Need Advice: H4D-40 or Fuji GFX 50

[fredjeang2]

my first camera was a praktika...i bought it with a 50 and some crazy huge 180?mm from a dad's friend for nothing....never really worried about anything but taking pictures....until i made another friend who happened to have a dad who was a leica fan....and this was how this played out....lots of sitting around fondling their M bodies and always changing lenses....trips to the local vienna leica shops to trade lenses and bodies, moving to R, still keeping M and just fondling equipment....every now and then we would actually go for a stroll with the new stuff....rarely, rarely were actual pictures taken, and if that did happen mostly slides....even more rarely projected and then it was all about the look which i mostly did not get even then....i much preferred shooting B&W and having prints made.....somewhere along the line i switched to an olympus system, later nikon....i always, always enjoyed M leicas, i have owned M3, M4, and digital M8.....along with all kinds of lenses.....at a certain point (m8) it just got ridiculous.....i actually did still liked shooting with the body but other companies just provided better files for a lot less money with more convenience....it got worse years later going to sony and using the same miraculous leica glass on simply better sensors (i do understand all issues involved with these set ups)....a breaking point was when i got a 20$ russian zeiss knock off on eBay and compared it with the same focal length leica lens....i was sitting at the screen at a friends place when we compared the shots.....and the crappy russian lens beat the priceless leica in every regard....sharpness, contrast, color, micro detail, wide open, closed down.....
again: who cares, i have enjoyed many lenses much more because of their flaws then because of their "perfection".....
in the end it all comes down to how one wants to work and what one wants to do.....
honestly the last thing i want to hear when somebody looks at my pics is: what camera did you use? of course we all do this to some extent when talking with colleagues but it really misses the point...completely....

i also drive cars that get me from A to B in the safest way, provide the most space with the least impact on the environment and are the most dependable....i have yet to see a BMW or porsche that might work for those criteria.....

I saw a 4 doors Porshe parked next to my car yesterday. It looked like a familly car designed by a german ww2 tank bureau.
An oversized 911 on steroids, shinny black and hugly like hell. But I forgot there was the Versace boutique right next door (good men sneakers handmade in Italy 500 euros...don't mess with shoes!) so I guess the lady driver was not that far. Shoo is opening a new boutique just next to the Versace's and Ferrari now has a Porshe replica, 4x4...yeah...so it's now possible to ride the Ferrari on some desert dunes.

[fredjeang2]

No one is questioning wether or not the artist makes the art. No lens can point the camera for you, or frame it, or tell you when to press the button or how to light it. Of course, that's what photography really is. But gear and aesthetic can and does has an impact on a work.

To use you guitar analogy - Many guitarists have whole arsenals of different guitars for their different sounds. A Rickenbacker sounds like a Rickenbacker. Anyone can pick it up and get the same sound - that distinctive old jangle and chime that everyone knows, even if they don't know the name. The Beetles would have been successful without a Rickenbacker, but Rickenbacker would not likely have been as successful without the Beetles. Rickenbacker largely shaped the sound of the 60's, and have continued to deliver an archetypal sound that represents something that guitarists plug into today. It's an unmistakable sound. So much so that many won't use it because it's too distinct.

The guitar won't tell you what to play and how to play it but to say a guitar doesn't have a unique sound is as wrong as saying that a camera or lens, and indeed a Leica doesn't have a unique look.

You are absolutly right Bo_Dez. But this was not really what I pretended to explain. It has to do with what Keith pointed: "because of the working methodology rather than any kind of magical sauce".

My point did not contradicted yours, it just qualified it so to say. If gear have personality, the user in the end rules according to his level, style and set-up. And we end to see "mister X imagery" not a brand imagery. Or I hope so.

[Endeavour]

I think we've gone somewhat offtrack 

from H4D or GFX 50, to a thread about Leica and now Ferraris and Guitars 

[fredjeang2]

I think we've gone somewhat offtrack 

from H4D or GFX 50, to a thread about Leica and now Ferraris and Guitars 

I guess there were sort of metaphors to express a concept discussed here but I agree. Let's come back ontrack with the original topic.

[vampire]

This will help merge it a little bit... 

https://petapixel.com/2018/04/25/this-200000-lamborghini-is-the-worlds-fastest-camera-car/

[Jim Kasson]

I guess there were sort of metaphors to express a concept discussed here but I agree. Let's come back ontrack with the original topic.

Not much to say. The choice was between the GFX and the H4D-40. Nobody was arguing for the Hassy. The OP said the X1D was too dear. The OP said he was going to go with the GFX. All that happened by halfway down the first page.

Jim

[hubell]

Not much to say. The choice was between the GFX and the H4D-40. Nobody was arguing for the Hassy. The OP said the X1D was too dear. The OP said he was going to go with the GFX. All that happened by halfway down the first page.

Jim

Ha! The love fest was in full swing until someone dissented and said this about the GFX lenses:
"They are better in some ways, very sharp yes. But Im not a fan of the way the GFX lenses render, which tonally seem quite two dimensional. It's not that they are bad, just pretty plain and common looking. The Fuji rendering has the appearance of a dSLR to me."
The rest of the "conversation" was about whether that is true. Is it? I don't know. There are lots of samples at the GFX Facebook page.

[eronald]

Ha! The love fest was in full swing until someone dissented and said this about the GFX lenses:
"They are better in some ways, very sharp yes. But Im not a fan of the way the GFX lenses render, which tonally seem quite two dimensional. It's not that they are bad, just pretty plain and common looking. The Fuji rendering has the appearance of a dSLR to me."
The rest of the "conversation" was about whether that is true. Is it? I don't know. There are lots of samples at the GFX Facebook page.

The Hassy has an optical viewfinder and a high sync speed. The sensor has Kodak color. Some lenses eg the 100mm f2.2 are very nice. I don't think the 2 systems have the same uses, and the world would be boring of they were comparable.

Edmund