously in between. It tends to be most useful in the studio and is only sometimes useful in the field. The goal is to capture multiple frames which will be combined into one composite frame with greater depth of field. Therefore subject matter movement between frames is often a significant issue.
They are not unrelated (they both involve taking more than one picture with different focus points) but the interface should match the fundamentally different goals of each. You can use a Focus Bracketing feature for focus stacking, but it will be a bit awkward* for it. Likewise you can use a Focus Stacking tool for focus bracketing but it will be a bit awkward*.
If XF users are interested in Focus Bracketing being added to the XF I'd encourage them to share that interest with their dealer or, if they don't have a dealer, by starting a support case at phaseone.com. If there is enough interest it seems simple enough to implement; they have all the technical capability required in the body and have illustrated over and over (FU1, FU2 (https://digitaltransitions.com/announcement-xf-body-feature-update-2-capture-one-9-1-2-new-blue-ring-lenses/), FU3 (https://digitaltransitions.com/feature-update-3-phase-one-xf/), FU4 (https://digitaltransitions.com/phase-one-xf-feature-update-4/)) a desire to add tools that are desired by a meaningful part of their user base.
Personally I hope Fuji adds Focus Stacking to the GFX (or future camera) and Phase One adds Focus Bracketing to the XF.
*Awkward doesn't mean unworkable. Just that it's not native/elegant feeling in that use case, especially when compared to the experience of using a feature purpose-built for that use case.
I don't think your explanation squares with how the users of the Fuji GFX understand and will use the Focus Bracketing function that was just added in firmware. I think they will use the multiple images that the camera takes and use all/most of them to stack in post-processing software like Helicon Focus or Zerene. I think you are being too subtle in explaining that the Focus Bracketing function in the GFX is a "dumb" tool compared to the one in the XF (and apparently the D850), as it is hit or miss as to whether it will produce an optimum set of files with different focus points for stacking. To me, the XF is a much more sophisticated form of Focus Bracketing. It's semantics. However, while the GFX is not as well engineered as the XF in its selection of focus points, it still may be better than a totally manual approach. I expect we will hear some observations about its usefulness in practice.
Is there any technical reason why Fuji could not implement the same type of Focus Bracketing as the XF?
-
Really? Don’t you have a Phase XF, which I believe allows you set minimum and maximum focus points? I would think the XF would provide a more accurate approach to the required number and placement of focus points. With the GFX firmware, I think you ( or the camera) are sort of guessing. Can you explain in more detail how the GFX is determining the number and placement of focus points?
I do have the XF. Is is good, but the gfx bracketing is much easier to use.
if you have much time, the xf is fine, but personally I like the gfx best.
Also the Fujifilm lenses are the best I have tried so far. Others may disagree,
but this is what I think.
-
I do have the XF. Is is good, but the gfx bracketing is much easier to use.
if you have much time, the xf is fine, but personally I like the gfx best.
Also the Fujifilm lenses are the best I have tried so far. Others may disagree,
but this is what I think.
Sure, the GFX lenses are excellent, but an optimally focused lens on an XF is WAY better than a GFX lens that is NOT optimally focused.
-
Of course, but when you focus bracket it really dont matter much if the
camera is perfectly adjusted. As long as it is not way off..
-
Hi,
Jim Kasson's testing shows that focusing on the GFX is very accurate and it allows to focus stopped down, which eliminates the effects of focus shifting.
Jim has not done testing on the Phase One XF.
I have high regards for Jim Kasson's testing because he describes the methods he uses in detail.
Best regards
Erik
Of course, but when you focus bracket it really dont matter much if the
camera is perfectly adjusted. As long as it is not way off..
-
I've not tested the GFX yet. The camera doesn't really do it for me, as much as the X1D. But i think it's clear that the lenses are quite exceptional, just from what I have seen, heard, and read.
Both the H and the XF, in my opinion, have lenses that get the job done. I prefer the H lenses which I find more interesting in their rendering. The XF lenses to me are nothing special in that regard at all and a bit of a turn off. The XF and H lenses are mostly all getting old as well. I just see the Blue Ring lenses as tarted up old versions with a hefty price.
The development is going to go where the interest is and I think that is the GFX and X1D. The lenses coming from these are the most recent cutting edge designs. Fuji have historically made exceptional lenses. The X1D lenses are already proving quite exceptional too.
It's a tricky decision for me between the two. I think Phocus makes quite a difference, the GFX has no native converter and is a bit out of the loop in that regard. Ultimately I can see that the Blad may have a better overall envelope from capture to output. I do think the GFX is fugly, the X1D is stunning.
-
. I do think the GFX is fugly, the X1D is stunning.
The beauty of the camera has no bearing for me when it comes to my choice of instrument. Before I got my nice-looking Master Technika, I was happy with the appearance of my ugly Speed Graphic. I got rid of my pretty M9 and M240 in favor of pedestrian-looking a7RIIs and IIIs. I use a lot of Nikon gear, but I was never tempted by the good-looking Df. My favorite MF view camera was the dull Arca Swiss folding-monorail 6x9. I also used Arca Swiss 4x5 and 8x10 monorail cameras, in spite of the fact that the Sinars looked better.
All those opinions about beauty are, of course, totally subjective.
Jim
-
Oh how I wish the gfx could tether to C1.... I really love my XT2 and am trying the XH1 today so even though I haven’t used the GFX I could see transitioning to it being fairly painless. The fact the little Fuji’s don’t natively tether to C1 doesn’t bother me as I use them in situations that are shoot to card. I do shoot tethered to all my studio/lit work and have come to depend on C1 tether workflow as a necessity. For now I love my H4X and H glass with credo back but now that I’m getting used to evf as it’s gotten so much better I’d like to update. I just couldn’t see myself doing any of the “hack/jpg preview in hot folder” workarounds and am going to wait to see what happens. I’d consider the X1D because of its ability to use Phocus but for now.....
Hell, I’ll pay an additional yearly usage/subscription fee to Phase for the ability to open up C1 to the GFX. I’m sure I’m not the only one who would pay for this
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I agree about the C1. But when you get used to it, Lightroom is good.
I think Phase One will never open up for GFX etc.
-
I agree about the C1. But when you get used to it, Lightroom is good.
I think Phase One will never open up for GFX etc.
i don't think C1 will let GFX in either but honestly I don't really care much anymore....
LR tethering with the GFX is so rock solid, first time i am able to switch between tethered and un tethered so seamlessly....i also really, really like being able to shoot to both card and computer....instant back up....
as for processing and workflow i always preferred aperture to either C1 and LR but i am really getting into what adobe is doing with the cloud and mobile apps.....i don't like the subscription model but that is the way things seem to bye going anyway....
-
The beauty of the camera has no bearing for me when it comes to my choice of instrument. Before I got my nice-looking Master Technika, I was happy with the appearance of my ugly Speed Graphic. I got rid of my pretty M9 and M240 in favor of pedestrian-looking a7RIIs and IIIs. I use a lot of Nikon gear, but I was never tempted by the good-looking Df. My favorite MF view camera was the dull Arca Swiss folding-monorail 6x9. I also used Arca Swiss 4x5 and 8x10 monorail cameras, in spite of the fact that the Sinars looked better.
All those opinions about beauty are, of course, totally subjective.
Jim
Yeah it sure is subjective. Design is important to me and it matters what it looks like.
i have spent a lot time working with dull cameras too and when I pick up something that inspires me it's just a different feeling. It doesn't really matter, probably, but then it does make a difference to me. The experience of using a nice piece of gear makes the process more enjoyable. But then on a big shoot which is really busy, you don't even have the time for that or even any thoughts about it other than it just working.
Leica M, Hasselblad V, Linhof Technika & Deardorf are just cameras I have which is sort of like an affair. They are nice and they make me feel like a photographer.
I think the Speed Graphic is charming! I have the top mounted Crown and I love it.
That Fuji though, I was looking at it the other day. I don't know it's just so pedestrian looking. Such a miss mash of design and seems like it was cost prioritised. I just don't like it.
But I totally get that some people like the way it looks - what ever floats your boat.
-
But I totally get that some people like the way it looks - what ever floats your boat.
It's not that I think the GFX is beautiful. It's that it doesn't matter to me. I care how a camera works, not what it looks like.
But I can understand the appeal of using a beautiful thing. I'm a bit that way with cars.
Jim
-
I agree about the C1. But when you get used to it, Lightroom is good.
I think Phase One will never open up for GFX etc.
i don't think C1 will let GFX in either but honestly I don't really care much anymore....
LR tethering with the GFX is so rock solid, first time i am able to switch between tethered and un tethered so seamlessly....i also really, really like being able to shoot to both card and computer....instant back up....
as for processing and workflow i always preferred aperture to either C1 and LR but i am really getting into what adobe is doing with the cloud and mobile apps.....i don't like the subscription model but that is the way things seem to bye going anyway....
I think C1 is a a bit of a tenuous thing in our industry.
I do like it and prefer to use it but I don't absolutely need it. Lightroom and Photoshop does everything I need.
-
I think C1 is a a bit of a tenuous thing in our industry.
I do like it and prefer to use it but I don't absolutely need it. Lightroom and Photoshop does everything I need.
the reason C1 is so intrenched is that for a looooooong time it was THE only really stable tethering software....LR was horrible...horrible....i honestly cant say how LR is for canon, nikon or sony these days but for the GFX it is the best tethering solution i have experienced yet....
as for C1 delivering the best files....not so sure about it, but i think overall that is a personal preference at this point....a lot of good solutions available and a lot of factors to consider overall.....
-
Yeah it sure is subjective. Design is important to me and it matters what it looks like.
i have spent a lot time working with dull cameras too and when I pick up something that inspires me it's just a different feeling. It doesn't really matter, probably, but then it does make a difference to me. The experience of using a nice piece of gear makes the process more enjoyable. But then on a big shoot which is really busy, you don't even have the time for that or even any thoughts about it other than it just working.
Leica M, Hasselblad V, Linhof Technika & Deardorf are just cameras I have which is sort of like an affair. They are nice and they make me feel like a photographer.
I think the Speed Graphic is charming! I have the top mounted Crown and I love it.
That Fuji though, I was looking at it the other day. I don't know it's just so pedestrian looking. Such a miss mash of design and seems like it was cost prioritised. I just don't like it.
But I totally get that some people like the way it looks - what ever floats your boat.
i definitely think design and the joy of using an object has a big place in using a tool....but to anyone who uses a camera for work it probably is a tool first and as such it has to perform....and all great designers/architects, builders will agree that design without function probably falls into the bad design category....just as design to support pure functionality would almost automatically fall into the good design category.....pretty is of course very subjective.....
i would probably call the X1D pretty and it definitely feels good in the hand but i would consider the GFX a better more functional tool and continued use has definitely let me appreciate that "unfortunate" extra depth of the lcd housing....which is really the only questionable design decision when looking at the GFX....but i would rather have the bigger battery and the moveable LCD...
i really wonder what the GFX2 will look like, fuji has gotten so much negative feedback, part of it definitely because of the "good looks" of the X1D....
in the end though to me a camera has to work well first, look good second....
-
Sure, the X1D LOOKS superb, but far more importantly, it is a joy to handle and shoot with. That, to me, is the real appeal. I have never used a camera that falls so perfectly in my hands the way the X1D does. It just feels like it was molded to fit in MY hands. Equally important to me is the overall user interface. It is spare, and I love that. I just hate the design philosophy behind Japanese cameras, where there is seemingly no limit to the number of options and features that they build into the menu system. I have had an X1D for over a year now, and not once have I had to read a manual to figure out how to set up the camera or have I been stumped about what I (or the camera) was doing after not using the camera for a few weeks. It has what I need to shoot, and very little more. If state of the art AF capabilities and FPS were required for what I shoot, the X1D wouldn't work. I generally use MF, and the X1D does that very well indeed. Plus, I can put the body and three lenses in a small bag and hike with the whole package effortlessly.
-
i definitely think design and the joy of using an object has a big place in using a tool....but to anyone who uses a camera for work it probably is a tool first and as such it has to perform....and all great designers/architects, builders will agree that design without function probably falls into the bad design category....just as design to support pure functionality would almost automatically fall into the good design category.....pretty is of course very subjective.....
i would probably call the X1D pretty and it definitely feels good in the hand but i would consider the GFX a better more functional tool and continued use has definitely let me appreciate that "unfortunate" extra depth of the lcd housing....which is really the only questionable design decision when looking at the GFX....but i would rather have the bigger battery and the moveable LCD...
i really wonder what the GFX2 will look like, fuji has gotten so much negative feedback, part of it definitely because of the "good looks" of the X1D....
in the end though to me a camera has to work well first, look good second....
Oh absolutely, if the tool doesn't do the job it's not even a consideration.
But for my purposes a camera needs only to be very simple. That's why I like the Leica M, the Hasselblad V, Mamiya RZ. I have more complicated cameras too, Canon and Hasselblad H but I mostly use them on manual and just operate the shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and shutter button mostly. Even if there are lots of buttons there, I hardly use them and I would rather they weren't there.
The Hasselblad X is super simple and I like it.
I can't imagine the GFX2 will look any different. I think the other thing Fuji have to contend with is brand perception. They were once a giant of the pro industry but the last decade and a half they really had to start from scratch in the consumer and amateur world. So they have so rebuilding of brand image to do.
These sort of things really shouldn't matter but they do. A photographer is, sadly, perceived by many clients as more or less legitimate, safe, reliable etc. by the gear they use. Unfortunately many see expensive gear as a mark of success and status and they tend to know which brands those are. It's amazing how many new clients point and ask "what camera are you using?" on shoot day. Even if you are using Lightroom, those that don't know can feel less assured because almost everyone is using Capture One. Silly I know, but some times it's a thing. When they see the results it's fine, but it can be awkward sometimes!
As long as I stable tether and have a curves palette I don't really care what I use.
-
Oh absolutely, if the tool doesn't do the job it's not even a consideration.
But for my purposes a camera needs only to be very simple. That's why I like the Leica M, the Hasselblad V, Mamiya RZ. I have more complicated cameras too, Canon and Hasselblad H but I mostly use them on manual and just operate the shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and shutter button mostly. Even if there are lots of buttons there, I hardly use them and I would rather they weren't there.
The Hasselblad X is super simple and I like it.
I can't imagine the GFX2 will look any different. I think the other thing Fuji have to contend with is brand perception. They were once a giant of the pro industry but the last decade and a half they really had to start from scratch in the consumer and amateur world. So they have so rebuilding of brand image to do.
These sort of things really shouldn't matter but they do. A photographer is, sadly, perceived by many clients as more or less legitimate, safe, reliable etc. by the gear they use. Unfortunately many see expensive gear as a mark of success and status and they tend to know which brands those are. It's amazing how many new clients point and ask "what camera are you using?" on shoot day. Even if you are using Lightroom, those that don't know can feel less assured because almost everyone is using Capture One. Silly I know, but some times it's a thing. When they see the results it's fine, but it can be awkward sometimes!
As long as I stable tether and have a curves palette I don't really care what I use.
the leica M film cameras are perfect examples of great design....and i think fuji went that route when they got into digital, unfortunately there are so many more settings and things to consider these days with digital, but once set, IMO the fujis are like old manual film cameras because of the manual dials....i love the push in dial of the X1D, great idea, simple solution....and as much as i do like the os/interface/touchscreen controls of the X1D, i actually hate hate hate having to go to a (especially non tilting) screen to change simple settings....i also cant stand touch screens in cars, i need a tactile volume button or buttons to change stations,...everything else forces me to take my eyes off the road for longer then i am comfortable with....same with cameras....but as far as touchscreen interfaces go, the X1D is awesome....other then the lag and hiccups...
i completely agree that on set C1 is the standard and a big part of that is that even people who know nothing, know C1....but photoshop and LR are even better known as just as widely accepted....and i am sure nobody knows phocus but won't question why anyone would use the hasselblad app....
-
the leica M film cameras are perfect examples of great design....and i think fuji went that route when they got into digital, unfortunately there are so many more settings and things to consider these days with digital, but once set, IMO the fujis are like old manual film cameras because of the manual dials....i love the push in dial of the X1D, great idea, simple solution....and as much as i do like the os/interface/touchscreen controls of the X1D, i actually hate hate hate having to go to a (especially non tilting) screen to change simple settings....i also cant stand touch screens in cars, i need a tactile volume button or buttons to change stations,...everything else forces me to take my eyes off the road for longer then i am comfortable with....same with cameras....but as far as touchscreen interfaces go, the X1D is awesome....other then the lag and hiccups...
i completely agree that on set C1 is the standard and a big part of that is that even people who know nothing, know C1....but photoshop and LR are even better known as just as widely accepted....and i am sure nobody knows phocus but won't question why anyone would use the hasselblad app....
But the Leica M (and other Leica) are not overloaded with complex menus. When we need to learn a xpages manual to operate a camera, then I have some reservations. Yeah, they (Fuji) look like Leicas, they are inspired by Leicas...but they aren't.
The paradox is when one tries an Arri, which is the industry standart in movie, and realises how simple,
Clean and clever are the functions/ops and usability of the camera. Gear made to be operated by
Working people who use exclusively what is necessary to get the best imagery. Not more nor less.
No fancy stuff hidden in menus, no extra dials. Leica is minimalistic such is Arri.
Same happens to me with Fuji or Pana compared to Leica.
They are great, raffined cameras of the digihipster...but...the king is (still) the king. Imo.
Don't get me wrong, I think Fuji Leica inspired (or Pana) are great little cameras.
There are no bad cameras nowdays but not all iqual in operability.
I do like very much the GX8 for ex, but the feel, the experience has nothing to do with a proper M.
It's miles away.
There is a strange misconception in many forums which basically points that brands like Leica, Hasselblad...in short
Everything that is expensive is suspicious and are just useless cameras for posh people.
That nobody needs MF nor Leicas because Sony or Fuji are doing better for less money.
I think on the contrary that all the digital sophistication has not prooven to bring a better imagery
That what we had with snobs using their Leicalblad. Do we have a more convincing imagery
Today with touch screens, phase detect, pixel shifts, luts film simulators, 5000 fps and EVFs? Nope!
It's just a hyper lucrative tech buzz. I don't beleive a world in which the cheapest and more
Complicated is best simply because it never worked that way and never will.
What's good is expensive and what's really good is really expensive, in every single area of life.
Each time I read former Leica users who miraculously switched to Fuji cause it's better...I don't bite.
If I am a M user, I have zero interest in switching to a Fuji mirrorles system unless I have money issues.
But yes what we got are agressive campaigns of markering depts to make people buying their gears every 2 years with cosmetic vintageries, pixel counts and cutting edge technology and many users are caught by those campaigns without
Them even knowing it. I'm not sure A.Wintour has made Vogue a better quality vogue, a part from being
Insanely dictatorial to use a //.
I think that the question is a matter of "shooting philosophy". How much one is willing to pay to get
the best engineering possible, the simpliest operation possible, that fully delivers in the situations it has been designed for.
Menus and programable dials everywhere are gimmicks. One editing software used in huge Hollywood
Mega productions has...NO...menu whatsoever! (So rare that I underlined the "no") It just works. Adobe is menu oriented. Menus everywhere.
I don't share this philosophy neither in gear nor softwares.
-
I am interested in understanding how the electronic shutter on the X1D handles landscapes with moving water. Most often my shutter speeds for flowing water are in the range of 1/8 to 1/2 sec so I wonder what the effect of the 1/4 sec (300 ms) read time would have. I do some seascape landscapes in which the surf often extends across the entire frame so would that subject to the rolling shutter effect? Would true "still life" landscapes with rocks and trees be satisfactory with ES or would breeze movements of small branches and leaves be a problem? Any suggestions?
-
But the Leica M (and other Leica) are not overloaded with complex menus. When we need to learn a xpages manual to operate a camera, then I have some reservations. Yeah, they (Fuji) look like Leicas, they are inspired by Leicas...but they aren't.
The paradox is when one tries an Arri, which is the industry standart in movie, and realises how simple,
Clean and clever are the functions/ops and usability of the camera. Gear made to be operated by
Working people who use exclusively what is necessary to get the best imagery. Not more nor less.
No fancy stuff hidden in menus, no extra dials. Leica is minimalistic such is Arri.
Same happens to me with Fuji or Pana compared to Leica.
They are great, raffined cameras of the digihipster...but...the king is (still) the king. Imo.
Don't get me wrong, I think Fuji Leica inspired (or Pana) are great little cameras.
There are no bad cameras nowdays but not all iqual in operability.
I do like very much the GX8 for ex, but the feel, the experience has nothing to do with a proper M.
It's miles away.
There is a strange misconception in many forums which basically points that brands like Leica, Hasselblad...in short
Everything that is expensive is suspicious and are just useless cameras for posh people.
That nobody needs MF nor Leicas because Sony or Fuji are doing better for less money.
I think on the contrary that all the digital sophistication has not prooven to bring a better imagery
That what we had with snobs using their Leicalblad. Do we have a more convincing imagery
Today with touch screens, phase detect, pixel shifts, luts film simulators, 5000 fps and EVFs? Nope!
It's just a hyper lucrative tech buzz. I don't beleive a world in which the cheapest and more
Complicated is best simply because it never worked that way and never will.
What's good is expensive and what's really good is really expensive, in every single area of life.
Each time I read former Leica users who miraculously switched to Fuji cause it's better...I don't bite.
If I am a M user, I have zero interest in switching to a Fuji mirrorles system unless I have money issues.
But yes what we got are agressive campaigns of markering depts to make people buying their gears every 2 years with cosmetic vintageries, pixel counts and cutting edge technology and many users are caught by those campaigns without
Them even knowing it. I'm not sure A.Wintour has made Vogue a better quality vogue, a part from being
Insanely dictatorial to use a //.
I think that the question is a matter of "shooting philosophy". How much one is willing to pay to get
the best engineering possible, the simpliest operation possible, that fully delivers in the situations it has been designed for.
Menus and programable dials everywhere are gimmicks. One editing software used in huge Hollywood
Mega productions has...NO...menu whatsoever! (So rare that I underlined the "no") It just works. Adobe is menu oriented. Menus everywhere.
I don't share this philosophy neither in gear nor softwares.
no doubt that a great shot is a great shot, regardless of camera...unfortunately I (and a lot of other working photographers) have to create several great shots one a shoot and things like AF make things a lot easier, sony's eye AF is just awesome and it does make a huge difference....not having to worry about having focus locked in while considering all other things on a commercial shoot is very nice.....so is better DR or being able to shoot at 800, 1600 or 3200 iso and still not have to worry about what it looks like printed....i personal just got the fuji XH1 because of IBIS and the eterna image profile....of course one cold argue that these are amateur tools but the reality is that these days clients want and expect video on top of stills.....i used to own RED and sony FS7, but these are most of the time complete overkill and clients don't want to pay for these kind of productions on a still shoot....feature films use amateur cameras these days as crash cams or B roll....
ignore all video features, ignore all AF options, ignore all connection settings, ignore all jpeg options (incl image profiles) and the menus are pretty bare...
we never had cameras before that could do all these things....and to me all these settings (and reading the manual) really only come in when i initially test and set up the camera....for example the second top display of the XH1 and GFX are a really great solution....being able to set them up and display everything i need to see in stills and movie mode are huge time savers....because i rarely have to go into menus or use the back LCD to make adjustments.....because i honestly hate doing it and i (in general) won't during a shoot.....
i generally believe in that you get what you pay for but i strongly disagree that more expensive is better....cutting corners usually means mediocre results, but throwing money at things usually means that someone will take advantage of the situation....
the last leica i looked at was the SL, i tested it with the zoom and a summilux 35.....vs a sony A7RIII with the zeiss (yes, the worst zoom in the line up) and a voigtlander 40 1.4.....there was not one single aspect of that leica set up that was anywhere close to the sony, IQ, speed, AF, video, DR, iso,...nothing....not even size and weight....the most surprising thing was that i preferred the voigtlander to the summilux.....wide open, stopped down, CA, sharpness, OOF rendering,....
16000$ vs 4500$ and there was absolutely nothing there to justify any extra price, absolutely no reason at all to pick up the leica kit for any job or occasion regardless of price....
-
no doubt that a great shot is a great shot, regardless of camera...unfortunately I (and a lot of other working photographers) have to create several great shots one a shoot and things like AF make things a lot easier, sony's eye AF is just awesome and it does make a huge difference....not having to worry about having focus locked in while considering all other things on a commercial shoot is very nice.....so is better DR or being able to shoot at 800, 1600 or 3200 iso and still not have to worry about what it looks like printed....i personal just got the fuji XH1 because of IBIS and the eterna image profile....of course one cold argue that these are amateur tools but the reality is that these days clients want and expect video on top of stills.....i used to own RED and sony FS7, but these are most of the time complete overkill and clients don't want to pay for these kind of productions on a still shoot....feature films use amateur cameras these days as crash cams or B roll....
ignore all video features, ignore all AF options, ignore all connection settings, ignore all jpeg options (incl image profiles) and the menus are pretty bare...
we never had cameras before that could do all these things....and to me all these settings (and reading the manual) really only come in when i initially test and set up the camera....for example the second top display of the XH1 and GFX are a really great solution....being able to set them up and display everything i need to see in stills and movie mode are huge time savers....because i rarely have to go into menus or use the back LCD to make adjustments.....because i honestly hate doing it and i (in general) won't during a shoot.....
i generally believe in that you get what you pay for but i strongly disagree that more expensive is better....cutting corners usually means mediocre results, but throwing money at things usually means that someone will take advantage of the situation....
the last leica i looked at was the SL, i tested it with the zoom and a summilux 35.....vs a sony A7RIII with the zeiss (yes, the worst zoom in the line up) and a voigtlander 40 1.4.....there was not one single aspect of that leica set up that was anywhere close to the sony, IQ, speed, AF, video, DR, iso,...nothing....not even size and weight....the most surprising thing was that i preferred the voigtlander to the summilux.....wide open, stopped down, CA, sharpness, OOF rendering,....
16000$ vs 4500$ and there was absolutely nothing there to justify any extra price, absolutely no reason at all to pick up the leica kit for any job or occasion regardless of price....
Although I absolutly love the S system that I also tried when it came out for being to me the best peice of engineering/design I have ever seen on a still camera you make very good points and I agree on what you say about the cost justification of this system. It just does not deliver 3 times its astronomical cost considering the lenses also.
But it doesn't change the general idea of the fact that we generaly pay for what we get. There are some exceptions, some cheap equipments are surprisingly very good, some expensive ones can perform worse than better priced brands.
And that happened more than once in photography. The S you mentionned is a perfect example of this paradox and the hand made in germany is not going to pay the bills better.
My point was not really contradicting this, nor denying the goodies of some technological improvements when they really help to acheive the job easier. Actualy I'm not in favor of paying more just for a craftmanship excelence or a red dot.
If I can afford the experience maybe, as a whim.
The idea I wanted to share is this: when the D800 went up, I knew it was going to be a 10 years camera. And 6 years later it is still an amazing bang for the buck for now 1000 euros for still imagery. Video being 4k, let's forget it.
I strongly doubt that a photographer who sold his D800 for the next cutting edge toy suddenly
Experienced a magic increment of the keepers and an artistic enlightenment. I don't bite on this.
Technology is great, necesarly, we should not underestimate it but neither overestimate it so thay every 2 years there is
A need for brand new stuff. But that is what happens. Nobody looks now at a D800 like nobody looks at a R1.
Everything seems to become obsolete almost inmediatly.
But again: do we have a better photography now? Do we have a better cinema now?
No, we have a cheaper imagery (in production costs).
What I like of the Leica M, is that it is not obsolete, it is still there despite its limitations.
And I still see a lot of Hasselblad in the fashion corridors.
There are here to last.
They seem to be kind of ”out” the current skizo that is happening
In the imagery today. I'm completly in favor of democratisation and reduced costs
(Although I’d prefer to be a better payed employee of Leica Germany with great social security than a chinese worker...),
But the frenesy that is happening today is out of control and there are very serious
Issues that are happening for example wlthin the motion industry.
I'm horrified by the menu system of many new generation cameras. For me it doesn't work and remains
Unproductive. For others, it's god's gift. Who's right? I don't know and probably dom't care but if I have to
Press more than twice menu buttons or touch screens, It does not feel right.
But you mentionned a few improvements in technology that really helped the photographer
To acheive the same result smoother and sometimes better accuracy.
I agree wlth all you said in essence except for movie using mirrorless hybrid cameras (even for B, or Z) where I completly disagree on their usability and the postprod but it
Would be too long to explain why and way out of topic.
-
The idea I wanted to share is this: when the D800 went up, I knew it was going to be a 10 years camera. And 6 years later it is still an amazing bang for the buck for now 1000 euros for still imagery. Video being 4k, let's forget it.
I strongly doubt that a photographer who sold his D800 for the next cutting edge toy suddenly
Experienced a magic increment of the keepers and an artistic enlightenment. I don't bite on this.
Technology is great, necesarly, we should not underestimate it but neither overestimate it so thay every 2 years there is
A need for brand new stuff. But that is what happens. Nobody looks now at a D800 like nobody looks at a R1.
Everything seems to become obsolete almost inmediatly.
But again: do we have a better photography now? Do we have a better cinema now?
No, we have a cheaper imagery (in production costs).
there is no 10 year camera anymore, there might bee a 10 year system or glass but even that is questionable....as much as i love some old glass that i have, i use if for a certain look now....and not everything has to be perfectly sharp and detailed....
as far as bodies go....2 years is a good rotation...the old body is still valuable enough to get some money for it and the new ones usually just do just about everything slightly better then the one it replaces....D800, D810, D850....A7RII, A7RIII (even more so) ...nobody would work with the D850 and say "no the D810 is better" because it isn't...it might not be worth the hassle and extra cost to make the switch but in the end there are a lot of people out there who have the D800 and want the D810, so right now, that makes the choice easy....
switching systems is a much bigger deal: lenses (less so with mirrorless) and of course menus and handling....but even that is in reality not that big of a deal and (like i said) I and most people i know don't like any menu system...we all agree that it gets crazy and i am pretty sure that at this point i could probably do things quicker with my cameras if i would read the manual better and use some of the features better.....same goes for my computer/trackpad....i have to force myself to learn new shortcuts and gestures and when i do, the do make my life easier...that won't change, it will only get worse (or better depending how you look at it)...it used to be that one had to deposit checks at the bank, then the ATM, then mobile, now "who writes checks anymore?"
all these advances are just on a curve that never stops going up, steeper and steeper.....i already feel i missed a few points on that curve when i watch my kids interact with devices....they are also so much more open to accepting changes and new ways, as long as they are intuitive and make sense....funny enough they have zero tolerance for bad interfaces....
i don't think it is a coincidence that film and analog is making a big comeback....the simplicity of the act of shooting (very little settings other then iso, shutter and f stop) combined with the thrill of the unexpected and the coincidence and the piece of mind that there are limited options for post (at least if you stay analog and don't hire a master printer)....its liberating....
i am very excited that hasselblad got out of their "lets relabel sonys and sell them to idiots" phase and really hope that DJI will bring some real innovation because photography needs heritage and nostalgia....which is why i think what leica is doing is great as well...i love their boutiques, i love their angagement in the community, but they will have to at some point concentrate on actually producing semi competitive cameras, because right now (other then the Q) they do not....it starts with the sensor....it would bee so much harder to argue against a leica that has the same basic specs as pix, iso, dr and general speed but the magic leica sauce applied to it, wrapped in a magic leica body, combined with magic leica glass (which btw is the biggest let down for me right now, their glass isn't so magic anymore compared to everyone else) ....i would pay a premium for a A7RII leica with extra leica sauce (and i am not talking about a wood handle and ostrich leather skin)....hey, i am shooting a GFX, so i am paying a premium for slightly better IQ with lesser speed and handling (compared to D850 and A7RIII)!
-
there is no 10 year camera anymore, there might bee a 10 year system or glass but even that is questionable....as much as i love some old glass that i have, i use if for a certain look now....and not everything has to be perfectly sharp and detailed....
as far as bodies go....2 years is a good rotation...the old body is still valuable enough to get some money for it and the new ones usually just do just about everything slightly better then the one it replaces....D800, D810, D850....A7RII, A7RIII (even more so) ...nobody would work with the D850 and say "no the D810 is better" because it isn't...it might not be worth the hassle and extra cost to make the switch but in the end there are a lot of people out there who have the D800 and want the D810, so right now, that makes the choice easy....
switching systems is a much bigger deal: lenses (less so with mirrorless) and of course menus and handling....but even that is in reality not that big of a deal and (like i said) I and most people i know don't like any menu system...we all agree that it gets crazy and i am pretty sure that at this point i could probably do things quicker with my cameras if i would read the manual better and use some of the features better.....same goes for my computer/trackpad....i have to force myself to learn new shortcuts and gestures and when i do, the do make my life easier...that won't change, it will only get worse (or better depending how you look at it)...it used to be that one had to deposit checks at the bank, then the ATM, then mobile, now "who writes checks anymore?"
all these advances are just on a curve that never stops going up, steeper and steeper.....i already feel i missed a few points on that curve when i watch my kids interact with devices....they are also so much more open to accepting changes and new ways, as long as they are intuitive and make sense....funny enough they have zero tolerance for bad interfaces....
i don't think it is a coincidence that film and analog is making a big comeback....the simplicity of the act of shooting (very little settings other then iso, shutter and f stop) combined with the thrill of the unexpected and the coincidence and the piece of mind that there are limited options for post (at least if you stay analog and don't hire a master printer)....its liberating....
i am very excited that hasselblad got out of their "lets relabel sonys and sell them to idiots" phase and really hope that DJI will bring some real innovation because photography needs heritage and nostalgia....which is why i think what leica is doing is great as well...i love their boutiques, i love their angagement in the community, but they will have to at some point concentrate on actually producing semi competitive cameras, because right now (other then the Q) they do not....it starts with the sensor....it would bee so much harder to argue against a leica that has the same basic specs as pix, iso, dr and general speed but the magic leica sauce applied to it, wrapped in a magic leica body, combined with magic leica glass (which btw is the biggest let down for me right now, their glass isn't so magic anymore compared to everyone else) ....i would pay a premium for a A7RII leica with extra leica sauce (and i am not talking about a wood handle and ostrich leather skin)....hey, i am shooting a GFX, so i am paying a premium for slightly better IQ with lesser speed and handling (compared to D850 and A7RIII)!
I certainly agree on your comments about Leica and Hassy, and we need them in business and not with ostrich leather or champagne like boxes ;D. I share
Your views.
And yeah, gone are the days when money was gold based. Now
Its debt based only.
-
combined with magic leica glass (which btw is the biggest let down for me right now, their glass isn't so magic anymore compared to everyone else)
Actually the newest Leica lenses are all some of the best they've ever made. The 50mm APO-Summicron actually seems a bit better than the Otus, even the now older 50mm Summilux is very close to the Otus. The 75mm Noctilux looks extremely good, the colour, tonality, sharpness is next generation/next level stuff for this sort of lens. The 50mm 0.95 is ground breaking in its speed and performance. The 28mm Summilux is stunning, the 35mm 1.4 Summilux FLE is a few years old now but absolutely magical and incredible. I would certainly use the term magical for the lenses and next to their equivalent lenses from other brands they are, in my own testing, better in many ways - expect for price of course. The 50 Noctilux next to the Canon and Nikon equivalents, there is no comparison - the Leica is significantly better, as in night and day difference - Which was my justification for buying them.
The slightly older lenses like the 90mm APO-Summicron have been eclipsed by better lenses elsewhere but these were the bench mark lenses for a good many years and in real world use aren't missing much. There is an incoming 90mm Summilux which is expected to be exceptional.
I think the Leica M is the only camera I would consider a 10 year camera. If you buy right, you find the lenses go up in value, not down. The bodies of course drop in value as to be expected with digital cameras but the performance difference in sensors between other brands is really very little in the real world use. And the lenses absolutely deliver.
-
I am interested in understanding how the electronic shutter on the X1D handles landscapes with moving water. Most often my shutter speeds for flowing water are in the range of 1/8 to 1/2 sec so I wonder what the effect of the 1/4 sec (300 ms) read time would have. I do some seascape landscapes in which the surf often extends across the entire frame so would that subject to the rolling shutter effect? Would true "still life" landscapes with rocks and trees be satisfactory with ES or would breeze movements of small branches and leaves be a problem? Any suggestions?
I don't have experience with the X1D, but I since the Phase One backs added ES I have used it exclusively. ES on the IQ3100 takes longer (about 1 second total) so the effect may be different. I would assume the effect on the X1D would be less evident than on the IQ3100.
Below are some images taken at the following shutter speeds:
0.6 sec
0.6 sec
0.6 sec
1.6 sec
1.3 sec
1/5 sec
I am sure the effect is there, but because waves are perceived more random than a person walking I do not think it is obvious. You may feel differently:
0.6 sec
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/es/DChew_171018_004441-C1.jpg)
0.6 sec
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/es/DChew_171018_004442.jpg)
0.6 sec
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/es/DChew_171018_004444-C1.jpg)
1.6 sec
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/es/DChew_171018_004473-C1.jpg)
1.3 sec
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/es/DChew_180302_005625-C1.jpg)
1/5 sec
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/es/DChew_180302_005648-C1.jpg)
Dave
-
there is no 10 year camera anymore, there might bee a 10 year system or glass but even that is questionable....as much as i love some old glass that i have, i use if for a certain look now....and not everything has to be perfectly sharp and detailed....
as far as bodies go....2 years is a good rotation...the old body is still valuable enough to get some money for it and the new ones usually just do just about everything slightly better then the one it replaces....D800, D810, D850....A7RII, A7RIII (even more so) ...nobody would work with the D850 and say "no the D810 is better" because it isn't...it might not be worth the hassle and extra cost to make the switch but in the end there are a lot of people out there who have the D800 and want the D810, so right now, that makes the choice easy....
switching systems is a much bigger deal: lenses (less so with mirrorless) and of course menus and handling....but even that is in reality not that big of a deal and (like i said) I and most people i know don't like any menu system...we all agree that it gets crazy and i am pretty sure that at this point i could probably do things quicker with my cameras if i would read the manual better and use some of the features better.....same goes for my computer/trackpad....i have to force myself to learn new shortcuts and gestures and when i do, the do make my life easier...that won't change, it will only get worse (or better depending how you look at it)...it used to be that one had to deposit checks at the bank, then the ATM, then mobile, now "who writes checks anymore?"
all these advances are just on a curve that never stops going up, steeper and steeper.....i already feel i missed a few points on that curve when i watch my kids interact with devices....they are also so much more open to accepting changes and new ways, as long as they are intuitive and make sense....funny enough they have zero tolerance for bad interfaces....
i don't think it is a coincidence that film and analog is making a big comeback....the simplicity of the act of shooting (very little settings other then iso, shutter and f stop) combined with the thrill of the unexpected and the coincidence and the piece of mind that there are limited options for post (at least if you stay analog and don't hire a master printer)....its liberating....
i am very excited that hasselblad got out of their "lets relabel sonys and sell them to idiots" phase and really hope that DJI will bring some real innovation because photography needs heritage and nostalgia....which is why i think what leica is doing is great as well...i love their boutiques, i love their angagement in the community, but they will have to at some point concentrate on actually producing semi competitive cameras, because right now (other then the Q) they do not....it starts with the sensor....it would bee so much harder to argue against a leica that has the same basic specs as pix, iso, dr and general speed but the magic leica sauce applied to it, wrapped in a magic leica body, combined with magic leica glass (which btw is the biggest let down for me right now, their glass isn't so magic anymore compared to everyone else) ....i would pay a premium for a A7RII leica with extra leica sauce (and i am not talking about a wood handle and ostrich leather skin)....hey, i am shooting a GFX, so i am paying a premium for slightly better IQ with lesser speed and handling (compared to D850 and A7RIII)!
I have a bit more time to write today (and apologies for my clumpsy english) and expand a bit my thoughts on this conversation because what you pointed is interesting.
The question to me, and many others as a growing movement (or countermouvement), is aimed to what kind of imagery this business is willing to go and for who and...if digital really simplified the workflows as we all claim or are there hidden aspects that in fact made it even more complicated and sometimes more costly? As photographers/videographers, there is no question: technology helps.
As viewer, art lover and consummer, not that sure.
In digital imagery, the incredible technological advances and complexities involved did not have the same impact in real life to the consummer it's aimed for.
It did mostly for the shooter and production costs, apparently and at first.
You take your car, a plane, a train, and the security aspect, ambiental, interface and performances has nothing to do with let's say the 90's. The evolution is extremely noticiable for both the client and the operator.
I take a vogue magazine from the 90's, I go to see a Branco exhibition huge prints in an art gallery and compare to what's being produced today, as a viewer, I don't notice anything except an extremely boring and repetitive HDR imagery, skin pores on models that I don't want to see.
The imagery today is pretencious, pompous and not better despite the enourmous amount of technology. Ask people (not photographers) in a movie theater, in a gallery about 50mpx, HDR and so on...they don't care. They are not interested in those things. People hardly notice the difference in a 2k dcp theater vs 4k. They enjoy the story when it's good, and the only ones who notice are professionals. So? We have a problem here already, but
This, is a much bigger problem that is comming: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6OWs75BLCAA
You pointed to the fact that you have to learn new shorcuts, new workflows, new training every 2 or so years. True, we all bloody have. Is that really freedom? It's bondage! And we are all trapped. Bondage with not only photographical tools but all the post production aspect pressure that is getting more complex and expensive, and require constant educational upgrades. Wait until clients will ask 8 bloody k in HDR and we'll have to upgrade studios at the cost of a home to keep-up with the "inevitable flow of technology". And when we'll do, we'll be out of business 4 years later when the need for a new magical step will be imposed by the brand themselves. Is that the low cost of digital imagery roadmap?
It costs less first...then,
It costs more!
Brilliant! Economicaly geniouses. As you pointed Hassy, but to take a general picture and use a bit your phraseology,
Brands say: "let's sell new gear and standarts to those idiots every 2 years so they also have to renew computers, displays, softwares and we all make an enourmous amount of cash on those".
So they create the needs. And they really do.
This already is an enormous mess with proprietary curves, gammas etc...and the attempts of the academy to cure the sins on the fly has brought even more confusion in what was already a divine chaos. I join a screenshot of my studio with a red arrow to underline this current nonsense I'm talking about and it's just scratching the surface of a much bigger black hole as you know.
So the tech never ceses to grow as you pointed, and with the flow, the need to keep-up, which means that instead of enjoying our kids, wife or whatever, we, as idiots, will be obliged to learn more shortcuts, more menus, more softwares all the time.
And that is exponential as it grows.
But we still print the same size magazines don't we? and theaters have not trippled their screen sizes because of 8k.
The guy who was my photo teacher in Fine Arts does
Huge prints, 3, 4 and more meters. His work is on museums. I'm still waiting to see this quality with today's printer extremely oscur profiles and colour management jargon that became an affair only tech freaks understand...and the more hillarious of all that is, the art consummers/lovers, vogue readers, don't even care because what matters is the quality of the work, the emotion, the connection and none of those things.
Peter Lindberg could not care less about frequency separation gimmicks nor use MUAs and hates as much as I do the art directors of the agencies. He is the perfect example of a big name who said fuckoff to this industry madness and just shoots digital like in film days.
I'm not the kind of guy who like to live in the past. I love the now, I love the tech...but what is happening is 80% a big hoax
To make people buying gear and tv screens every 2 years.
To conclude, we have this never ending imagery tech, new super sensors, new AF...
What do they really brought? Marketing? Real? Both! This morning I did something for the fun I hate doing and actually never did. I took in imaging ressources the same boring image of a house from an old rusty uncompetitive outdated unapropriate dinausor Nikon D2x 12mpx, and the current micro 4/3 super mega hyper reffined sophisticated 20mpx sensor. I upsampled both to the exact same resolution. I was sure the enormous goodies of today's tech would smatch the old D2 in the face...I was blown away when I saw the results I link here. I was not expecting what I saw but it's real. It makes think...and think big!
What is happening in today's imagery? I don't know but for the viewer nothing ever happened.
-
To conclude, we have this never ending imagery tech, new super sensors, new AF...
What do they really brought? Marketing? Real? Both! This morning I did something for the fun I hate doing and actually never did. I took in imaging ressources the same boring image of a house from an old rusty uncompetitive outdated unapropriate dinausor Nikon D2x 12mpx, and the current micro 4/3 super mega hyper reffined sophisticated 20mpx sensor. I upsampled both to the exact same resolution. I was sure the enormous goodies of today's tech would smatch the old D2 in the face...I was blown away when I saw the results I link here. I was not expecting what I saw but it's real. It makes think...and think big!
What is happening in today's imagery? I don't know but for the viewer nothing ever happened.
Nobody is making you ride the tech train. There are plenty of great films cameras around at attractive prices. You can still buy film, chemicals, and paper. There are many folks using alternative processes who print at least as well, and probably better, than the best printers when the processes were current. Why not you? If you though the old days were great, you can go back there, which is not true of a lot of things.
Jim
-
Nobody is making you ride the tech train. There are plenty of great films cameras around at attractive prices. You can still buy film, chemicals, and paper. There are many folks using alternative processes who print at least as well, and probably better, than the best printers when the processes were current. Why not you? If you though the old days were great, you can go back there, which is not true of a lot of things.
Jim
I don't think you really read my post but only a part maybe. I don't want nor need to be back in film days. I'm talking about something else completly different here. Digital in itself is not the current problem IMO. Cheers.
-
I don't think you really read my post but only a part maybe. I don't want nor need to be back in film days. I'm talking about something else completely different here. Digital in itself is not the current problem IMO. Cheers.
Do you're saying that digital was good enough years ago? I use an ancient Betterlight scanning back occasionally. Works great. But for most things, the GFX works a lot better and is much easier to use.
Jim
-
Do you're saying that digital was good enough years ago? I use an ancient Betterlight scanning back occasionally. Works great. But for most things, the GFX works a lot better and is much easier to use.
Jim
I'm not saying none of those things Jim. My post has very little to do with cosmetic cases. It has to do with the industry roadmap, the impact and power of marketing depts and the need for standardisation and simplification mostly in motion imagery, as well as new movements within the fashion industry to counterbalance the imagery we have now.
Also that the tech ceses to become dictatorial and mandatory and instead serves
Both the production and the client, where I think it is unbalanced currently.
-
I can appreciate what Fred is saying.
If you don't upgrade your gear often, you are hardly missing out on anything.
-
I'm not saying none of those things Jim.
There's a double negative there, which I'm going to assume was an error. Let me know if I'm wrong about that.
If that's not at least part of what you're saying, what was the point of this:
"This morning I did something for the fun I hate doing and actually never did. I took in imaging ressources the same boring image of a house from an old rusty uncompetitive outdated unapropriate dinausor Nikon D2x 12mpx, and the current micro 4/3 super mega hyper reffined sophisticated 20mpx sensor. I upsampled both to the exact same resolution. I was sure the enormous goodies of today's tech would smatch the old D2 in the face...I was blown away when I saw the results I link here. I was not expecting what I saw but it's real. It makes think...and think big!"
Jim
-
There's a double negative there, which I'm going to assume was an error. Let me know if I'm wrong about that.
If that's not at least part of what you're saying, what was the point of this:
"This morning I did something for the fun I hate doing and actually never did. I took in imaging ressources the same boring image of a house from an old rusty uncompetitive outdated unapropriate dinausor Nikon D2x 12mpx, and the current micro 4/3 super mega hyper reffined sophisticated 20mpx sensor. I upsampled both to the exact same resolution. I was sure the enormous goodies of today's tech would smatch the old D2 in the face...I was blown away when I saw the results I link here. I was not expecting what I saw but it's real. It makes think...and think big!"
Jim
Very simple Jim. Ps (I personaly love the GX8 so no attack on m4/3 fans).
To make it short, one of the claim I heard most with the advance of tech in m4/3 is that the new sensor
Is supposed to bring a near FF quality as long as isos stay low.
You got the comp upsized. You can compare by yourself cause those images are public.
This claim is uncorrect because a non ff 12 mpx D2x upsized stands still
As you can see in front of a much much newer technology device.
On the contrary, if you push isos, then the GX8 got the advantage of course and this is really where the tech evolved
Most and not that much at based isos. But I would have bet that included at based Isos, a new sensor
With more megapixels would outperform at ease the old tech D2x. It did not at all.
I also remember that the old Leica digiback for the R system delivered much impressive prints than
Just the pixel count and antique tech would tell on the paper.
And this was confirmed also by people in this forum.
The bottom line is that tech makes things better but beware of some rumors and claims of all sort.
It depends in wich situations and for what.
-
I think the Leica M is the only camera I would consider a 10 year camera. If you buy right, you find the lenses go up in value, not down. The bodies of course drop in value as to be expected with digital cameras but the performance difference in sensors between other brands is really very little in the real world use. And the lenses absolutely deliver.
I agree. And I wish we had the same simplicity/minimalism in operation of the M in other brands to be honest.
In short, a S replica design in other brands would not be a luxury.
-
The bottom line is that tech makes things better but beware of some rumors and claims of all sort.
It depends in wich situations and for what.
If you're not generalizing the way I thought you were, we have no disagreement wrt those two sentences.
My last such experiment comparing tech a decade apart had an entirely different result. When I got my GFX, I compared it to my H2D-39. There was no area in which the new camera with the new Fuji lenses (as opposed to the H-series Fuji lenses) was not superior, and by a lot in some cases. I sold all my H-series gear. I didn't get much for the bodies, but I got what I thought was an amazing amount for the lenses, so some folks must have seen things differently.
Jim
-
I agree. And I wish we had the same simplicity/minimalism in operation of the M in other brands to be honest.
In short, a S replica design in other brands would not be a luxury.
I completely understand your point of view. Just don’t expect those who think a camera like the GFX is “easy to operate” to agree. The divide is significant.
-
I completely understand your point of view. Just don’t expect those who think a camera like the GFX is “easy to operate” to agree. The divide is significant.
Right. After getting the a7RIII and the GFX, I sold my M240, M9, and all my M lenses shorter than 90 mm.
I held on to the WATE for a while, then I did this test:
https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-12-24-batis-18-wate-on-a7rii/
Then I sold the WATE, too. Turns out it was worth a lot of money, so some folks must adore Leica lenses.
Jim
-
Right. After getting the a7RIII and the GFX, I sold my M240, M9, and all my M lenses shorter than 90 mm.
I held on to the WATE for a while, then I did this test:
https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-12-24-batis-18-wate-on-a7rii/
Then I sold the WATE, too. Turns out it was worth a lot of money, so some folks must adore Leica lenses.
Jim
Yes, I get it. You are all in on the GFX. However, to me, there is no getting around it that the camera body is a soulless black box with a computer inside running a very bloated operating system. It is surely capable of producing beautiful work, but the joy of using a tool is a very important part of the image making process. I know there are literally hundreds of tutorials on setting up the Fuji and Sony cameras for shooting landscapes or whatever, but that sort of proves my point.
-
Hi,
As long as you don't have large and (http://well defined) objects moving across the image at high speed slow FPS will work.
A Formula One car may move across the image in 1/10 s, and you know that the wheels are not elliptic but circular, so that would not work, unless you pan. If you pan it would work, too.
Best regards
Erik
I don't have experience with the X1D, but I since the Phase One backs added ES I have used it exclusively. ES on the IQ3100 takes longer (about 1 second total) so the effect may be different. I would assume the effect on the X1D would be less evident than on the IQ3100.
Below are some images taken at the following shutter speeds:
0.6 sec
0.6 sec
0.6 sec
1.6 sec
1.3 sec
1/5 sec
I am sure the effect is there, but because waves are perceived more random than a person walking I do not think it is obvious. You may feel differently:
0.6 sec
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/es/DChew_171018_004441-C1.jpg)
0.6 sec
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/es/DChew_171018_004442.jpg)
0.6 sec
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/es/DChew_171018_004444-C1.jpg)
1.6 sec
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/es/DChew_171018_004473-C1.jpg)
1.3 sec
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/es/DChew_180302_005625-C1.jpg)
1/5 sec
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/es/DChew_180302_005648-C1.jpg)
Dave
-
Yes, I get it. You are all in on the GFX. However, to me, there is no getting around it that the camera body is a soulless black box with a computer inside running a very bloated operating system. It is surely capable of producing beautiful work, but the joy of using a tool is a very important part of the image making process. I know there are literally hundreds of tutorials on setting up the Fuji and Sony cameras for shooting landscapes or whatever, but that sort of proves my point.
funny you choose to single out the GFX because i pretty much shoot it like i used to shoot my F3....aperture on lens, shutter on top, iso gets changed every now and then....
i don't like the sony menus and think the fuji menus are a lot better but still hate having to dig in.....but i would still much rather have those options then not....and with those modern cameras come a lot of options because they do so much and each generation gets better.....
which brings me to my other point....the idea of a digital body holding up well for 10 years is just ridiculous....neither does any computer....and to mention leica bodies in this discussion is just strange....their latest bodies (across the board) are a good generation behind....
as for leica glass: i get it there are true believers who see more then others or whose copy of a specific lens is always better then the one tested and found just not so great....and i do believe that glass is subjective and has its own voice which sometimes "sounds" better.....
but sensors? DR, iso, pixel count....yes throw in color science for some personal preference but all in all a better sensor just provides a better file....
-
However, to me, there is no getting around it that the camera body is a soulless black box...
You can anthropomorphize cameras, but they don't like it.
:)
Jim
-
which brings me to my other point....the idea of a digital body holding up well for 10 years is just ridiculous....neither does any computer....and to mention leica bodies in this discussion is just strange....their latest bodies (across the board) are a good generation behind....
as for leica glass: i get it there are true believers who see more then others or whose copy of a specific lens is always better then the one tested and found just not so great....and i do believe that glass is subjective and has its own voice which sometimes "sounds" better.....
but sensors? DR, iso, pixel count....yes throw in color science for some personal preference but all in all a better sensor just provides a better file....
Don't you think that is down to the individual though?
Bodies being a generation behind only matters if it matters to you. I have a Leica M9 and an M10 and I use the M9 a lot. It does everything I need and is really very good. It makes no difference to me that it is CCD, it has good enough ISO up to 640 and I rarely need more. I don't find the Dynamic Range lacking at all, the colour is really very nice, 18MP is OK for what I use it for. The black and white conversions are gorgeous. It works flawlessly. It's 3-4 "generations behind" but is a very good camera and it has no bearing what so ever on my photography. It is fast approaching 10 years since I owned it and I will continue using it just as much until it dies completely. Who knows how many years from now - Leica even just replaced it's sensor last year for free.
The camera really is just a box. If it does what I need of it, then I don't feel the need to constantly upgrade it because doing so rarely has any affect on my photography.
As for lenses, it's really quite simple. You like a lens or you don't. One of the main reasons I buy a system is because I like the way the lenses render. I have bought cameras because of specific lenses many times.
-
Hi,
Try to use live view for accurate focusing on the M9, and you see that CMOS or CCD matters. This is just an example of enabling technology.
Regarding DR, it depends a bit on... things. I would agree that life on earth is possible without 13EV DR. As a matter of fact, I was shooting digitally since 2006 and seldom run into DR issues, and when so resolved to HDR.
The area where CMOS benefits is essentially readout noise in the darks. A modern CMOS sensor uses like 6000 analogue digital converters in parallell, while CCD passes the data trough say two ADCs that are not even on the same chip. So, for dark noise CMOS is a winner.
Weather CMOS or CCD, sensors reflect a lot of light while film was dark and was a diffuse reflector. So, film era lenses did not need to take reflection from film into account. With digital, that has changed.
Luminance range at the sensor is often limited by veiling flare in the lens.
So needs do vary. If a camera has new capabilities that we don't need there is little reason to upgrade.
Best regards
Erik
Don't you think that is down to the individual though?
Bodies being a generation behind only matters if it matters to you. I have a Leica M9 and an M10 and I use the M9 a lot. It does everything I need and is really very good. It makes no difference to me that it is CCD, it has good enough ISO up to 640 and I rarely need more. I don't find the Dynamic Range lacking at all, the colour is really very nice, 18MP is OK for what I use it for. The black and white conversions are gorgeous. It works flawlessly. It's 3-4 "generations behind" but is a very good camera and it has no bearing what so ever on my photography. It is fast approaching 10 years since I owned it and I will continue using it just as much until it dies completely. Who knows how many years from now - Leica even just replaced it's sensor last year for free.
The camera really is just a box. If it does what I need of it, then I don't feel the need to constantly upgrade it because doing so rarely has any affect on my photography.
As for lenses, it's really quite simple. You like a lens or you don't. One of the main reasons I buy a system is because I like the way the lenses render. I have bought cameras because of specific lenses many times.
-
Hi,
Try to use live view for accurate focusing on the M9, and you see that CMOS or CCD matters. This is just an example of enabling technology.
Regarding DR, it depends a bit on... things. I would agree that life on earth is possible without 13EV DR. As a matter of fact, I was shooting digitally since 2006 and seldom run into DR issues, and when so resolved to HDR.
The area where CMOS benefits is essentially readout noise in the darks. A modern CMOS sensor uses like 6000 analogue digital converters in parallell, while CCD passes the data trough say two ADCs that are not even on the same chip. So, for dark noise CMOS is a winner.
Weather CMOS or CCD, sensors reflect a lot of light while film was dark and was a diffuse reflector. So, film era lenses did not need to take reflection from film into account. With digital, that has changed.
Luminance range at the sensor is often limited by veiling flare in the lens.
So needs do vary. If a camera has new capabilities that we don't need there is little reason to upgrade.
Best regards
Erik
Engineering and engineers are absolutly necessary. I have the highest respect for engineers, reasearchers who build the evolution of mankind technology and I can be amazed by gear, craftmanship, new gadgets usefull or less usefull.
I don't regret the film days at all. Evolution does not have to cese but follow its flow. Then regulations, standardisations appear when the chaos becomes unproductive, and we see that in some areas of this business.
In what imagery is concerned, the progresses made those recent years are simply impressive in both production and post production. It's truly exciting to live and being part of this era.
But at the same time we reached a point IMO where some deontological ruminations are being necessary and starting to araise everywhere because the flow becomes out of control, a bit like a water overflow.
The problem is the roadmap. For example, HD in broadcast is a relative new implementation and no near to have been exploited to its full potential yet. The data stream remains very low. HD in a sensible situation will have to mature, reach the top and then go further. However, now they are pushing 4k. HD is dead before reaching maturity. Then it's not just 4k but HDR is pointing. Nothing is really ready yet but the frenesy is being sold by the brands themselves at an exponential speed. HDR is going to bring enormous chalenges and as a gimmick, it will sink rapidly.
Cameras were shooting HD, now it's completly obsolete and it's 4k. But we did not have solid codec HD yet in the hybrid era, we do not have raw HD a part from the experiments of magic lantern that was a DIY movement, not an industrial one. We had hd on the cheap and now 4k on the cheap. There is no hybrid camera today that proposed to mature the HD concept instead of 4k and bring a rock solid HD imagery. Not one. Even before the concept reached maturity, it's 4k and by the way 4k is already almost obsolete. But the 4k that is bundled in mirrorless/dslr today is an extremely low quality one.
But an extremely high HD capability does not sell. It does not interest marketing deps.
Too slow. The brands that produce our equipment want speed, very high speed. They want to sell the maximum possible number of devices in the shortest possible time. The only way to do that is by creating constant needs even before what is being implemented evolves and reaches the top. What sells is the immediate upgrade, regardless if we need it. So they sell concepts. The stream becomes an overflow. Before a concept even reaches any sort of maturity it's dead already.
That IMO is the issue this industry is facing.
Because for the client, the viewer, the art lover, nothing really changed. I have never heard a friend of mine saying "I'm going to see that movie because the theater is 4k". They don't care, even if they have a brand new 4k hdr tv in their living room.
They go to the cine, to the art gallery for other reasons.
The only ones who really care are idiots like us, caught in the overflow and completly manipulated by marketing depts. So we became like kids. We got a new toy, play with it a few hours, then it's not interesting any more. Dad Panasonic, dad Sony...I need a new toy for christmass, this one is boring. And papa PanaSony says with a big smile "of course my son! It's already prepared for you. Would you like to autofocus brickwalls in complete darkness?
When this touches the average consummer, it's not an issue. If I'm a consummer, a gear reviewer, that is just fun and legitimaly a game and if I have the cash, I may want to play with toys and experience every single evolution regardless if usefull or not. There is no problem with that. Let's just call a cat a cat.
Those latest years, I witnessed that even with the most tech freakies I know, people who were amazed by the latest and cutting edge and never complained, a significant feeling of fatigue and frustration. I hear more and more phrases like "Ixm fed-up to have to upgrade my workstations every 3 years, I'm done with new learning curves and so on. Even on people who have the cash to pick-up, they start to talk about costs and hidden costs, thing that never happened before.
I also hear in my surrounding that as things become more and more complicated and messy, people spend more and more time in fixing sins, in looking into the forums for some help and they spend less and less time with the family and friends. They are being absorbed by the stream and the time/money they have to invest increased exponentialy. They feel overloaded by datas and informations to process and the exciting point of it became now a burden. This complain is real and serious for the professionals. The amateur has more freedom to stop at any time.
IMO we reached a limit in which this industry will have to rethink itself very soon.
-
Hi,
I am 62 years old and have doing photograhy, stills not motion, since 1970. I am pretty much an observer. I don't arrange things.
My experience is with film 24x36 and 120 (6x7). I have been shooting digital since 2006, starting with APS-C and moving on to larger formats, include a Hasselblad 555/ELD with a P45+ back but that has seen little use since I got my Sony A7rII.
What I discovered, sort of, that shooting P45+ was not beneficial for my photography. Looking at the images like 3-4 years later I can see that I was not using the Hassy kit in really interesting places.
The way I present my pictures is either as on line galleries or 4K slide shows, projected. I do also print, normally A2-size. At that size I did not see any advantage with the Hassy/P45+. Going to A1 I think the P45+ was beneficial, but I did not have a lot of good images from the Hassy. So just a few large prints from four years of shooting. I occasionally print larger, like 70x100 cm. Larger than that it was either panoramas or on canvas, that is not very demanding.
I can always go back, and see why I bought some gear. In 2008 I wanted full frame at 24MP. Going from 12 MP APS-C to 24MP on full frame was a noticable improvement at A2-size.
The next reason to upgrade was live view. I never trusted AF-systems and I felt I needed magnified live view. My vendor, Sony, botched that. So when Sony made cameras with real live view I bought three of them, starting with entry level and than moving up when better models have been available. Ended up with the A99, have been very happy with that camera.
The Hassy/P45+, I bought mostly because of curiosity. I was a medium format skeptic when I bought it and I am no less MFD skeptic now. Yes, I made some nice images with it and even enjoyed shooting with it: https://echophoto.smugmug.com/Technical/P45-Samples/
My plan was to go on to a technical camera, a Hartblei HCam B1 but I felt it was not worth the costs.
So, the next upgrade was the Sony A7rII. I did not really consider the A7r. It felt like a bit a hasty design. The had all the features I felt I needed:
- First Electronic Shutter Curtain
- On sensor Phase Detecting AF
- Short flange, allowing Canon lenses with Adapters
Later I completed it with a HCam Master TSII. I can say that I am extremely happy with that kit. I did not do a lot of direct comparisons with the Hasselblad, the few cases I did the Sony did a better job.
All this is of course totally irrelevant to the original topic, but it may explain the way I have arrived to my conclusions. Regarding the original topic. I think both cameras make sense.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
Regarding the original topic. I think both cameras make sense.
Best regards
Erik
You would think your ultimate conclusion would be obvious. However, for reasons that are not readily apparent and about which we can only surmise, there are many here and at other websites who are unwilling to agree to that. All you have to do is look at the so-called Medium Format Talk forum at DP Review where owners/potential owners of the X1D and the X1D itself are regularly ridiculed. It's the GFX or the Highway.
-
It's the GFX or the Highway.
Hey, I'm learning new english jargon.
In french we would say "la rue" (means the street)
It:s the GFX or the street
But the highway in french would have been used in the sense of easy/no brainer.
If I had wrote that in english with my french mind you would have
Understood exactly the opposite.
-
Hey, I'm learning new english jargon.
In french we would say "la rue" (means the street)
It:s the GFX or the street
But the highway in french would have been used in the sense of easy/no brainer.
If I had wrote that in english with my french mind you would have
Understood exactly the opposite.
Ha, you are 100% right. This is very much an American colloquialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_way_or_the_highway
-
Ha, you are 100% right. This is very much an American colloquialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_way_or_the_highway
https://youtu.be/_hBJ97obRJU
I will adopt that with some dudes! ;D
-
Hi Howard,
I am aware of that, there are some who cannot see that different solutions can make sense. I would think both cameras can make great images. But, the feature sets are different. Hasselblad is compact and has a leaf shutter, which many Hasselblad users consider to be important while the Fuji GFX is quite a bit larger and has a focal plane shutter. The GFX can use HSS, allowing flash sync at high speed and the X1D has an electronic shutter, albeit at low speed. Both are workarounds. Both ES and HSS have limitations but work well within those limitation.
Best regards
Erik
You would think your ultimate conclusion would be obvious. However, for reasons that are not readily apparent and about which we can only surmise, there are many here and at other websites who are unwilling to agree to that. All you have to do is look at the so-called Medium Format Talk forum at DP Review where owners/potential owners of the X1D and the X1D itself are regularly ridiculed. It's the GFX or the Highway.
-
i just got the fuji XH1 mostly for video and it has a really interesting feature: the movie silent operation mode....really reminds me of the X1D touch screen interface for changing settings.....there are lots of obvious differences, the fuji"s menu is tiny and an overlay over the recording image, since it is meant to be used for changing settings while recording and not having to actually rotate dials and moving the camera in any way but it shows what can be done and how easy it is to add things like that once you have a touch screen and it is great to have the option to have both and use one or the other when you need it....also makes me appreciate actual physical dials for certain settings....
-
i just got the fuji XH1 mostly for video and it has a really interesting feature: the movie silent operation mode....really reminds me of the X1D touch screen interface for changing settings.....there are lots of obvious differences, the fuji"s menu is tiny and an overlay over the recording image, since it is meant to be used for changing settings while recording and not having to actually rotate dials and moving the camera in any way but it shows what can be done and how easy it is to add things like that once you have a touch screen and it is great to have the option to have both and use one or the other when you need it....also makes me appreciate actual physical dials for certain settings....
But that would be practicaly useful only if it worked on an external monitor and not on the camera itself.
The fact that the menu is tiny is also a real problem in practice.
I think you gona like/use more the F-log in camera and maybe the Eterna.
-
But that would be practicaly useful only if it worked on an external monitor and not on the camera itself.
The fact that the menu is tiny is also a real problem in practice.
I think you gona like/use more the F-log in camera and maybe the Eterna.
it actually works ok...i rarely have to change settings during shooting a clip....
eterna is one of the reasons i got the XH1, IBIS the other....
-
it actually works ok...i rarely have to change settings during shooting a clip....
eterna is one of the reasons i got the XH1, IBIS the other....
How does it compare to ProNeg standard?
-
it actually works ok...i rarely have to change settings during shooting a clip....
eterna is one of the reasons i got the XH1, IBIS the other....
Fuji has a good color science when it comes to film emulation and the Eterna should work fine to get a nice footage with little need to post-produce later.
I would probably choose Eterna over F-log most of the time if I shooted with in order to avoid a log workflow, depending on the situation but having it is certainly a plus. Ibis is another one.
I like very much this body design. Much better than the XT2 and it seems solid and very well built. I almost buy one just for that but then I stepped back cause I really didn't need it, (then entering a all new system) but it's a very nice camera indeed.
Before you were talking about the F3 and it really reminds me the good old f3.
It seems competent enough for video.
The fact that the silent mode works well in operation puzzles me because as you point, we hardly have to change settings during recording and if it's nice not to have to use dials, touching a screen produces vibration anayway. That would make sense if those could be operated from an external device not physically connected such as a smartphone so an assistant can control the camera while the cameraman focusses on the handling and framing.
Maybe I don't fully understand the practical side of this silent mode because it would avoid clics on a mike but not vibration. Vibration can be stabilized in post easy though but is an extra pain.
I guess I don't get yet what Fuji was trying to acheive.
There are 2 aspects I like less which are the200Mb/s in 4k stands on the lower limit. Then the hdmi output that I know is not fully uncompressed but 8bits 4.2.2 maybe? One thing I ignore is if it does All-intra or not.
But surely a very very nice overall package. At least it looks chic. It does not have leather snake (I know you love leather and diammonds on cameras ::)) but it has the retro look and it's a camera one wants to grab and shoot with. I think the size is just right, not too small like an A6500 and not as big as a D5. (Although then with grip and all the external cableries, cages, wooden handle with jade incrustations of course and so on, we have a Red...)
The ad of a grip, according to the shape of the camera seems that the balance is not right and won't surprise me if it remained uncomfortable after a while but I suspect that the camera will have a tendency to rotate in the front but I'm just guessing here cause I don't have one. Anyway, Fuji seems to join the video train with interest, which is nice. Imo.
Cheers.
-
Hi,
Try to use live view for accurate focusing on the M9, and you see that CMOS or CCD matters. This is just an example of enabling technology.
Regarding DR, it depends a bit on... things. I would agree that life on earth is possible without 13EV DR. As a matter of fact, I was shooting digitally since 2006 and seldom run into DR issues, and when so resolved to HDR.
The area where CMOS benefits is essentially readout noise in the darks. A modern CMOS sensor uses like 6000 analogue digital converters in parallell, while CCD passes the data trough say two ADCs that are not even on the same chip. So, for dark noise CMOS is a winner.
Weather CMOS or CCD, sensors reflect a lot of light while film was dark and was a diffuse reflector. So, film era lenses did not need to take reflection from film into account. With digital, that has changed.
Luminance range at the sensor is often limited by veiling flare in the lens.
So needs do vary. If a camera has new capabilities that we don't need there is little reason to upgrade.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, that is my point. If you don't need the new features then you don't need to upgrade. New features rarely have any baring on my photography at all.
I don't need or use live view on an M camera. It's there on my M10 and I don't use it. I don't even have much use for live view in general when shooting MFD either. Others I'm sure have uses for it.
An M9 has plenty of DR. As you've pointed out it has a tonne more than the digital cameras, especially the ones I started using in 1996! It has more than transparency film which is what I spent my time shooting before that. The M9 has enough to make it look like colour neg too. I have more in my Phase One it's certainly useful. But if you expose correctly, more is always useful but to me it is not necessary.
Buying an X1D is the sort of upgrade I see as valid for the first time in many years. It combines the IQ of Medium Format and the portability of the M. The DR and high ISO is just a bonus for me.
-
Yes, that is my point. If you don't need the new features then you don't need to upgrade. New features rarely have any baring on my photography at all.
I don't need or use live view on an M camera. It's there on my M10 and I don't use it. I don't even have much use for live view in general when shooting MFD either. Others I'm sure have uses for it.
An M9 has plenty of DR. As you've pointed out it has a tonne more than the digital cameras, especially the ones I started using in 1996! It has more than transparency film which is what I spent my time shooting before that. The M9 has enough to make it look like colour neg too. I have more in my Phase One it's certainly useful. But if you expose correctly, more is always useful but to me it is not necessary.
Buying an X1D is the sort of upgrade I see as valid for the first time in many years. It combines the IQ of Medium Format and the portability of the M. The DR and high ISO is just a bonus for me.
However there is a big difference. I don't know what kind of photography you are in with the M, but for reportage, the size of the X1D is significant. Surely smaller as for a MF and very portable, but big enough to be noticed by people and security crews. It could be intimidating. The M does not attract attention and when it does, people do not step away like with big cameras. I think most imagine that one is shooting film and security don't react either. With a dslr they jump inmediatly.
I've been in the past in some museums where photography is not allowed and with the M on shoulder clearly visible they let you in. It's quite amasing how this M opens doors where other systems close them. I don't think it's possible with the X1D.
-
However there is a big difference. I don't know what kind of photography you are in with the M, but for reportage, the size of the X1D is significant. Surely smaller as for a MF and very portable, but big enough to be noticed by people and security crews. It could be intimidating. The M does not attract attention and when it does, people do not step away like with big cameras. I think most imagine that one is shooting film and security don't react either. With a dslr they jump inmediatly.
I've been in the past in some museums where photography is not allowed and with the M on shoulder clearly visible they let you in. It's quite amasing how this M opens doors where other systems close them. I don't think it's possible with the X1D.
That's not really what I do and isn't a concern for me. The X1D really isn't much bigger than the M anyway.
I would just hire the museum for the day.
-
How does it compare to ProNeg standard?
eterna is the best starting point for post profile i have ever seen, obviously it is not raw....i am not really a big fan of 8 bit log footage....i really don't like the sony s-log, i think panasonic and fuji have nice log but as long as it is still only 8 bit, things just fall apart pretty quickly....
eterna has smooth tones with slight desaturation, color temp is obviously important and it cant create miracles in terms of DR but it just looks really nice, especially with skin tones....
-
eterna is the best starting point for post profile i have ever seen, obviously it is not raw....i am not really a big fan of 8 bit log footage....i really don't like the sony s-log, i think panasonic and fuji have nice log but as long as it is still only 8 bit, things just fall apart pretty quickly....
eterna has smooth tones with slight desaturation, color temp is obviously important and it cant create miracles in terms of DR but it just looks really nice, especially with skin tones....
I agree with you on S-log.
On Eterna I have a question because you have been working with.
We agree that 8bit log are not ideal.
Eterna has a good DR, low contrast satu, fine grain for the isos and above had the reputation of stability with no colour shift with brightness changes, great skin tones independently of the context... But in the Fuji still is 8bit.
So if I got it right, it's not only that it avoids a Log workflow but also preferable to log in a 8bit environement?
What I understand from your words is that it gives a starting point to grade directly, with more lattitude and directly plaisant tones than the F-log.
Is that correct?
I also understand that Fuji just didn't ad a "gimmick" lut for this simulation but really is the fruit of their experience with film and they made researches in order to offer the same characteristics in the Xh1. Is that correct?
Another way to say that it is not a marketing call but a true digital Eterna.
If you confirm those 2 points, that changes it all for me because it would be a massive plus and I might get into this Fuji just for that.
Thanks.
-
I agree with you on S-log.
On Eterna I have a question because you have been working with.
We agree that 8bit log are not ideal.
Eterna has a good DR, low contrast satu, fine grain for the isos and above had the reputation of stability with no colour shift with brightness changes, great skin tones independently of the context... But in the Fuji still is 8bit.
So if I got it right, it's not only that it avoids a Log workflow but also preferable to log in a 8bit environement?
What I understand from your words is that it gives a starting point to grade directly, with more lattitude and directly plaisant tones than the F-log.
Is that correct?
I also understand that Fuji just didn't ad a "gimmick" lut for this simulation but really is the fruit of their experience with film and they made researches in order to offer the same characteristics in the Xh1. Is that correct?
Another way to say that it is not a marketing call but a true digital Eterna.
If you confirm those 2 points, that changes it all for me because it would be a massive plus and I might get into this Fuji just for that.
Thanks.
the fuji, just like the sonys (mirrorless) and canons and nikon all only record 8bit video...the GH5 does 10bit (although i am not sure how much of an advantage it is with the smaller sensor and limited DR)....eterna just like all the other looks and f log is 8bit....IMO it just does a really good job distributing the data over that very limited 8bit range....nice DR and most importantly color....if you shoot eterna with the color balance way off, it will still look like crap and won't be easy to fix.....8bit log looks flat but because of the limited information is it hard to really grade well in post.....fuji acros is awesome BW and eterna awesome color negative right out of camera.....
with fuji offering 200mbps they are trying to push things towards better video, 10bit will be the next step...i doubt it will come as a firmware in the XH1, but who knows...i definitely have no interest in internal 10bit just to provide the spec.....but in reality compress the hell out of it.....i would like 60fps 4K but again, looking at the 120fps HD, i am not sure the camera can do it in a meaningful way......there is a reason a 10bit, 4k 60fps 400mbps camera like the FS7 is a LOT bigger, heavier and expensive....it does have very nice log, but for 24fps 4K i might even prefer eterna and ibis at this point (at least for situations where the more limited DR of the XH1 is not an issue)
-
X1D has a beautiful style and gives me much more better colors out of cam as fuji does.
for me thats all why i buy the x1d
the rest is making pictures
-
the fuji, just like the sonys (mirrorless) and canons and nikon all only record 8bit video...the GH5 does 10bit (although i am not sure how much of an advantage it is with the smaller sensor and limited DR)....eterna just like all the other looks and f log is 8bit....IMO it just does a really good job distributing the data over that very limited 8bit range....nice DR and most importantly color....if you shoot eterna with the color balance way off, it will still look like crap and won't be easy to fix.....8bit log looks flat but because of the limited information is it hard to really grade well in post.....fuji acros is awesome BW and eterna awesome color negative right out of camera.....
with fuji offering 200mbps they are trying to push things towards better video, 10bit will be the next step...i doubt it will come as a firmware in the XH1, but who knows...i definitely have no interest in internal 10bit just to provide the spec.....but in reality compress the hell out of it.....i would like 60fps 4K but again, looking at the 120fps HD, i am not sure the camera can do it in a meaningful way......there is a reason a 10bit, 4k 60fps 400mbps camera like the FS7 is a LOT bigger, heavier and expensive....it does have very nice log, but for 24fps 4K i might even prefer eterna and ibis at this point (at least for situations where the more limited DR of the XH1 is not an issue)
Thanks for your time and thoughts on this aspect of the Fuji. This is all I wanted to know.
I definatly will give it a closer look, find one on rental when have time and fit it in my workflow.
I have no idea of this system lens line, but I trust Fuji on cost/quality lenses.
Ps: although the GH5 has more features for video on the paper, and a great deal of experience since the GH2, I owned a few and never was convinced totally by the images, not that much video but more specially the stills where there is definatly a penalty with smaller sensors and the promissed reduced size is not such. DR is one of them but also other aspect of the output. I give much more importance to DR in video than I do with still imagery. The good point of the m4/3 is that it opens a wide range of lenses, some of them very good, the system is inexpensive and I can see why the movement makes adepts, but I discarted it some time ago.
Eterna could make sense, and a lot in what is mainly a still camera doing video! Being able to have a solid profile that is not
Log and retains all the information and above all delivers a straighforward starting point if we take care of the shooting is not a joke. I suspect that if it works, it should be faster, constant according to different scenes, and more fun to work with in post for results that will be pleasant (pleasant, pleasing?...argh my english) for the spectator.
I see it as a sort of false log that does not have the hassles of log workflow but is the fruit of Fuji colour science in film.
And man, I love the XH1 body.
Cheers.
-
X1D has a beautiful style and gives me much more better colors out of cam as fuji does.
for me thats all why i buy the x1d
the rest is making pictures
I have noticed this also. The Hasselblad looks significantly better in colour to me. It looks like proper Medium Format colour and has really impressed me.
The Fuji looks more like dSLR colour and looks relatively thin. I don't remember seeing anything from the Fuji that has impressed me.
-
I have tested the x1d for one week. I also have the canon 5dIV, 6D and the XPRO2. I never have this WOW Effect opening the RAW Files as I got from ther X1D. The pitcures are just beautiful.
For me this is the most important fact for buying this camera - then comes the cameraworkflow, resolution, sync speed and design.
This camera impressed me very much
-
I have tested the x1d for one week. I also have the canon 5dIV, 6D and the XPRO2. I never have this WOW Effect opening the RAW Files as I got from ther X1D. The pitcures are just beautiful.
For me this is the most important fact for buying this camera - then comes the cameraworkflow, resolution, sync speed and design.
This camera impressed me very much
Man, I don't think anybody would experience ever a wao effect with a 5d4, 6d, Sony or Xpro2. They deliver what
Is expected in their respective areas but nothing exceptional either. None of those
Are top of the line of any genre but good cameras.
Depending on the photographic needs, one might experience a wao effect with a D5 or 1Dx in sport photography
Or photojournalism.
The X1d plays in another league. Horses for courses.
But if I take this on line review: https://www.google.es/amp/s/photographylife.com/fuji-gfx-50s-vs-hasselblad-x1d-50c/amp?source=images
It says the exact opposite of the latest comments. 2 people testing the same gears seeing the exact opposite is quite embarrassing. Bottom line is renting both, testing both and decide according to each one personal vision/needs.
-
Man, I don't think anybody would experience ever a wao effect with a 5d4, 6d, Sony or Xpro2. They deliver what
Is expected in their respective areas but nothing exceptional either. None of those
Are top of the line of any genre but good cameras.
Depending on the photographic needs, one might experience a wao effect with a D5 or 1Dx in sport photography
Or photojournalism.
The X1d plays in another league. Horses for courses.
But if I take this on line review: https://www.google.es/amp/s/photographylife.com/fuji-gfx-50s-vs-hasselblad-x1d-50c/amp?source=images
It says the exact opposite of the latest comments. 2 people testing the same gears seeing the exact opposite is quite embarrassing. Bottom line is renting both, testing both and decide according to each one personal vision/needs.
That review is terrible. These online reviews are usually useless.
The reviewer says "There are no differences at low ISO values, so I am only going to show you ISO 6400 and ISO 100 pushed to 5 stops."
The reviewer then shows two pictures and says "Do you see any differences here? Good, because I don’t see any either"
But if you open up both images in separate tabbed windows and click between the two you see one is much more saturated than the other. There is a startling difference and it means the entire review is useless.
The reviewer is incapable. Doesn't even know what they are looking at or what to look for. The internet is full of amateur hacks who have no idea, making "reviews". Al they are doing is fumbling along learning and putting it out there as some kind of relevant opinion.
The only person you can rely on for a test and review is yourself.
-
That review is terrible. These online reviews are usually useless.
The reviewer says "There are no differences at low ISO values, so I am only going to show you ISO 6400 and ISO 100 pushed to 5 stops."
The reviewer then shows two pictures and says "Do you see any differences here? Good, because I don’t see any either"
But if you open up both images in separate tabbed windows and click between the two you see one is much more saturated than the other. There is a startling difference and it means the entire review is useless.
The reviewer is incapable. Doesn't even know what they are looking at or what to look for. The internet is full of amateur hacks who have no idea, making "reviews". Al they are doing is fumbling along learning and putting it out there as some kind of relevant opinion.
The only person you can rely on for a test and review is yourself.
I certainly agree with you here.
-
I wish Hasselblad would expand its rental service and locations - they are not anywhere near where I am. It does not make sense for me to own gear this expensive but I would rent it few times a year for the prices they list on their rental pages.
-
I have noticed this also. The Hasselblad looks significantly better in colour to me. It looks like proper Medium Format colour and has really impressed me.
The Fuji looks more like dSLR colour and looks relatively thin. I don't remember seeing anything from the Fuji that has impressed me.
i guess we all have different opinions.....i felt exactly the same way about the X1D when compared it head to head with my A7RII....nothing that made me go WOW...glad i still reluctantly tried the GFX.....definitely got a WOW there.....
-
Hi,
Two cameras sharing the same sensor. Both cameras have very good lenses. The lenses project an image on a sensor made by Sony. That sensor delivers a digital signal to the camera.
We perhaps should not discuss which camera is better but which camera has the better users?
Now, just to say, if you are coming from Hasselblad you may prefer the HB approach, like using Phocus, or enjoying HB interpretation of colour. Or you may come from the Fuji side and prefer Fuji colour.
I would think that the cameras are pretty much same regarding image quality. But, ther may be differences in interpretation of colour, and that difference may be workflow dependent.
Also, the cameras take some different aproaches.
- Fuiji GFX has focal plane shutter, making it easy to adopt lenses.
- X1D has Leaf Shutter that makes life easy with electronic flash.
- GFX has lot of buttons, X1D is more GUI based.
- GFX has round aperture, X1D has octagonal aperture.
A good photographer chooses a system that is workable. That system may have some limitations.
As a side note, I think that Fuji has some key advantages. They have built EVF systems for a long time. Hasselblad is a newcomer in mirrorless. Fuji can rely on technology developed for their APS-C product line, while Hasselblad starts from scratch.
I have not seen any evidence for one system being better than the other. I have seen a lot about the capabilities of the GFX, due to diligent efforts by Jim Kasson. Regarding the X1D, I have not seen a lot of high quality testing. But it is my guess that it is a very good system.
There may be a discussion about the usability of electronic shutter vs. the Electronic First Shutter Curtain of the GFX. My take is that when ES works, it is as good as EFCS.
My take is that it is good to have two great options. Competition is always good! Who is the winner and who is the second may seem important. But this is photography and not the Olympic Games.What matters is that we have great alternatives.
Best regards
Erik
I am tempted to buy one of these medium format cameras. Mostly I want it to use my old
Hasselblad V and Contax 645 lenses. Manually with live view. My question is this:
Is the one camera really better than the other? Size and stylichness is not important to me.
Just functions and iq matters.
The lenses I hope to use is the Apo macro Planar Contax, 55 mm Contax, 35 mm Contax,
Hasselblad 100mm cfi, Hasselblad 180mm cfi, Hasselblad 250mm sa, Hasselblad 300 sa.
etc.
Henrik
-
I am tempted to buy one of these medium format cameras. Mostly I want it to use my old
Hasselblad V and Contax 645 lenses. Manually with live view. My question is this:
Is the one camera really better than the other? Size and stylichness is not important to me.
Just functions and iq matters.
The lenses I hope to use is the Apo macro Planar Contax, 55 mm Contax, 35 mm Contax,
Hasselblad 100mm cfi, Hasselblad 180mm cfi, Hasselblad 250mm sa, Hasselblad 300 sa.
etc.
Henrik
I think Erik's delineation of the different design choices of the two cameras was a good one, but if I were the OP, my decision would be most strongly influenced by the FP shutter in the GFX. With the X1D, with those lenses, the OP would have to use the electronic shutter. That would be quite limiting.
I should point out that, with the GFX, the Fuji H-to-G and Hasselblad V-to-H adapters can't be stacked, so you'll need a dumb V-to-G adapter. If the Hasselblad V-to-H adapter can be stacked with the Hasselblad H-to-G adapter, you may be able to use the leaf shutter in the V lenses, but I have not heard that that works.
I have tested the 250 SA on the GFX, and it is a respectable combination, although it didn't perform as well for me on that camera as the Leica 280/4 Apo, so I sold it. I would think the Fuji 250, when available, would be a better lens on the GFX. You say you have a 300 sa. If you mean the 350 SA, I think that lens should be very good on the GFX, although I have not tested it.
On the larger issue of the merits of the two cameras, I think that most photographers will gravitate towards one or the other depending on their workflows, use cases, and handling preferences. I think they are both excellent cameras, and I wouldn't think that IQ would be a material factor in the choice between them. IQ differences would be possible due to the different sensor stacks, the different microlens configurations, and the possible, but AFAIK, unconfirmed, difference in CFA spectra.
Jim
-
Some good points being made here.
I think some of the difference also comes down to Raw developer and colour profiling.
Generally, digital colour is greatly affected by adjustment, the least that can occur, the better. And when those adjustments do occur, the quality of those adjustments varies a great deal from camera to camera, profile to profile, software to software. I am willing to bet that Hasselblad has a far deeper level of integration and integrity with Phocus than Fuji has with Lightroom.
It's one thing having better colour SOOC from the sensor, lens, camera, in camera processing envelope. It's another thing to have a greater level of attention and development in adjustment algorithms and profiles tailored to specific cameras, specific lenses, specific lighting. This is also what Phase One offers with Capture One also. Even something like purple fringing can be subdued with colour profiling, eliminating red from the blue channel as much as possible.
When a camera has a dedicated RAW developer and it's worked on in house then it's no surprise that the resulting images will have more colour purity, in a wider range of lighting conditions and other circumstances.
-
That review is terrible. These online reviews are usually useless.
The reviewer says "There are no differences at low ISO values, so I am only going to show you ISO 6400 and ISO 100 pushed to 5 stops."
The reviewer then shows two pictures and says "Do you see any differences here? Good, because I don’t see any either"
But if you open up both images in separate tabbed windows and click between the two you see one is much more saturated than the other. There is a startling difference and it means the entire review is useless.
The reviewer is incapable. Doesn't even know what they are looking at or what to look for. The internet is full of amateur hacks who have no idea, making "reviews". Al they are doing is fumbling along learning and putting it out there as some kind of relevant opinion.
The only person you can rely on for a test and review is yourself.
not sure why it is necessary to lean into the reviewer....they were just stating what they saw or did not see....all reviews are just personal opinion, its up to the reader to make their own observations......i think in this particular case the reviewer was surprised by the X1D's bokeh shape....
in general i agree with the rest: it is the same sensor, secret sauce on each but all in all things should not be that different....
i did my own tests with the X1D and wasn't too impressed, but now, looking back i think that is more because of the glass then the camera/sensor...
i am pretty sure one can get very similar results in terms of color from both, but i prefer the fuji color as a starting point...others will prefer hasselblad...
-
Some good points being made here.
I think some of the difference also comes down to Raw developer and colour profiling.
Generally, digital colour is greatly affected by adjustment, the least that can occur, the better. And when those adjustments do occur, the quality of those adjustments varies a great deal from camera to camera, profile to profile, software to software. I am willing to bet that Hasselblad has a far deeper level of integration and integrity with Phocus than Fuji has with Lightroom.
It's one thing having better colour SOOC from the sensor, lens, camera, in camera processing envelope. It's another thing to have a greater level of attention and development in adjustment algorithms and profiles tailored to specific cameras, specific lenses, specific lighting. This is also what Phase One offers with Capture One also. Even something like purple fringing can be subdued with colour profiling, eliminating red from the blue channel as much as possible.
When a camera has a dedicated RAW developer and it's worked on in house then it's no surprise that the resulting images will have more colour purity, in a wider range of lighting conditions and other circumstances.
i have to agree with that logic, although i don't think that there is such a thing as absolute color....i mean of course there is but IMO photography is very much about a subjective representation of a moment/scene/place/mood/idea and since everybody sees color differently anyway, exact numbers go out the window....
but i, myself, definitely look for a clean slate and as much information as possible when it comes to how the image is captured....
just out of curiosity: have you actually tried the GFX? not just seen it but actually shot with it and compared files?
-
I have noticed this also. The Hasselblad looks significantly better in colour to me. It looks like proper Medium Format colour and has really impressed me.
The Fuji looks more like dSLR colour and looks relatively thin. I don't remember seeing anything from the Fuji that has impressed me.
I tested the GFX vs. X1D vs. Canon 5dmk4 together with an other architectural photographer we came to the exact same conclusion, the GFX was quit similar to the canon in the feel of the colours and depth - X1D was an other storie - the colours just separated in a very beautiful way, so well defined brining the materiality to live in an extend I never seen before.
In many ways the GFX is the better tool, but the X1D file is just so beautiful, and the shooting experience is quit similar to the Hasselblad SWC, wich I like a lot.
My main camera is an Alpa with an iq3 trichromatic so I’m used to look at quality files and the look of the X1D files truly impressed me!
We both bought the X1D....
-
i have to agree with that logic, although i don't think that there is such a thing as absolute color....i mean of course there is but IMO photography is very much about a subjective representation of a moment/scene/place/mood/idea and since everybody sees color differently anyway, exact numbers go out the window....
but i, myself, definitely look for a clean slate and as much information as possible when it comes to how the image is captured....
just out of curiosity: have you actually tried the GFX? not just seen it but actually shot with it and compared files?
I agree with that. I'm sure some like the way the Fuji looks. I've not come to any conclusions yet because I don't have enough info but everything I have seen looks a particular way and I've not been personally been so impressed by that.
But that's what it's all about isn't it? If you like what it does then it you use it. Who cares what others think.
No, I've not tested the GFX. I've not seen anything to make me want to test it and I don't test anything unless I feel it's right.
I've been shooting Phase One since 2007 so have my own bench marks/taste of what I expect. Only from what I have seen, the X1D is inline with that. I've held the camera and liked it a lot. I'm impressed all-round with it. It's a bit too sluggish for me at the moment but I will likely pick up an 100MP X2D if and when the camera and lenses I want materialise.
-
I agree with that. I'm sure some like the way the Fuji looks. I've not come to any conclusions yet because I don't have enough info but everything I have seen looks a particular way and I've not been personally been so impressed by that.
But that's what it's all about isn't it? If you like what it does then it you use it. Who cares what others think.
No, I've not tested the GFX. I've not seen anything to make me want to test it and I don't test anything unless I feel it's right.
I've been shooting Phase One since 2007 so have my own bench marks/taste of what I expect. Only from what I have seen, the X1D is inline with that. I've held the camera and liked it a lot. I'm impressed all-round with it. It's a bit too sluggish for me at the moment but I will likely pick up an 100MP X2D if and when the camera and lenses I want materialise.
so you haven't even tried one of the cameras this thread is about and have handled the other but don't own it....
but you are resolutely dismissing someone's review who actually shot both side by side and posted their experience....
-
I tested the GFX vs. X1D vs. Canon 5dmk4 together with an other architectural photographer we came to the exact same conclusion, the GFX was quit similar to the canon in the feel of the colours and depth - X1D was an other storie - the colours just separated in a very beautiful way, so well defined brining the materiality to live in an extend I never seen before.
In many ways the GFX is the better tool, but the X1D file is just so beautiful, and the shooting experience is quit similar to the Hasselblad SWC, wich I like a lot.
My main camera is an Alpa with an iq3 trichromatic so I’m used to look at quality files and the look of the X1D files truly impressed me!
We both bought the X1D....
That is my exact same feelings. The GFX is better in terms of responsiveness, features, available lenses and Hasselblad has some catching up to do in that regard. I think the Fuji angle finder adapter is nothing short of genius. But as nice as things like the angle finder are, they don't make me want to use a camera any more if I'm just not feeling the images and the GFX colour looks like dSLR colour to me. The way the images look is the primary reason for me using a particular camera/lens. I'm also a Phase One shooter for many years, I just like what I like and see what I am used to. I don't think it's unfair to compare those systems because what I see in the X1D really impresses me and seems more inline with that.
-
so you haven't even tried one of the cameras this thread is about and have handled the other but don't own it....
but you are resolutely dismissing someone's review who actually shot both side by side and posted their experience....
It's a pointless review from someone who doesn't appear to know their arse from their elbow. The internet is full of those reviews.
I have no interest in testing a camera that I'm not initially impressed by.
You're welcome to feel differently.
-
It's a pointless review from someone who doesn't appear to know their arse from their elbow. The internet is full of those reviews.
I have no interest in testing a camera that I'm not initially impressed by.
You're welcome to feel differently.
sorry but you keep posting here about these cameras like you actually know them, which you don't?
i am in no way calling that review a in-depth great comparison but at least the guy went through the trouble of actually shooting both cameras?
i have no problem that you don't want to test a camera but you keep posting negative comments about the fuji and it seems you are just getting your information from online reviews, and i guess you pick and choose which ones you want to believe in?
and you actually haven't shot or worked with the X1D but keep posting glorious remarks about its files?
amazing
-
sorry but you keep posting here about these cameras like you actually know them, which you don't?
i am in no way calling that review a in-depth great comparison but at least the guy went through the trouble of actually shooting both cameras?
i have no problem that you don't want to test a camera but you keep posting negative comments about the fuji and it seems you are just getting your information from online reviews, and i guess you pick and choose which ones you want to believe in?
and you actually haven't shot or worked with the X1D but keep posting glorious remarks about its files?
amazing
That's how opinions and discussion work. I'm happy for you to have your own opinion, maybe you could try let others have theirs?
I've said positive things about the Fuji too.
There are several thousand GFX photos on the internet and some good tests too. That is enough for me to get an impression. I don't need to test gear to get an impression and to have a discussion about that impression on a discussion forum board.
Are you telling me this because you think I might care?
-
That's how opinions and discussion work. I'm happy for you to have your own opinion, maybe you could try let others have theirs?
I've said positive things about the Fuji too.
There are several thousand GFX photos on the internet and some good tests too. That is enough for me to get an impression. I don't need to test gear to get an impression and to have a discussion about that impression on a discussion forum board.
Are you telling me this because you think I might care?
no, no, no, i don't think you care at all....obviously...
-
I think some of the difference also comes down to Raw developer and colour profiling.
Generally, digital colour is greatly affected by adjustment, the least that can occur, the better. And when those adjustments do occur, the quality of those adjustments varies a great deal from camera to camera, profile to profile, software to software. I am willing to bet that Hasselblad has a far deeper level of integration and integrity with Phocus than Fuji has with Lightroom.
It's one thing having better colour SOOC from the sensor, lens, camera, in camera processing envelope. It's another thing to have a greater level of attention and development in adjustment algorithms and profiles tailored to specific cameras, specific lenses, specific lighting. This is also what Phase One offers with Capture One also. Even something like purple fringing can be subdued with colour profiling, eliminating red from the blue channel as much as possible.
When a camera has a dedicated RAW developer and it's worked on in house then it's no surprise that the resulting images will have more colour purity, in a wider range of lighting conditions and other circumstances.
That pretty much sums it up from my experience.
I've shot with both cameras but haven't bought either of them, yet.
The advantage of Phocus vs LR accounts for the tremendous difference in the un-adjusted image colour / quality / look.
When I worked with the images from the Fuji I found plenty of potential. I just had to work for it vs the X1D handing me an image that had a look very close to what I've enjoyed in 40 years of shooting Hasselblads. That of course was pleasing but I'm not lazy and I am patient. I expect Fuji will continue to improve many aspects of their camera as the recent firmware update proves.
-
The advantage of Phocus vs LR accounts for the tremendous difference in the un-adjusted image colour / quality / look.
When I worked with the images from the Fuji I found plenty of potential. I just had to work for it vs the X1D handing me an image that had a look very close to what I've enjoyed in 40 years of shooting Hasselblads. That of course was pleasing but I'm not lazy and I am patient. I expect Fuji will continue to improve many aspects of their camera as the recent firmware update proves.
When we tested the GFX against the X1D we used LR for both cameras - even in LR the quality of the X1D shines....
-
Hi,
It seems that LR uses Hasselblad's colour processing pipeline.
Best regards
Erik
When we tested the GFX against the X1D we used LR for both cameras - even in LR the quality of the X1D shines....
-
Haven't check in on this forum for a few months. Surprised to see this thread still going. (I posted back on page one.) I've owned the X1D for about a year now so I've got as much experience with it as anyone. I love the files and the light weight and slim build. I've hardly picked up my overweight H5 camera since I bought the X1D. The images are comparable but the H5 feels just too clunky now.
Just a couple of days ago, I was chatting with a knowledgable salesman at a (the) pro camera shop in New York City. They've been selling digital backs for years. The X1D is the biggest selling digital MF camera they've ever carried. Their experience with it has been similar to mine however: It's a buggy camera. It's not uncommon to have to reset the camera by turning it on and off or removing the battery. Getting a setting to change or work often requires several taps (or a reset). I use the adapter for my HC lenses. Usually I have good luck but on one occasion I couldn't get it to work with my 120mm lens no matter what I did. Another time, it was fine. Worked great out in the snow with my 28mm HC lens. Basically, us users are all beta testers for this camera.
The other thing is that Hasselblad customer and repair service is not good. The salesman I talked to mentioned having to regularly battle with Hasselblad to get repairs covered under warranty. My own experience hasn't been positive. My X1D was flawed on delivery. I felt that it should have been replaced with a new one, but instead Hasselblad insisted on sending it back to Sweden. Took from April to July to get my camera back. I was not happy. (BTW, the salesman had nothing but high praise for Phase One.)
All this isn't to say that I don't love my X1D. Once I'm shooting, it keeps going without complaint. I may even buy another for a backup. But... if I didn't need the leaf shutter, I'd go with the Fuji.
-
Haven't check in on this forum for a few months. Surprised to see this thread still going. (I posted back on page one.) I've owned the X1D for about a year now so I've got as much experience with it as anyone. I love the files and the light weight and slim build. I've hardly picked up my overweight H5 camera since I bought the X1D. The images are comparable but the H5 feels just too clunky now.
Just a couple of days ago, I was chatting with a knowledgable salesman at a (the) pro camera shop in New York City. They've been selling digital backs for years. The X1D is the biggest selling digital MF camera they've ever carried. Their experience with it has been similar to mine however: It's a buggy camera. It's not uncommon to have to reset the camera by turning it on and off or removing the battery. Getting a setting to change or work often requires several taps (or a reset). I use the adapter for my HC lenses. Usually I have good luck but on one occasion I couldn't get it to work with my 120mm lens no matter what I did. Another time, it was fine. Worked great out in the snow with my 28mm HC lens. Basically, us users are all beta testers for this camera.
The other thing is that Hasselblad customer and repair service is not good. The salesman I talked to mentioned having to regularly battle with Hasselblad to get repairs covered under warranty. My own experience hasn't been positive. My X1D was flawed on delivery. I felt that it should have been replaced with a new one, but instead Hasselblad insisted on sending it back to Sweden. Took from April to July to get my camera back. I was not happy. (BTW, the salesman had nothing but high praise for Phase One.)
All this isn't to say that I don't love my X1D. Once I'm shooting, it keeps going without complaint. I may even buy another for a backup. But... if I didn't need the leaf shutter, I'd go with the Fuji.
Great work John. Great reportages.
-
Haven't check in on this forum for a few months. Surprised to see this thread still going. (I posted back on page one.) I've owned the X1D for about a year now so I've got as much experience with it as anyone. I love the files and the light weight and slim build. I've hardly picked up my overweight H5 camera since I bought the X1D. The images are comparable but the H5 feels just too clunky now.
Just a couple of days ago, I was chatting with a knowledgable salesman at a (the) pro camera shop in New York City. They've been selling digital backs for years. The X1D is the biggest selling digital MF camera they've ever carried. Their experience with it has been similar to mine however: It's a buggy camera. It's not uncommon to have to reset the camera by turning it on and off or removing the battery. Getting a setting to change or work often requires several taps (or a reset). I use the adapter for my HC lenses. Usually I have good luck but on one occasion I couldn't get it to work with my 120mm lens no matter what I did. Another time, it was fine. Worked great out in the snow with my 28mm HC lens. Basically, us users are all beta testers for this camera.
The other thing is that Hasselblad customer and repair service is not good. The salesman I talked to mentioned having to regularly battle with Hasselblad to get repairs covered under warranty. My own experience hasn't been positive. My X1D was flawed on delivery. I felt that it should have been replaced with a new one, but instead Hasselblad insisted on sending it back to Sweden. Took from April to July to get my camera back. I was not happy. (BTW, the salesman had nothing but high praise for Phase One.)
All this isn't to say that I don't love my X1D. Once I'm shooting, it keeps going without complaint. I may even buy another for a backup. But... if I didn't need the leaf shutter, I'd go with the Fuji.
my first time handling the X1D was actually when i went to look into digital MF (after having given up on it for a few years) and it was amazing to handle the H6 and the X1D side boy side....i understand that some people prefer an optical viewfinder but it just seems like something from another century....clunky....and to me in the end it comes down to IQ...
i ended up going with the GFX and really could not be happier.....i just got the XH1 and thought it might change my opinion of the GFX a little....speed is always addicting but i actually find myself enjoying the GFX more...probably used to the slower AF and i for the most part control my shooting situations anyway....kind of makes me look forward to the next gen of these cameras....where the sensor os not an off the shelf older component but just like in the latest FF and smaller bodies, an integral part of a whole system.....
either way, to me these files are just addictive, i know the A7RIII and the D850 and they are awesome, but this is something different....
i have had these horror stories with my leica stuff...."this needs to go to germany"....i know that i should have backup and i do but i usually have a favorite lens or body i shoot with most of my stuff, and being without to for 2 or 3 months is just not realistic to me......
i just had to send the GFX evf tilt adapter in to fuji (seems like there might be random loose contacts) and all in all this looks like it will be a total of 2-3 weeks without the part, half of that in shipping.....it's ok, not great, overnighting would have spend it up, i could also join the pro service, but i just don't see myself using repairs enough.....when i think of my combined sony, canon, nikon, fuji, mamiya, phase repairs in 25 years, it comes out to about 3....when i think of my combined leica, rolleiflex, broncolor repairs over the same time it comes to at least 30....and i had a lot less equipment....so much for my experience with premium brands and reliability.....
now the GFX and X1D are about the same price now, hasselblad lenses are a little more....if anyone is invested in hasselblad the X1D is pretty much a no brainer.....for anyone coming from FF, either system will be a change in handling, and i would advise to consider the work one does.....