Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: GFX vs X1D, Part Deux  (Read 7663 times)

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: GFX vs X1D, Part Deux
« Reply #20 on: May 21, 2017, 11:56:45 am »

As I suggested, anyone actually concerned with the problems with achieving accurate focus with the GFX should carefully examine the analysis and high res examples in Diglloyd's blog. I have no reason to disbelieve what Lloyd's testing demonstrates.

I talked to Lloyd about this. At the time of our conversation, he had not tried the approach I'm recommending, and he didn't have a GFX on hand so that he could try it then.

Jim

etto1972

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
Re: GFX vs X1D, Part Deux
« Reply #21 on: May 21, 2017, 12:02:20 pm »

My X1D is with Hasselblad right now for repairs (which I've documented in my X1D First Impressions thread). I'm not optimistic on seeing it anytime soon. Anyhow, I did find the operation of the camera to be buggy. Turning the camera on and off to reset it wasn't a frequent occurrence but it wasn't unusual either. I had issues with it being difficult to get it into f3.5 and the shutter dial not responding.  Adjusting LCD brightness was so quirky that I gave up. I didn't know if all this was indicative of my particular camera and its dysfunction or whether it was part of the standard bugginess of this new camera. Seems like it's the latter.

I think it's safe to say that  X1D users are unwitting beta testers.

John

Mine is for repair too :(
The  Hasselblad facility in NJ is waiting for a replacement part that should arrive from Sweden next week
May I ask what issue did you have?
Logged

pschefz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 586
Re: GFX vs X1D, Part Deux
« Reply #22 on: May 21, 2017, 12:21:36 pm »

can somebody clue me in on the GFX focus issues? i shoot moving people and so far (about 5500 frames) i really don't see a focus issue, at least not with the 32-64 zoom (which is the only lens i own right now)....
AF is in no way perfect or comparable to DSLR but it works perfectly fine the way it worked years ago....focus point, shutter half pressed, shoot....
AF-C is useless to me so far, i have been going to manual focus on situations where i shoot someone doing the same thing over and over in a controlled set...just makes it easier but i would do the same with any camera....

i am not disputing anyone's findings but there has not been anything i have seen on my GFX and in my workflow that points to a camera/lens focus issue....

i have noticed that i seem to need faster shutter speeds to freeze motion....for example it looks to me that a foot of somebody jumping looks crisp at 1/500 on (for example) the A7RII but might need 1/1000 or faster on the GFX? i don't have enough technical background to understand why that might be, but it seems to be the case for me.....
Logged
schefz.com
artloch.com

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4067
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: GFX vs X1D, Part Deux
« Reply #23 on: May 21, 2017, 12:40:22 pm »

You can pay for Lloyd, read some great tests, many of which seem to show the camera is just no good.  Done. 

Or you can rent it, try it and see if its possible for any company to make a camera with so many faults. 

It also helps if you have a background in Fuji cameras as their approach is different.

Amazingly on my last trip, I had over 2400 images taken with the GFX, all 3 lenses plus the Mamiya 200mm APO and believe or not the focus on 98% was tack sharp.  All but about 20% or less were hand held and AF was used. Hand holding a XF with any lens would not have given me anything close.  The only issue did have with AF was when the camera picked an object closer in than I realized, and due to the extremely bright sunlight and how tired I was I did not think to check. Even the 200mm APO could be hand held many times and manually focusing it was easy at least for me.

I consider myself very picky on focus and have been over the 30 or so years I have worked in photography.  I have yet to find anything wrong with the AF on the GFX or manual focus (besides the fact that images don't pop into sharp focus as well as they do on other brands), but this is true for all Fuji cameras, always has been.  I will state here, I don't worry about focus shift in landscape work, may be a problem in macro work, but all the lenses for the GFX showed excellent clarity and sharpness for me. In fact the GFX saved me on 2 days in Yosemite as I quickly realized that carrying around the XF and 3 lenses and a tripod was more than I could or wanted to do. 

For me it's very simple, if I can trust a camera's AF, I tend to get into a rhythm and stay there, not checking that often.  I have used Phase gear since early 2008, various bodies and lenses, now on the XF and several Schneider lenses, I still check the focus after using AF, and mainly use Liveview.  I rarely did this on the GFX, it worked just fine.  The camera continues to impress me daily.

Pay and read Lloyd, no doubt his testing is excellent, rent or try the camera for yourself, I really don't think you will be very disappointed, period.  This issue has been totally blown out of proportion and it's a bit sad to see it continue. 

Best test is test it yourself, and see what you feel.  ONE THING IS FOR SURE, don't preview the files at the default view on the camera as if you do you will immediately think everything is way to soft.  The default preview is way past 100% more like 150% for some reason. 

Posting a lot of small jpg files which can't show the full 100% view of the image is not worth it.  Plus there is a lot of time involved in both such testing and writing.  I fully understand why Lloyd charges.   I would again ask, just attempt to either rent it or borrow one with the 63mm or 120mm as the 32-64 is next to impossible to find. 

It will be interesting to read the full review on the GFX from LuLa.  So far they seem to like it except for the cost different between the A7RII @ 42Mp and the GFX and 50MP. 

Paul Caldwell
« Last Edit: May 21, 2017, 12:46:29 pm by Paul2660 »
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: GFX vs X1D, Part Deux
« Reply #24 on: May 21, 2017, 12:45:24 pm »

can somebody clue me in on the GFX focus issues? i shoot moving people and so far (about 5500 frames) i really don't see a focus issue, at least not with the 32-64 zoom (which is the only lens i own right now)....
AF is in no way perfect or comparable to DSLR but it works perfectly fine the way it worked years ago....focus point, shutter half pressed, shoot....
AF-C is useless to me so far, i have been going to manual focus on situations where i shoot someone doing the same thing over and over in a controlled set...just makes it easier but i would do the same with any camera....

i am not disputing anyone's findings but there has not been anything i have seen on my GFX and in my workflow that points to a camera/lens focus issue....

i have noticed that i seem to need faster shutter speeds to freeze motion....for example it looks to me that a foot of somebody jumping looks crisp at 1/500 on (for example) the A7RII but might need 1/1000 or faster on the GFX? i don't have enough technical background to understand why that might be, but it seems to be the case for me.....

Read these and ask questions; I'll do my best to answer them:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/fujifilm-gfx-af-accuracy/

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/fujifilm-gfx-with-1204-af-accuracy/

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/fujifilm-gfx63-focus-instability/

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/manually-focusing-the-fujifilm-gfx-50s/

You will see that there are three classes of focusing issues with the lenses tested (I didn't test the 32-64 zoom, which is mythological to me, and I've given up on getting one).


1) AF errors at some f-stop/lens combinations (workaround is to avoid those combinations)
2) MF difficulty (workaround is available)
3) MF focus stability with focus-by-wire lenses.

I want to emphasize that in all the cases that I've tested, the focusing errors are quite small, and would remain completely unnoticed in many photographic situations. They could be definitely be a problem for landscape and repro use if the workarounds aren't employed. They are certainly a problem for testers like Lloyd and me. I think that 3) above falls into the category of pretty much only a problem for testers, but I remain leery of focus-by-wire lenses for static and semi-static work where one focusing operation is expected to hold for minutes or hours.

Jim


Quentin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1222
    • Quentin on Facebook
Re: GFX vs X1D, Part Deux
« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2017, 01:17:08 pm »

Quote
This issue has been totally blown out of proportion and it's a bit sad to see it continue

+1

Incidentally I'm rather glad I purchased the 32-64mm with the GFX.  It is a very good lens, I guess Fuji underestimated demand.
Logged
Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, Arbitrato

pschefz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 586
Re: GFX vs X1D, Part Deux
« Reply #26 on: May 21, 2017, 01:29:25 pm »

Jim, i have read your blog and really appreciate your incredibly detailed work, most of which is way over my head....as to the issues you are describing, i simply don't seem to have them...

my focus issues with the GFX:
i don't find i can trust peaking completely.....the same is true foe the A7RII for me....i have used peaking with great success on RED and sony video cameras like FS7 or when shooting motion with A7RII....for 40 or 50mpix stills i just don't think it is exact enough....maybe i am doing something wrong....
i can't use AF-C, it is just too slow...in situations when people are moving too fast for single shot AF, (where i would need them) it is just not fast enough for me.....really looking forward to a firmware upgrade but it might just be a limitation of this camera/sensor combo...not holding my breath to ever have this really resolved....it will never be DSLR speed...
i have never had to use MF to actually focus....if i do use it (and i do quite a bit) i use it to set a focus area to direct my "actors" in and the way i use this is but using AF-S, pick a spot and set the camera to MF.....
i have taken 5500 shots including architecture and landscape and have not had any focus issues with AF-S...at all....and the reason why i have only used the GFX since i got it is because the files are so nice and are a clear step up for me from A7RII and that includes sharpness.....


i am in pretty much complete agreement with Paul on his assessment of the camera....

in regard to the cost difference between A7RII and GFX....there is a difference, clearly visible to me but also a clear difference in size, weight, ease of use, capabilities,....personal style of shooting and what one really needs....then the choice should be pretty clear....
Logged
schefz.com
artloch.com

Juanito

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 241
    • John Raymond Mireles
Re: GFX vs X1D, Part Deux
« Reply #27 on: May 21, 2017, 01:43:39 pm »

Mine is for repair too :(
The  Hasselblad facility in NJ is waiting for a replacement part that should arrive from Sweden next week
May I ask what issue did you have?
It's in for a couple of issues. First,  the shutter won't release if the shutter release button is depressed half way down and then completely depressed. I have to first release the shutter release and then press it all the one in one motion for the camera to fire. It won't fire from the half way position. Totally weird.

The other issue is that the image in the viewfinder will appear completely posterized from time to time. It's like you're looking at a murky blob of color. It only happens when the exposure preview is turned off. It's more likely to happen when my forehead is pressed against the eyecup. Again... weird.

John

Stephen Girimont

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 146
    • The Intimate Landscape
Re: GFX vs X1D, Part Deux
« Reply #28 on: May 21, 2017, 05:02:57 pm »

Personally, I don't understand the manual focus controversy with the GFX at all. The following is a very quick portrait I shot this week with the GFX and a Nikkor 105 f/1.4E lens. Because the adapter doesn't allow autofocus or aperture control with a E lens, this is hand-held, manually focused and shot at f/1.4, which is about as shallow a depth of field you're likely to get on this camera. The image that follows is a 100% crop of the closest eye (the one I focused on using pretty much the technique described in Mr. Kasson's writings). Looks pretty good to me. The frame of the glasses are out of focus, the eyelashes and eye are in focus (hopefully you can tell at this size).

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: GFX vs X1D, Part Deux
« Reply #29 on: May 21, 2017, 05:15:24 pm »

Jim, i have read your blog and really appreciate your incredibly detailed work, most of which is way over my head....as to the issues you are describing, i simply don't seem to have them...

my focus issues with the GFX:
i don't find i can trust peaking completely.....the same is true foe the A7RII for me....i have used peaking with great success on RED and sony video cameras like FS7 or when shooting motion with A7RII....for 40 or 50mpix stills i just don't think it is exact enough....maybe i am doing something wrong....
i can't use AF-C, it is just too slow...in situations when people are moving too fast for single shot AF, (where i would need them) it is just not fast enough for me.....really looking forward to a firmware upgrade but it might just be a limitation of this camera/sensor combo...not holding my breath to ever have this really resolved....it will never be DSLR speed...
i have never had to use MF to actually focus....if i do use it (and i do quite a bit) i use it to set a focus area to direct my "actors" in and the way i use this is but using AF-S, pick a spot and set the camera to MF.....
i have taken 5500 shots including architecture and landscape and have not had any focus issues with AF-S...at all....and the reason why i have only used the GFX since i got it is because the files are so nice and are a clear step up for me from A7RII and that includes sharpness.....

As I said above, for many kinds of photography, the things that I found are not consequential. If you're happy with GFX focusing, go take pictures.

With respect to peaking, I only recommend it in combination with maximum magnification. Otherwise, it's just enough to give you an approximate idea where the camera is focused. And, as I've said, I wish there were weaker peaking settings.

If you look at some of the MTF50 numbers in my AF graphs, you'll see that the GFX can misfocus and still be sharper than an a7RII with many native Sony lenses.

I think the GFX focusing is similar to the a7R shutter shock. Many though it crippling, because it was possible to set up tests where you could see it for sure. Many thought it a myth, because it never bothered them; their images were "tack sharp" as they defined the term.  Then there were some who thought that it could be a problems sometimes, but not very often, and sought ways to mitigate it. Then Sony announced the a7RII with EFCS, and the whole issue went "poof".

I'm hoping for a GFX firmware release that makes the whole issue go "poof". But if that doesn't happen, the camera is darned good as it stands, and top-notch with the workarounds.

Of course, as you point out, it's never gonna focus like a D5.

Jim

Brad P

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 260
Re: GFX vs X1D, Part Deux
« Reply #30 on: May 22, 2017, 01:31:25 pm »

I've updated the original post with my further findings on the issues listed there for new readers.  It's getting messy now and I'll not do that anymore.

True story.  Yesterday morning I actually boxed up my X1D, cancelled my order for the 30 and 120 with B&H, and prepared everything to ship back.  It was a Sunday and the post was closed, so I spent the rest of the day reviewing my test shots from the GFX and X1D to be certain I was making the right decision.

At the end of the day for me, the X1D won out.  For me, it came down to the focusing experience and results, and finding some patience in myself to wait for the X1D system to be updated and lenses to roll out.  I think with the 30, 90 and 120 (maybe the 60-something), I can do all I really need to with the system.  The 30 is backordered, the 120 is now looking like August, and the 60-something probably next year.  Focusing the X1D seems just a bit more precise and satisfying, visually, experientially and in the results.  Having used the Jim Kasson method to focus the GFX, I found I could focus it satisfactorily.  But I noticed in my particular test shots focusing on the same subjects/distance, that the acuity of the X1D images just seemed to nudge out the GFX, probably because of the sharpness of the 90mm lens but maybe there's more in the mix (including user error).  That observation in my pictures caused me just now to renew my B&H order for the 30 and 120.  I still have 2 weeks left in my return period and I'm a Libra, so I may change my mind. 

Both are great cameras to be sure.  If you have or can get either one, count yourself lucky. 

Oh goodie.  A new unboxing!
Logged

dantemi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Re: GFX vs X1D, Part Deux
« Reply #31 on: May 23, 2017, 04:46:03 am »

Three weeks after my X1D came in, all I can say is that I've never been so happy as I'm with a camera!
In addition to the quality and balance of the files, portability and accuracy in focusing are its greatest advantages to me. Hasselblad is strongly betting on the X1D and I'm sure they will take care of us owners with continuous firmware updates.       
Logged

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: GFX vs X1D, Part Deux
« Reply #32 on: May 23, 2017, 06:53:24 am »

Looks pretty good to me. The frame of the glasses are out of focus, the eyelashes and eye are in focus (hopefully you can tell at this size).

Just for contrast, that close-up is nowhere near sharp enough for what I look for. Just sayin...
Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: GFX vs X1D, Part Deux
« Reply #33 on: May 23, 2017, 08:33:00 am »

Just for contrast, that close-up is nowhere near sharp enough for what I look for. Just sayin...

Michael, That's what sharpening is for (see attached).

Digital Captures are not sharp by definition. If they are, they are usually riddled with aliased artifacts. One can always add (deconvolution) sharpening (and control the level/type of artifacts) if the purpose of the image requires that.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: GFX vs X1D, Part Deux
« Reply #34 on: May 23, 2017, 08:44:40 am »

Michael, That's what sharpening is for (see attached).

Digital Captures are not sharp by definition. If they are, they are usually riddled with aliased artifacts. One can always add (deconvolution) sharpening (and control the level/type of artifacts) if the purpose of the image requires that.

Cheers,
Bart

This is an example of where we can agree to differ and find our differences. No?
« Last Edit: May 23, 2017, 08:58:14 am by Michael Erlewine »
Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: GFX vs X1D, Part Deux
« Reply #35 on: May 23, 2017, 09:04:01 am »

This is an example of where we differ and find our differences. Not?

Maybe, but aliasing is aliasing, so it's prudent to not overdo it from the start and it helps to have a robust source image to begin working with.

Of course, many people would not recognize aliasing when it stared them in the face,  which is then not a problem for themselves, but it might be for others.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Garry Sarre

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 74
    • Photography by Sarre
Re: GFX vs X1D, Part Deux
« Reply #36 on: May 23, 2017, 09:48:24 am »

Maybe, but aliasing is aliasing, so it's prudent to not overdo it from the start and it helps to have a robust source image to begin working with.

Of course, many people would not recognize aliasing when it stared them in the face,  which is then not a problem for themselves, but it might be for others.

Cheers,
Bart
Bart, exactly. The example of the closeup, presharpened is exactly the sort of artefact free file that delivers a natural looking, sharp image, post sharpening. Of course, the whole issue of sharpness is a bit of a bourgeois concept...as we know.

Logged
Portrait Photographer and printer

Garry Sarre

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 74
    • Photography by Sarre
Re: GFX vs X1D, Part Deux
« Reply #37 on: May 23, 2017, 09:52:31 am »

Personally, I don't understand the manual focus controversy with the GFX at all. The following is a very quick portrait I shot this week with the GFX and a Nikkor 105 f/1.4E lens. Because the adapter doesn't allow autofocus or aperture control with a E lens, this is hand-held, manually focused and shot at f/1.4, which is about as shallow a depth of field you're likely to get on this camera. The image that follows is a 100% crop of the closest eye (the one I focused on using pretty much the technique described in Mr. Kasson's writings). Looks pretty good to me. The frame of the glasses are out of focus, the eyelashes and eye are in focus (hopefully you can tell at this size).

Stephen, excellent manual focusing job at f1.4. I exclusively use manual focusing on the HD5 for portrait, but don't often drop below f5.6., and I still miss a few.  Better to be manually focused, poised and ready, capturing a fleeting, wonderful expression, albeit slightly soft, than miss the crucial 1/4 of a second while the auto focus hunts around.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2017, 10:09:40 am by Garry Sarre »
Logged
Portrait Photographer and printer

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4389
    • Pieter Kers
Re: GFX vs X1D, Part Deux
« Reply #38 on: May 23, 2017, 02:10:25 pm »

Just for contrast, that close-up is nowhere near sharp enough for what I look for. Just sayin...

I think it is a sharp photo but with some movement of the eyelid of the person.
Also it looks like the sharpening is bit to high ( maybe to compensate)
looking at photograph at 100% is nice and i do it a lot - at the same time it is not common to see photos at 100% in publications.
Print usually 25% and web even smaller.
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up