Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on May 23, 2019, 07:24:38 pm
-
My view is that this camera more than deserves its own thread!
I am a bit surprised by the lack of excitement generated by the new Fuji in this very forum.
To me its abilities are such that it is probably the most significant "MF" release ever (I still have doubts about calling this sensor size MF, but that is beside the point).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My view is that this camera more than deserves its own thread!
I am a bit surprised by the lack of excitement generated by the new Fuji in this very forum.
To me its abilities are such that it is probably the most significant "MF" release ever (I still have doubts about calling this sensor size MF, but that is beside the point).
Phase One refers to Fuji's 44x33 format as "crop sensor medium format" and to its 54x40 format as "full frame medium format", even though it is not even 6x4.5.
-
If you watch the Fuji release event, they want to call it large format. Regardless of what it is called, it is a significant release but too rich for my blood.
-
I am a bit surprised by the lack of excitement generated by the new Fuji in this very forum.
Could that be because nobody has one yet ?
-
My view is that this camera more than deserves its own thread!
I am a bit surprised by the lack of excitement generated by the new Fuji in this very forum.
To me its abilities are such that it is probably the most significant "MF" release ever (I still have doubts about calling this sensor size MF, but that is beside the point).
Cheers,
Bernard
The ad at the top of my page is for a Phase One IQ4.
This forum is populated by the Phased in and the Phased out, and hasn't yet really accepted a third phase :)
Edmund
-
One of their samples at ISO 400 seems to have more noise than expected in the shade. https://www.magezinepublishing.com/equipment/images/equipment/GFX-100-7033/highres/ff_gfx100_003_1558606827.jpg
Here's a 100% crop.
Is it just the sensor technology?
Bill
-
My view is that this camera more than deserves its own thread!
On order. Will be reporting test results.
jim
-
On order. Will be reporting test results.
Thank you Jim, I am a fan of your work and I was hoping you'd focus some of your attention on it following your very interesting posts about the GFX earlier bodies and lenses! :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Could that be because nobody has one yet ?
More likely it's that virtually every aspect of it has been leaked/previewed/preannounced by Fuji, so it really feels that the camera has been out for about 9 months. I also think the combination of the price point at $10k and the sheer size/weight of the camera body moves it out of the reach of the prosumers who were able to stretch, financially and physically, for the GFX 50S and R.
-
It's a monster. An ugly monster. A really ugly monster, and I mean a really, REALLY, ugly monster.
But, I would totally purchase it. (If I had the need and the cash, neither of which applies.)
It's a game changer. This is where all recent mirrorless technologies converge into a pro package. IBIS, PDAF, eye-AF, video. It makes me wonder how much this will eat into Canon sales. I'm sure there have been a lot of professionals with depreciation burning in their pockets, waiting for an actual professional release from Canon, and then this comes along.
-
$10,000 isn't cheap, true.
The Pentax 50MP camera came out at, what, $8,500, 5 years ago?
And the other 100mp camera costs what, $30,000?
Buying a large format camera and paying for film and processing for two years cost how much?
-
It's a game changer. This is where all recent mirrorless technologies converge into a pro package. IBIS, PDAF, eye-AF, video. It makes me wonder how much this will eat into Canon sales. I'm sure there have been a lot of professionals with depreciation burning in their pockets, waiting for an actual professional release from Canon, and then this comes along.
Frankly, I believe that Sony (and Nikon to a certain extend) have been hurting Canon a lot more on the higher end segment these past 5 years than Fuji ever will. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If only there were distortion free 32mm and 24mm shift lenses for the GFX, I would be in architectural and landscape photographers heaven...
-
If only there were distortion free 32mm and 24mm shift lenses for the GFX, I would be in architectural and landscape photographers heaven...
There are very persistent rumors claiming that T/S lenses are coming.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There are very persistent rumors claiming that T/S lenses are coming.
Cheers,
Bernard
Local sales rep yesterday claimed three TS lenses on the way.
I’m not even slightly tempted. I am having a really good year work wise but 50% of my work never makes it to print and what does get to print can be handled by much smaller files sizes. I can’t buy anything unless it will make me money and this is not going to happen with this new camera, as wonderful as I’m sure it will be.
-
I think it can be an awesome camera- one i would buy if my assignments would make it a necessity.
But for the moment my assignments need f1.4 lenses.
Also the camera is too slow for part of my work that is very diverse. Then lens choice is not as wide- FF gets spoiled with choice.
I need, as always, the swiss army knive of camera's; the ff 35mm camera that does everything. Better now than ever before and even better when stitched.
As Martin experiences- camera's are getting better, but the commercial output is for a large part on the internet.
It is a very good thing if TS lenses will come to the GFX system. Tilt and focusstacking are the main ways to deal with 100MP in a good way.
Shift will give the camera a unique position for high grade architecture and still life photography.
I do not expect these TS lenses to be cheaper than 4000€ if they are as good as they should be.
It would make sense to release 5.6 versions to keep the price down while the image quality remains high.
-
I think it can be an awesome camera- one i would buy if my assignments would make it a necessity.
But for the moment my assignments need f1.4 lenses.
Also the camera is too slow for part of my work that is very diverse. Then lens choice is not as wide- FF gets spoiled with choice.
I need, as always, the swiss army knive of camera's; the ff 35mm camera that does everything. Better now than ever before and even better when stitched.
As Martin experiences- camera's are getting better, but the commercial output is for a large part on the internet.
It is a very good thing if TS lenses will come to the GFX system. Tilt and focusstacking are the main ways to deal with 100MP in a good way.
Shift will give the camera a unique position for high grade architecture and still life photography.
I do not expect these TS lenses to be cheaper than 4000€ if they are as good as they should be.
It would make sense to release 5.6 versions to keep the price down while the image quality remains high.
Out of interest I was given prices of $2800, $3200 and $3400 if I remember correctly.
By the way I agree with your point about the Swiss Army knife need these days. I have cameras with memories set for action, video and studio. Then buttons set for all sorts of stuff. A bit complex really. My assignments don’t need the new Fuji, be nice if they did. I’m not about to buy one in the hope of picking up such work either. You don’t get the work because you have the tools these days.
-
For those that actually need it and have a daily use for a camera like this, it seems almost like a bargain compared to the alternatives on the market. I for one never imagined that 100mp would be handholdable outside of fast strobes.
-
Out of interest I was given prices of $2800, $3200 and $3400 if I remember correctly.
Hi Martin, that's very specific. Did they have any more more information on launch or announcement dates and focal lengths?
-
Out of interest I was given prices of $2800, $3200 and $3400 if I remember correctly. ...
I am also interested in the focal lenghts; prices seem to cheap to be good.
I read the 23mm lens is not that good and costs about 2000€
-
Hi Martin, that's very specific. Did they have any more more information on launch or announcement dates and focal lengths?
To be honest I didn’t ask. I keep a half eye on what’s going on and this camera sounds fantastic but not of interest to me directly so I didn’t dig for details. I am also not certain as to the accuracy of this information.
-
To be honest I didn’t ask. I keep a half eye on what’s going on and this camera sounds fantastic but not of interest to me directly so I didn’t dig for details. I am also not certain as to the accuracy of this information.
Please go back and dig!
-
I am also interested in the focal lenghts; prices seem to cheap to be good.
I read the 23mm lens is not that good and costs about 2000€
Are you talking about the Fuji 23/4? I have that lens and think it is excellent.
-
I gather he has been reading Diglloyd's evaluation of the GFX 23mm lens: https://diglloyd.com/. Some people swear by him. Others swear at him.
-
Are you talking about the Fuji 23/4? I have that lens and think it is excellent.
Agree the 23/4 is really excellent.
-
I read the 23mm lens is not that good and costs about 2000€
Be careful who you listen to / read and believe. I've used the 23 and it's outstanding !
-
Are you talking about the Fuji 23/4? I have that lens and think it is excellent.
I agree - have not tested it extensively yet, but quick looks seemed very impressive.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Are you talking about the Fuji 23/4? I have that lens and think it is excellent.
Be careful who you listen to / read and believe. I've used the 23 and it's outstanding !
Agree the 23/4 is really excellent.
OK then it seems a mistake; Indeed i saw Lloyds Chambers photos with it. Even at F8 Really bad at the sides at infinity...
Maybe he had a bad copy; good to hear it is excellent...
On some other fora i read that Fuji has a problem with constant quality...
Only Lensrentals has the luxury of testing 10 copies of a lens...
-
OK then it seems a mistake; Indeed i saw Lloyds Chambers photos with it. Even at F8 Really bad at the sides at infinity...
Maybe he had a bad copy; good to hear it is excellent...
On some other fora i read that Fuji has a problem with constant quality...
Only Lensrentals has the luxury of testing 10 copies of a lens...
We do some lens testing on certain lenses before shipping to clients, but we cannot do this for all lenses.
If anyone purchases a Fuji G lens from Capture Integration, we recommend first testing it for performance. In the event it does not seem like a top copy, we'll swap it. There are some companies (BH, etc.) who have liberal return policies, but you still need to be able to determine that the one you swapped out for is a good copy, and we can help you assess that, with raw file review etc, to the reference lenses we have on hand.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
The GFX 100 offers capabilities that no camera has offered before, by bringing the most current sensor and stabilization technology to a larger size... Roughly speaking, it should have around twice the image detail of a modern 24x36 mm pixel monster, 2/3 that of a Phase One IQ4 150, and four times that of the best APS-C cameras. Other than the Phase (which lacks any form of image stabilization), they all offer closely related focus and stabilization capabilities.Due to the stabilization, the Fuji is handholdable under many circumstances - it's also weather sealed, which the Phase is not.
Everything from the best of APS-C to the IQ4 150 now uses similar sensors, just cut to different sizes. The GFX and the Phase also offer 16-bit readout, which should make a slight difference in dynamic range now (and it will become more important with future sensors). Except for the Phase, which is disproportionately bulkier, more difficult to use, and more expensive (5x the price of the GFX for 1.5x the sensor), there is now a somewhat reasonable relationship where you pay more, accept more weight and get a bigger version of a similar sensor.
The question it all raises is "how do we display these images"? Even a great APS-C camera can make an image indistinguishable from the GFX in nearly any internet application. The 24x36 mm pixel monsters can fill even an 8k display (the Nikons and the S1r can for both definitions of 8k, while the Sonys do as well for the usual definition, but not the cinema version), and make 24x36" prints and above. The display format for the GFX seems to me to be 40x60" prints viewed up close. How common are opportunities to display such prints? They exist, and the GFX 100 offers by far the most versatile way yet of capturing the images needed, which had previously been the province of $50,000 digital backs and large format (even beyond 4x5") film.
-
I think the Fujifilm GFX100 will be the most exciting camera of 2019.
I am not in the market for it just yet...but it's capabilities for both stills and video looks to be a game changer for those of us who like both stills and video. I use to shoot Canon and became so completely frustrated at Canon's corporate culture of dripping out improvements (ie Magic Lantern's firmware to do video on Canon bodies) that I finally left Canon. Fujifilm is the complete opposite of Canon.
I would love Fujifilm to make the X-H2 a mini GFX100.
PDAF is just fantastic. If I was Phase One...I would be looking to put the 150MP sensor into a GFX100 type body...and a new set of lenses, I don't know if the 150MP Sony sensor even has PDAF points.
I wish Fujifilm the best with this new camera.
-
The GFX 100 offers capabilities that no camera has offered before, by bringing the most current sensor and stabilization technology to a larger size... Roughly speaking, it should have around twice the image detail of a modern 24x36 mm pixel monster, 2/3 that of a Phase One IQ4 150, and four times that of the best APS-C cameras. Other than the Phase (which lacks any form of image stabilization), they all offer closely related focus and stabilization capabilities.Due to the stabilization, the Fuji is handholdable under many circumstances - it's also weather sealed, which the Phase is not.
Everything from the best of APS-C to the IQ4 150 now uses similar sensors, just cut to different sizes. The GFX and the Phase also offer 16-bit readout, which should make a slight difference in dynamic range now (and it will become more important with future sensors). Except for the Phase, which is disproportionately bulkier, more difficult to use, and more expensive (5x the price of the GFX for 1.5x the sensor), there is now a somewhat reasonable relationship where you pay more, accept more weight and get a bigger version of a similar sensor.
The question it all raises is "how do we display these images"? Even a great APS-C camera can make an image indistinguishable from the GFX in nearly any internet application. The 24x36 mm pixel monsters can fill even an 8k display (the Nikons and the S1r can for both definitions of 8k, while the Sonys do as well for the usual definition, but not the cinema version), and make 24x36" prints and above. The display format for the GFX seems to me to be 40x60" prints viewed up close. How common are opportunities to display such prints? They exist, and the GFX 100 offers by far the most versatile way yet of capturing the images needed, which had previously been the province of $50,000 digital backs and large format (even beyond 4x5") film.
I'm excited by the GFX 100S, but for the sake of accuracy, the Phase One 100mp solution is about twice the price of the GFX 100S, not 5 X.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
I'm excited by the GFX 100S, but for the sake of accuracy, the Phase One 100mp solution is about twice the price of the GFX 100S, not 5 X.
So the XF with IQ3100 is $20K new and the XF with IQ4150 is $50K new? I''ve never seen a Phase One price list.
-
So the XF with IQ3100 is $20K new and the XF with IQ4150 is $50K new? I''ve never seen a Phase One price list.
Yeah, actually a bit more than 2x, depending on lenses.
Last month, Phase One ran a promotion with IQ3 100 for $17,990. If you add an XF camera, you'd be in the $22k or so range.
IQ4 150 yes, it's still in that 5x range, but it is not apples to apples when it comes to the sensor comparison.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
IQ4 150 yes, it's still in that 5x range, but it is not apples to apples when it comes to the sensor comparison.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Yes...... but 'ONLY' for resolution. The 4150 adds 50mp and that is it's only advantage.... and somewhat minor in the long run and never worth the price of admission. Doesn't matter in the long run as this landscape is changing rapidly and the holy grails may be left behind......
Cheers.......
Victor
-
Yes...... but 'ONLY' for resolution. The 4150 adds 50mp and that is it's only advantage.... and somewhat minor in the long run and never worth the price of admission. Doesn't matter in the long run as this landscape is changing rapidly and the holy grails may be left behind......
Cheers.......
Victor
In stating that there are sensor differences relative to Fuji GFX 100S (which we also sell), yes, the IQ4 150 has 50 more megapixels, but the sensor is also significantly larger. Some people don't care about that, others do. I'm not debating merits, only clarifying differences and providing accuracy with regard to pricing.
And my main point was regarding the comment about Phase One being 4-5 x the price, which for 100mp, at one time was true, but no longer.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
The 4150 adds 50mp and that is it's only advantage....
by that logic - Fuji only adds a little over 50mp vs FF cameras ;D
-
by that logic - Fuji only adds a little over 50mp vs FF cameras ;D
It's the percentage increase that counts. The GFX100 has approximately double the pixel count of the latest FF 35mm DSLRs, or 100% increase. Phase One's 150 mp IQ4 has only a 50% increase in pixel count, compared to the GFX100.
-
Please go back and dig!
I dug and was told a 24mm first followed by a 80mm and a 105. Doesn’t sound right to me.
-
It's the percentage increase that counts. The GFX100 has approximately double the pixel count of the latest FF 35mm DSLRs, or 100% increase. Phase One's 150 mp IQ4 has only a 50% increase in pixel count, compared to the GFX100.
Let's not forget the Phase One sensor is also larger than the GFX sensor. After all, we know a 24mpix APS-C sensor does not produce the same results as a 24mpix full frame sensor. The number of pixels is only one attribute of a sensor.
-
Fuji is taking the camera, lenses and firmware to a new industry watermark not only are they spreading rumors but fulfilling them is short order. Noise in shadows is not as big of an issue as real comparisons of lens rendering IQ between manufacturers is. Releasing cameras with Sony sensors that are not able to fully reach the capabilities of the sensor because the manufacturers crippled the firmware by not allowing the full potential of the sensor to come to market by shorting resources and funds to their software developers is what gets me. There is no free lunch but the GFX is as close to free lunch as anything we’ve seen, soon it will sell for 8500.00 with rebates you must admit that’s just shy of incredible could you imagine how that affects its competitors marketing strategies.
First time buyers easy sell.
Invested system owners with older equipment to switch over moderate sell.
Invested system owners with newer equipment to switch over harder sell.
Fan boys impossible sell
35 mm sensor users still thinking that if one day they need a big print their camera can do it impossible sell.
Photographers wanting very light systems impossible sell.
Sports and Wildlife photographers a maybe sell.
-
Let's not forget the Phase One sensor is also larger than the GFX sensor.
The GFX100 sensor is a 33x44 section of the 54x40 sensor in the IQ4150, hence fewer megapixels.
-
The GFX100 sensor is a 33x44 section of the 54x40 sensor in the IQ4150, hence fewer megapixels.
The sensors are presumably based on the IMX411 (150 Mpx) and the IMX461 (100 Mpx) sensors by Sony:
https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/products_en/IS/sensor2/img/products/IMX411ALR_AQR_Flyer.pdf
https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/products_en/IS/sensor2/img/products/IMX461ALR_AQR_Flyer.pdf
They have the same size photosites 3.76 x 3.76 micron.
So diffraction will start to become visible at the pixel level with apertures of f/4.0 and narrower.
The sensor can have 16-bit A/D readout.
Cheers,
Bart
-
by that logic - Fuji only adds a little over 50mp vs FF cameras ;D
I don't think you got the jist of my post. I was 'specifically' commenting to Steve that the only difference between the 4150 and the GFX 100 sensor wise is the added 50mp that the 4150 has due to its larger surface area..... they are the same sensor. The fact that the GFX 100 has sensor shifting capabilities puts this camera/sensor combination into a league of its own. Pictorial pixel shift is something that Fuji more than likely can implement if there were enough interest. The only thing missing for me are lenses below 72mm that can be shifted on my Actus. There is only one in the works that I know of..... anything else is an on camera development by Fuji.
Victor
-
I'm a long way from an expert but have been taught that one needed to quadruple the resolution to see a "noticeable" visible change. I suspect it will be hard to tell the difference between 50 and 100MP without working at it. Pixel peepers will be overjoyed, the rest of us not so much, especially for $10k. I suspect there's a longer distance between $5k and $10k than between 50 and 100MP, at least in my wallet. I rented the GFX50 and loved it but ended up with a puny Sony A7RIII which at $3k when I bought it, checks almost all my personal boxes, lots of lenses from quite wide, to quite long, with lots of interesting variation between both in zooms and primes from multiple manufacturers. I really like Sony's eye focus as well as their pixel shift features. I'm a one system person now, having multiple systems in the film era just made me crazy. I had 35mm for action, medium format for when I wouldn't/couldn't carry the 4x5 and the 4x5 for "serious" work. I hope the GFX100 is a success because I genuinely like Fuji's business philosophy. Time will tell.
-
I'm a long way from an expert but have been taught that one needed to quadruple the resolution to see a "noticeable" visible change. I suspect it will be hard to tell the difference between 50 and 100MP without working at it. Pixel peepers will be overjoyed, the rest of us not so much, especially for $10k. I suspect there's a longer distance between $5k and $10k than between 50 and 100MP, at least in my wallet. I rented the GFX50 and loved it but ended up with a puny Sony A7RIII which at $3k when I bought it, checks almost all my personal boxes, lots of lenses from quite wide, to quite long, with lots of interesting variation between both in zooms and primes from multiple manufacturers. I really like Sony's eye focus as well as their pixel shift features. I'm a one system person now, having multiple systems in the film era just made me crazy. I had 35mm for action, medium format for when I wouldn't/couldn't carry the 4x5 and the 4x5 for "serious" work. I hope the GFX100 is a success because I genuinely like Fuji's business philosophy. Time will tell.
If you double the resolution you can afford to throw away half the frame. Compose right and your double spread is also a full page :)
But you are so right, the Sony A7R3 as you say can probably do anything anyone can require commercially, even pretty decent video. Every serious photographer I know seems to have one. At some point the perfect understudy finds herself hired to be the diva.
Edmund
Edmund
-
To me the GFX100 is more a usable Hasselblad/P1 rather than a higher res FF. I fully understand that those photographers who had little interest in the MF bodies aren’t excited by the GFX100.
Yes, sensor is only 70% larger than 35mm, but you get some really exciting lenses. Pretty much Otus level across the board with usable AF, a super sweet look and weather sealing.
It seems like a perfect match for my Z7 and its very high quality compact lenses. What becomes at odd in the middle are more very bulky 35mm lenses for which I might as well use the Fuji when space isn’t an issue.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Let's not forget the Phase One sensor is also larger than the GFX sensor. After all, we know a 24mpix APS-C sensor does not produce the same results as a 24mpix full frame sensor. The number of pixels is only one attribute of a sensor.
Very true. And let's not forget that the GFX100 is not only larger than the 35mm format but also has at least double the number of pixels. Therefore, the GFX100 is a bigger jump in resolution, compared with the latest 35mm formats, than the much more expensive 150mp Phase One compared with the GFX100.
However, the cost of the body is only one factor. If one doesn't already have lenses that fit the body, then the total cost will escalate.
-
It will replace my 35mm and Phase One systems. The only other camera that will remain in my bag is the Leica M.
It's unfortunate for Phase One and Hasselblad and will be sad to them slide into obscurity unless they can somehow pull a rabbit of out of their hats—but I don't like their chances now.
I was a Phase One customer for almost 20 years. Hasselblad for even longer. Can't image the possibility of this ever happening 20 years ago!
-
Bo,
I suggest you wait a bit before selling the old gear.
It's time to see how this camera actually behaves in practice rather than on paper.
Even Leica had some camera design surprises which only showed up in user hands.
Edmund
It will replace my 35mm and Phase One systems. The only other camera that will remain in my bag is the Leica M.
It's unfortunate for Phase One and Hasselblad and will be sad to them slide into obscurity unless they can somehow pull a rabbit of out of their hats—but I don't like their chances now.
I was a Phase One customer for almost 20 years. Hasselblad for even longer. Can't image the possibility of this ever happening 20 years ago!
-
I suggest you wait a bit before selling the old gear.
It's time to see how this camera actually behaves in practice rather than on paper.
Even Leica had some camera design surprises which only showed up in user hands.
It is almost certain that the GFX100 will have some issues at launch.
With the amount of technological innovation Fuji is delivering, I don’t see how it could be problem free.
Yet, Fuji has built such an amazing brand image that many expect perfection. Which is the thing we should be amazed at really.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It is almost certain that the GFX100 will have some issues at launch.
With the amount of technological innovation Fuji is delivering, I don’t see how it could be problem free.
Yet, Fuji has built such an amazing brand image that many expect perfection. Which is the thing we should be amazed at really.
Cheers,
Bernard
Technological innovation??? I don't see any. I don't consider the porting of existing technologies that are prevalent in most higher end mirrorless cameras today to be "innovative." Hasselblad and Phase have neither the financial nor R&D resources to build a mirrorless medium format camera body with IBIS. Canon, Nikon and Sony do, but have no apparent interest. This does not make what Fuji did "innovative." Everything in the GFX 100S other than 100MP (kudos to Sony's sensor division) is available in FF cameras that cost 1/5 of the GFX 100S, and I expect that things like overall AF performance, Eye AF, and Continuous AF tracking work better in certain FF cameras. Just because a camera has something like Eye AF as a feature does NOT mean that it is well implemented. Some camera manufacturers have done it well, some have not.
The only real innovation that I have seen recently is the Multi-Shot Hi-Res Mode in the Panasonic S1R. That, to me, is impressive. I am sure that Fuji will add a multi-shot capability to the GFX 100S at some point. The question is, will it be just another "me too" feature that does not work all that well in real world applications.
-
Bo,
I suggest you wait a bit before selling the old gear.
It's time to see how this camera actually behaves in practice rather than on paper.
[...]
I agree, and it is also an open question of how well the IBIS will perform with that much more payload. Also how well it keeps performing over time is an open question. It will certainly have to work harder with the increase in mass.
And, will the DR be good enough? With the smaller photosites, usually, the Saturation level also gets lower. And will Fujifilm offer a 16-bit readout/Raw mode, that the sensor natively seems to offer?
IMHO, it's way too soon to take drastic measures, but it does look interesting.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Technological innovation??? I don't see any. I don't consider the porting of existing technologies that are prevalent in most higher end mirrorless cameras today to be "innovative." Hasselblad and Phase have neither the financial nor R&D resources to build a mirrorless medium format camera body with IBIS. Canon, Nikon and Sony do, but have no apparent interest. This does not make what Fuji did "innovative." Everything in the GFX 100S other than 100MP (kudos to Sony's sensor division) is available in FF cameras that cost 1/5 of the GFX 100S, and I expect that things like overall AF performance, Eye AF, and Continuous AF tracking work better in certain FF cameras. Just because a camera has something like Eye AF as a feature does NOT mean that it is well implemented. Some camera manufacturers have done it well, some have not.
The only real innovation that I have seen recently is the Multi-Shot Hi-Res Mode in the Panasonic S1R. That, to me, is impressive. I am sure that Fuji will add a multi-shot capability to the GFX 100S at some point. The question is, will it be just another "me too" feature that does not work all that well in real world applications.
I had IBIS and on sensor AF in mind when I wrote this, since they both have never been done on sensors larger than 35mm.
But I know, in movies you just press the “copy/enlarge” key and such innovation takes a few minutes at worse... ;)
I should have expected the reaction from the usual Sony gang. Claiming any form superiority from a different brand provokes a form of allergic reaction doesn’t it? :D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
And, will the DR be good enough? With the smaller photosites, usually, the Saturation level also gets lower. And will Fujifilm offer a 16-bit readout/Raw mode, that the sensor natively seems to offer?
The official answer from Fuji is yes on the question. 16 bits raw, but only in single shot mode.
First feedback indicates that lossless compressed file size is larger so there seems to be some information in those 2 bits.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I had IBIS and on sensor AF in mind when I wrote this, since they both have never been done on sensors larger than 35mm.
But I know, in movies you just press the “copy/enlarge” key and such innovation takes a few minutes at worse... ;)
I should have expected the reaction from the usual Sony gang. Claiming any form superiority from a different brand provokes a form of allergic reaction doesn’t it? :D
Cheers,
Bernard
It's clear that your idea of "technological innovation" and mine are strikingly different. I cited an example of what I consider true technological innovation, which is from Panasonic, not Sony. This is about computational photography, the real next frontier in photography.
BTW, coming from you of all people, as the ultimate card carrying member of the "Nikon gang," your dismissive comment about the "Sony gang" is comical. [G]
-
It's clear that your idea of "technological innovation" and mine are strikingly different. I cited an example of what I consider true technological innovation, which is from Panasonic, not Sony. This is about computational photography, the real next frontier in photography.
BTW, coming from you of all people, as the ultimate card carrying member of the "Nikon gang," your dismissive comment about the "Sony gang" is comical. [G]
Oops, please allow to take the Sony Gang back. I am really sorry I misread your avatar name on the small screen of my phone.
Have several manufacturers not done multi-shot on 35mm (Pentax, Sony), smaller (Olympus) or larger sensors (I know you know Hasselblad well since we both use the band) years before Pana? The implementation of Pana seems a bit better in terms of movement mgt, but how is this more innovation than a first ever MF IBIS?
Cheers,
Bernard
P.s.: the Sony gang members I was alurig to don’t just have a positive bias for Sony (similar to the one I have for Nikon), they are actively and unfairly critical of anything that doesn’t carry a Sony logo. I am definitely not like that. The only camera brand I have limited respect for is Canon and I believe that many realize now how right I was 5 years ago...
-
I had IBIS and on sensor AF in mind when I wrote this, since they both have never been done on sensors larger than 35mm.
But I know, in movies you just press the “copy/enlarge” key and such innovation takes a few minutes at worse... ;)
I should have expected the reaction from the usual Sony gang. Claiming any form superiority from a different brand provokes a form of allergic reaction doesn’t it? :D
Cheers,
Bernard
At the moment, Sony is supplying most of the innovation for all mirrorless ILC, prepackaged in the form of those sensors.
There's no point in yelling about them, they don't necessarily make the best integrators but they're now the heart of the industry.
As for the GFX 100, it's in reality a hi-resolution GFX-50 upgrade, in two years it will be selling at $6K, and used ones will be trading at $4K, and every studio will have one as Phase and Hassy are giving up on the midrange commercial market. We will see how they price the modular version which will sell to tethered shooters, they've already started showing around the core module mockups, which have an integrated lens mount, so far it's not an exposed-sensor back.
Edmund
-
I don’t see anybody yelling at Sony and most definitely not me. I totally agree about their innovation.
My only point was that Fuji is also an innovator.
The technological gap btwn the GFX50 and the GFX100 is factually larger than the one seen between any 2 successive iterations in any other brand line up these past years as far as I can remember, whatever the sensor size (including mobile phones). It is definitely not just a doubling of resolution, although that in itself only happened once or twice these past 20 years. I agree that many of these technologies are ports from smaller formats, but if it were that easy why have P1 and Hasselblad not done it?
Compare the a7rIII to the a7r with the same eyes you use to call the GFX100 just a resolution increase over the GFX50 and the two Sony’s will look pretty much identical with very little progress in 7 years. We know that is far from being the case.
And yes, it will obviously decrease in value. The GFX100 hasn’t magically turned cameras into a good investment for those who don’t take pictures with theirs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It's clear that your idea of "technological innovation" and mine are strikingly different. I cited an example of what I consider true technological innovation, which is from Panasonic, not Sony. This is about computational photography, the real next frontier in photography.
BTW, coming from you of all people, as the ultimate card carrying member of the "Nikon gang," your dismissive comment about the "Sony gang" is comical. [G]
Actually I would have been disappointed if Bernard did not play this card!! Anytime he is challenged, the card emerges.
-
Actually I would have been disappointed if Bernard did not play this card!! Anytime he is challenged, the card emerges.
What card is that (if it is the mention of the existence of a Sony gang, your very participation to this thread is confirming beautifully your understanding that you belong to such a gang :) ) and how exactly I am being challenged?
I just see a difference of perception of what is innovation between the porting of existing technologies to a larger sensor vs incremental improvement of multi-shot technology.
I am more willing to accept the fact that Panasonic is innovating, I just find strange the position of HCubell that Fuji isn't or that Hasselblad/P1 get a pass for innovating even less because their are too small.
Let's not forget that 25 years ago Fuji was #2 in the film market (behind Kodak) with a tiny camera/lens activity that paled behind Hasselblad and that had nothing to do with APS-C or digital. Their ability to grow a digital photography business and 3 successful product lines isn't unfair, it is the result of sustained sound business and engineering decisions. Hasselblad could have decided to target more volume markets. They didn't but I don't see why they should be a priori forgiven for their shortcomings as a result or their poor strategic product positioning.
So I feel that the views of HCubell isn't a fair or objective perception of what is happening in the market.
Being very heavily invested in Hasselblad and about to invest in Fuji, I believe that I can be considered as totally objective on this. I am the brand agnostic person here. I have decided to invest my money in Hasselblad because they did deliver a unique value to me, albeit in a manner far from ideal. Fine, I was lucky enough to be able to afford it at that time and it may pay back some day. What is done is done.
In the end, what matters is the value delivered by a camera for photographic applications and while I agree that the S1 delivers great value thanks to its enhanced multi-shot capability, I believe that today the GFX100 delivers by far more value than anything Hasselblad or P1 ever put to the market (and I do understand that others may have a different view). Whether this substantial increase of value is the result of innovation or just happened by chance is in the end of secondary importance.
It doesn't mean I consider Hasselblad products negatively. The X1D is a great camera with sweet lenses. Its compact size is an advantage over the GFX100 and I like its design. But I know that the Fuji will deliver a lot more value for my needs.
I feel that I am being reacted against on the grounds that speaking positively about Fuji means speaking negatively of Hasselbad. This isn't on me folks.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My perception is that Fuji really do come up with innovative products that are also useful. If I was looking for a MF solution Fuji would be where I would most likely end up. In fact I keep looking for a way to justify buying one but with the photographic industry the way it is at the moment, and by that I don’t mean that it’s awful, just different, I come up with nothing. Could just be the area of the industry I currently find myself in.
-
My perception is that Fuji really do come up with innovative products that are also useful. If I was looking for a MF solution Fuji would be where I would most likely end up. In fact I keep looking for a way to justify buying one but with the photographic industry the way it is at the moment, and by that I don’t mean that it’s awful, just different, I come up with nothing. Could just be the area of the industry I currently find myself in.
Fully understandable, I would probably not buy a GFX100 if it had to be a reasonable business decision. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
---snip
I know that the Fuji will deliver a lot more value for my needs.
---snip
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
I am a great fan of Fuji but ...
You don't *know* what this thing will deliver as value until you've had it for a while - you got one for more than 3 months already?
How about "I believe", or more forthrightly "I hope that" ...
The Hasselblad H6D100 seems to have been another good camera that could have become an even better camera ...
Edmund
-
Bernard,
I am a great fan of Fuji but ...
You don't *know* what this thing will deliver as value until you've had it for a while - you got one for more than 3 months already?
How about "I believe", or more forthrightly "I hope that" ...
The Hasselblad H6D100 seems to have been another good camera that could have become an even better camera ...
Well, the H6D-100c now performs as it was intended to and remains IMHO the best option overall for larger MF as a generic camera (meaning used handheld sometime). Even if the IQ4 150 has a significantly better sensor and the XF body some cool bells and ws.
But its potential was severely limited from day 1 in terms of envelope of usage.
The GFX100 has a much higher potential and this is what we are discussing here obviously since the camera hasn't been released yet.
I agree with you that actual usage will be needed to confirm how close to its potential it will deliver.
Whether it makes sense to buy into the system without having had actual feedback from users depends on the need and the degree of confidence in Fuji's ability to deliver.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
At the moment, Sony is supplying most of the innovation for all mirrorless ILC, prepackaged in the form of those sensors.
There's no point in yelling about them, they don't necessarily make the best integrators but they're now the heart of the industry.
As for the GFX 100, it's in reality a hi-resolution GFX-50 upgrade, in two years it will be selling at $6K, and used ones will be trading at $4K, and every studio will have one as Phase and Hassy are giving up on the midrange commercial market. We will see how they price the modular version which will sell to tethered shooters, they've already started showing around the core module mockups, which have an integrated lens mount, so far it's not an exposed-sensor back.
Edmund
"Mid range" — ha. The only thing that will stop Fuji taking over the high end, at least in my segment of the market, is durability which is yet to to be seen. Two bodies for less than the cost of one P1 is an easy fix.
Fuji was once a very high end pro player but the digital revolution changed that, mostly over night. It won't take them long to get it back, maybe it's already happened.
I really do hope that Phase One and Hasselblad can get a leg up because it would be worse for everyone if they went away—I have long been a supported of both of these companies for most of my career. Fuji has been doing this many decades more than Phase One, now they have their product it will be extremely hard to keep up with them.
I keep reading comments how the game hasn't changed, that is absolutely untrue in my humble opinion.
-
Well, the H6D-100c now performs as it was intended to and remains IMHO the best option overall for larger MF as a generic camera (meaning used handheld sometime). Even if the IQ4 150 has a significantly better sensor and the XF body some cool bells and ws.
But its potential was severely limited from day 1 in terms of envelope of usage.
The GFX100 has a much higher potential and this is what we are discussing here obviously since the camera hasn't been released yet.
I agree with you that actual usage will be needed to confirm how close to its potential it will deliver.
Whether it makes sense to buy into the system without having had actual feedback from users depends on the need and the degree of confidence in Fuji's ability to deliver.
Cheers,
Bernard
I have spent over 20 years using Hasselblad as my main platform, with Phase One since 2000. I started with the V bodies and moved to the H when I got the P65+. I won't bother writing a list of the frustrations and problems I found with both H and P1 AFD, it's far too long. But I have missed a lot of shots with these cameras, and they have caused a great deal of frustration over the years with issues because they have failed and I have spent my fair share of time wanting to throw them at a wall. We had to put up with all these problems because if you wanted a certain kind of quality, that was the only options available. The H has been much better since the H4 but more so the H5, but still, the focus, my god. I mostly use it Manual Focus. I didn't jump in on the H6 because their lack of attention to lens upgrades tells me they are mostly done with the H. The lenses are really showing their strain now on 100MP. I tried the AFD after being told it worked much better with Phase One backs and found that to be wrong. Pig of a thing. I've tried the XF and almost changed over but it's just prohibitively and unnecessarily large in light of current options. Not unnecessary for the camera, but for photography, or at least the kind I do.
The final nail was Phase One doing the dirty on their long time loyal customers by pulling support on Hasselblad H platform. I'm still raw over that, not the way to treat your loyal customers AT ALL.
Fuji is ripe for the picking. They have played and timed it perfectly and their business model puts their customer first. They've got their product—yet to be seen if it's their panacea but it answers almost everything for me so far, at least on paper, and I'm excited to get my hands on it and try it out.
-
Fuji is ripe for the picking. They have played and timed it perfectly and their business model puts their customer first. They've got their product—yet to be seen if it's their panacea but it answers almost everything for me so far, at least on paper, and I'm excited to get my hands on it and try it out.
Amen!!
I will never regret buying a 50s and three prime Fuji lenses. My 3100 is still around but mostly used with my 60XL when I need/want movements at that focal length as I don't have that capability with the Fuji - yet. So it's the 3100 for wides (35XL, 60XL) and the Fuji 100 for everything else. The Fuji will marry perfectly with my Actus and Schneider lenses..... these are great photo times.
Victor
-
I agree with you that actual usage will be needed to confirm how close to its potential it will deliver.
Whether it makes sense to buy into the system without having had actual feedback from users depends on the need and the degree of confidence in Fuji's ability to deliver.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
Would you buy a musical instrument from a catalogue? Why should one buy a camera on spec? Regardless of its specs in the end it's the user experience that matters - otherwise why even think of a Fuji if you already have 35mm and a Hassy?
Edmund
-
Would you buy a musical instrument from a catalogue? Why should one buy a camera on spec? Regardless of its specs in the end it's the user experience that matters - otherwise why even think of a Fuji if you already have 35mm and a Hassy?
What's the rush? First kid on the block syndrome?
-
Two questions.
1. Why a GFX100 relative to my existing line up?
- relative to my Nikons: better image quality with limited overhead, probably even better lenses
- relative to the H6D-100c: I look at it as its replacement except for Tech camera use
2. Why now?
I have some shooting opportunities in July that would benefit from the abilities of the GFX100.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
On some other fora i read that Fuji has a problem with constant quality...
Only Lensrentals has the luxury of testing 10 copies of a lens...
This is why you rent from them, and only 'Keeper' it if the one you have is amazing on your camera :)
The thing you have to do with the GFX 100 is put it in a category all it's own. The BSI, PDAF, IBIS & 5 FPS really do make it a completely different beast. Is it the right tool for most photographers, no. Does it give me something different & let me capture what I envision, yes. Will the forums be filled with newbie MF shooters trying to understand why it doesn't shoot like their FF gear, absolutely.
We've completed the Sony Sensor roadmap as it was laid out in 2017 - the question is now what comes next & who is situated to take advantage of it. Phase with the IQ4 platform and BR lenses are set for anything Sony can put out in 54x40 silicon. Fuji is still ramping up their lens lineup on the 44x33 chips, but this new body will give them plenty to talk about. I really hate the silence from Hasselblad.
-
We've completed the Sony Sensor roadmap as it was laid out in 2017 - the question is now what comes next & who is situated to take advantage of it. Phase with the IQ4 platform and BR lenses are set for anything Sony can put out in 54x40 silicon. Fuji is still ramping up their lens lineup on the 44x33 chips, but this new body will give them plenty to talk about. I really hate the silence from Hasselblad.
Fuji carved a 44x33 slice out of the 150MP 54x40 sensor yielding 100MP. Carving a 36x24 slice out of the same sensor yields 60MP. The Sony A7RIV. By the way, an APS-C size sensor would be 29MP, not much of an improvement from the current 26MP sensors.
-
Fuji really changed things in the MF market here. Before the GFX 100, there was the "traditional" MF market, dominated by Phase One, but also including Hasselblad H-series and the occasional Leaf (etc.) - body+back, massive entry costs, upgrade programs made ongoing costs somewhat more reasonable. There was also the newer market for integrated cameras, pioneered by Pentax, now dominated by Fuji, with the Hasselblad X being the third competitor.
The integrated cameras have always been MUCH cheaper - $5000-$10,000 instead of $20,000+ and often $40,000+ for a body+back setup. The challenge has been that all of them prior to the GFX100 (and ignoring earlier Pentaxes that used a CCD sensor) have used the same older Sony 50 MP CMOS sensor (from 2014). The old sensor is certainly a good performer, but it isn't quite up to more modern designs, and its lead over much newer 40+ MP FF sensors is questionable. It's essentially of the same generation as a D800 or A7r (original) sensor, and its extra size only goes so far against the generational improvements in smaller sensors.
The body+back cameras, due to their even larger sensor sizes, maintained a comfortable resolution lead over 24x36mm - the Sony CMOS sensor that showed up in "almost 645" backs was not only slightly newer than the ubiquitous 50 MP model, it was (is) also 100 MP. It's still not latest generation technology (early 2016 and not BSI), although it brute-forces a really excellent performance with size and pixel count - but it's meant a $40,000 camera until very recently.
The brand-new 100 MP "small MF" sensor in the GFX against the IQ3/Hasselblad 100 MP sensor will be a very interesting comparison. My suspicion (from previous cases where one Sony sensor is both a size smaller and a generation newer than another) is that it's very close? That's a tricky situation for Phase One, because even a used IQ3 100 is twice the price of the Fuji - and anything that leaves the Fuji comfortably behind (IQ4 150) is four or five times the price of the Fuji.
For most types of images, the Fuji is easier to use (modern AF, IBIS, etc.) There are certainly limited circumstances where the body+back design (or the back alone mounted on a technical camera) is an advantage. How many types of photography are there where the design is enough of an advantage to pay the premium?
-
I'm going to wait for the pix.
Studio users are still looking for a fast-sync solution, but I guess Hassy has what they need ;)
Edmund
-
I'm going to wait for the pix.
Studio users are still looking for a fast-sync solution, but I guess Hassy has what they need ;)
You may not be aware of this but:
- studio shooters don’t need leaf shutter lenses, the flash is so much brighter than the studio ambiance that the synchro speed of plane shutters is mostly irrelevant
- the people who need quick synch speed are those shooting on location with strobes
- it’s possible to adapt H lenses on the GFX and to use their leaf shutters, so for H users like me all it takes is not selling 2 or 3 H lenses for having a very usable strobe shooting solution... (for me the 50mm II, 100mm f2.2 and 210mm f4 most probably that are anyway my preferred ones)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You may not be aware of this but:
- studio shooters don’t need leaf shutter lenses, the flash is so much brighter than the studio ambiance that the synchro speed of plane shutters is mostly irrelevant
- the people who need quick synch speed are those shooting on location with strobes
- it’s possible to adapt H lenses on the GFX and to use their leaf shutters, so for H users like me all it takes is not selling 2 or 3 H lenses for having a very usable strobe shooting solution... (for me the 50mm II, 100mm f2.2 and 210mm f4 most probably that are anyway my preferred ones)
And then there's HSS, which works well with the GFX and Godox strobes. You do throw away a flock of photons, but you're usually going for the short shutter speeds because you want to open the lens up, and efficiency is not the long pole in the tent.
Jim
-
And HSS works with more powerful strobes now too, not just speedlights. Opens some interesting options. Also the fact that the latest medium format cameras like the Fuji are actually usable at iso 200, 400, 800 for example means you get a lot more power out of HSS and open apertures. My p45 is an f/11 iso 50 camera that needs a LOT of light in comparison. I’ve been really eyeing these new systems but have been on the sideline waiting to see how things pan out in the longer term. I was about to pull the trigger on the Fuji system but the 100 is far more appealing for all my work. I want to rent it before making any decisions.
-
You may not be aware of this but:
- studio shooters don’t need leaf shutter lenses, the flash is so much brighter than the studio ambiance that the synchro speed of plane shutters is mostly irrelevant
- the people who need quick synch speed are those shooting on location with strobes
- it’s possible to adapt H lenses on the GFX and to use their leaf shutters, so for H users like me all it takes is not selling 2 or 3 H lenses for having a very usable strobe shooting solution... (for me the 50mm II, 100mm f2.2 and 210mm f4 most probably that are anyway my preferred ones)
Cheers,
Bernard
From experience this is quite true. What has really changed with MF is the ability to shoot at high ISO. It’s not just a matter of low light capability in the traditional 35mm shooter sense. I remember using backs that had best quality at 50iso. You could go to 100iso but there was a quality cost already. Two hundred was useless. You may as well have shifted to the 1DS at that point. I used to run two 4000w packs to drive that back. The ability to go to 400 iso effectively turns a 500w mono head into a 4000w head if you get my drift. That’s not just a cost saving but also a huge saving on bulk of equipment and recycling time. Two 4 k packs and a few smaller lights firing would almost eliminate the need for a fan to blow the models hair back.
-
Studio photographers don't need fast sync. Location photographers don't necessarily need it either.
Marketing might suggest otherwise though.
It can be certainly be useful though but it's really not a deal breaker.
-
And then there's HSS, which works well with the GFX and Godox strobes.
Even better with a strobe that doesn't horribly shift color like a Godox does when shooting anything that requires short duration and fast recycle times.
Two 4 k packs and a few smaller lights firing would almost eliminate the need for a fan to blow the models hair back.
Ah the 80's, the good old days. My standard set up was a couple of Norman P4000D packs and bi-tube heads. The pop scared more than one model the first time they went off. I did need a fan and an open window though to clear the Ozone those bi-tube heads made every time they fired.
Seriously any doubts about using the GFX100 with studio lights, or for that matter on-camera flash are moot.
I shot some studio work for a long time client on a GFX-50S at 400 iso and it looked better that what I was delivering from an H4D just a couple of years ago at base ISO. Sharper, better DR and no increase in grain or noise.
-
Agreed. Don't really need leaf shutters indoors 99.9% of the time, but when shooting outside, it's a godsend.
Just ride the SS to adjust the ambient knowing your flash output is fine with no fussing w/ND filters and upping flash power to compensate as you mentally calculate how much battery juice you'll suck-up doing so when working quickly.
The ability to carry smaller, lower-power strobes (assuming have fast enough duration) whose batteries last longer is also nice. We've switched to the 400ws Eli Quadra LiOs (DIY'd to fit Profoto mounts) with Action heads as primary packs for the H5D with a couple of 1200ws Profoto 7B2s big brothers in reserve as they'll both cover a 1/800 sync at all power settings.
That said, we're also going to be adding a GFX-50S (the 100 will be a few years yet) as a 2nd MF body and 1-2 Godox units for their HSS ability on the Fuji. In addition to the weather sealing and higher-iso ability, the GFX's flexibility to use HC lenses via the adapter was a big selling point. Over time we'll rationalize our HC lenses to a mix of HC, GF and adapted manual glass to get a best-fit for our work on both MF bodies.
You may not be aware of this but:
- studio shooters don’t need leaf shutter lenses, the flash is so much brighter than the studio ambiance that the synchro speed of plane shutters is mostly irrelevant
- the people who need quick synch speed are those shooting on location with strobes
- it’s possible to adapt H lenses on the GFX and to use their leaf shutters, so for H users like me all it takes is not selling 2 or 3 H lenses for having a very usable strobe shooting solution... (for me the 50mm II, 100mm f2.2 and 210mm f4 most probably that are anyway my preferred ones)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Even better with a strobe that doesn't horribly shift color like a Godox does when shooting anything that requires short duration and fast recycle times.
Are you talking about he AD600PRO TTL? This was a discussion about HSS, wasn't it? If you want low color shift across a band of durations, the Einstein is good.
-
... This was a discussion about HSS, wasn't it? If you want low color shift across a band of durations, the Einstein is good.
Or just don't use HSS.
The other thing about HSS is that it divides the power up for multiple flashes which sort of defeats the purpose if you are trying to overpower the sun. A 1/2000 flash sync speed gives you a 4 stop advantage over 1/125S without any loss of power.
-
The ability to go to 400 iso effectively turns a 500w mono head into a 4000w head if you get my drift.
one person who believes that "ISO" is a part of exposure ;D ... or may be just OOC JPG shooter of course
-
one person who believes that "ISO" is a part of exposure ;D ... or may be just OOC JPG shooter of course
Are you deliberately trying to belittle me or are you really not understanding what I am saying. Come let me explain. A real world example.
Two 4000 WS packs and heads where needed for a particular set up on a Leaf back set to 50 ISO. The ability two go to 100 ISO would have allowed me to move to 2000 WS packs Nd heads. To go to 200 ISO I could have ditched the packs and used two 1000WS mono heads. 400ISO and was on two much cheaper 500 WS monoheads. A real world example by the way. Over years this actually happened.
Now I must be very careful in case you think I’m confused about about focal length and exposure. Over the same period the 33 MP back running a 180 mm lens was replaced with a FF mirrorless at 42MP. Perhaps you can guess where I’m going? Yes, I am using a much shorter lens so can open up a stop and keep the effective DOF, meaning yet another saving on power. Two 500 WS heads at half power or perhaps I can drop ISO to 200. I’m not even going to go into the ability of modern cameras to hold focus and so allow even shallower depth of field and the implications of that but let’s just say I turned out to have little ability to keep a moving model in focus at f8 with a 150mm lens, my hit rate was around 50%.
I have owned 5 digital backs and none of them had the OOC ability to shoot jpg by the way.
-
The other thing about HSS is that it divides the power up for multiple flashes which sort of defeats the purpose f you are trying to overpower the sun. A 1/2000 flash sync speed gives you a 4 stop advantage over 1/125S without any loss of power.
I mentioned that when I first brought it up, and explained why it is often not a problem.
-
one person who believes that "ISO" is a part of exposure ;D ... or may be just OOC JPG shooter of course
Not funny! Of course "ISO" is part of the exposure, otherwise you shouldn’t dial in the ISO value on your (handheld) exposure meter.
Jaap.
-
Not funny! Of course "ISO" is part of the exposure, otherwise you shouldn’t dial in the ISO value on your (handheld) exposure meter.
Perhaps the topic was ISO less sensors?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Not funny! Of course "ISO" is part of the exposure, otherwise you shouldn’t dial in the ISO value on your (handheld) exposure meter.
Jaap.
Depends how you define exposure I suppose. How much light strikes the sensor is I think the most accurate and that is determined primarily by shutter speed and aperture in conjunction with ambient light levels. ISO tends to get mixed into it for practical reasons such as what I was trying to explain and what most people immediately understood when I spoke about high power studio lighting being needed for sensors lacking higher ISO capability.
Anyway. The HSS thing is a whole other debate and can obviously be used in different ways. I don’t quite understand the requirement people seem to place on flash equipment being able to overpower the sun. I use flash outdoors mostly to fill and if you are filling a subject moving rapidly you need a high shutter speed and so HSS to stop the motion and not to tame the ambient light. Gets complicated to explain in detail.
-
...
You know well it seems that dialing more nominal "ISO" by itself will not let more light onto your sensor, but in most cases with modern gear you can decrease a readout related noise -> this is the the real benefit of a higher nominal ISO if you can't increase exposure time and/or use wider aperture and/or dial in more output on your strobes.
As for the strobes - you control the output so nothing prevents you from dialing the same output for different nominal ISOs (for as long as you do not come close to clipping in raw) - so you might benefit with a proper camera by reducing noise in shadows if you can't saturate your sensors from strobe output, that's it...
> Two 4000 WS packs and heads where needed for a particular set up on a Leaf back set to 50 ISO. The ability two go to 100 ISO would have allowed me to move to 2000 WS packs Nd heads
nope - you get "twice" less light on sensor and based on the camera you might simply reduce a little readout noise (better S/N in shadows)... going to ISO100 does not double the light, that's it ... you are shooting raw - why do you kid yourself ?
-
ISO tends to get mixed into it for practical reasons
there is no practical reason to write absurd statements that somehow you can the same sensor exposure by reducing the strobe output twice and increasing a nominal ISO by a stop
-
there is no practical reason to write absurd statements that somehow you can the same sensor exposure by reducing the strobe output twice and increasing a nominal ISO by a stop
It’s not the “same” exposure or the same amount of light. I know what Martin is saying, as I deal with this on a daily basis as well. If I take my phase back, I need to take large strobes. When I shoot my Olympus I can get away with speedlights at the same f-stop but higher iso. (Small shutter speed adjustment maybe) This makes certain lesser value shoots a lot more efficient and quicker in terms of setup and execution. I end up with the “same” final looking picture. I honestly don’t care if their is slightly more noise, or what the sensor is doing is different. My picture is like look at the end of the day. My clients don’t care about the sensor. I know I’m not getting more light out of the flashes...it is technically less light.... all I care about is my end result. And having a sensor that can give me a clean result while allowing me to use smaller lights is a huge bonus in many situations. Sometimes that is the difference between me shooting alone, or me needing two assistants with me. When you run a business, that financial difference over a lot of shoots day in and out can add up.
-
Quite right Tony. My 42MP ff camera produces a file as clean as my old Aptus 7 and needs about three stops less light from the strobes to achieve that and at one stop bigger aperture to rep,I ate the depth of field with a shorter lens. I need much less strobe power.
The above is for means of explanation pedants. I am not knocking MFDB’s and I am not proposing everyone switches to my obviously superior camera platform. If you don’t understand or believe this explanation please feel free to continue to carry a brace of 4K packs when going on location shoots. Actual working photographers taking actual photos for actual clients paying actual real money will most likely understand it as it has had a huge impact on the business.
-
Exactly... m4/3 means shooting at f2.8 and having depth of field of f/5.6 or similar...iso 200 or 400 and a 1/250 flash sync...it’s like a dream come true for the mileage I get from my lights, the depth of field I get in the image, and for the size of the system. And less retouch since fine detail is not nearly as rendered as my phase back. So many people don’t get why I switched to Olympus for my commercial work....
Then again, here are times where high megapixels or a back are necessary. But having some or all of the advantages I get from a modern MF mirrorless is looking more appealing every day.
-
It’s not the “same” exposure or the same amount of light. I know what Martin is saying, as I deal with this on a daily basis as well. If I take my phase back, I need to take large strobes. When I shoot my Olympus I can get away with speedlights at the same f-stop but higher iso.
then use the proper words - better sensor tech sometimes might allow you to have ~acceptable/same/better S/N (again mostly in shadows) even for many times smaller sensor area (m43 vs MF - that "phase back" is clearly not recent CMOS based one, but something old CCD based), which allows you to get by with less light output by strobes (smaller strobes/speedlites) ... there is no need for some mythical "practical" reasons to mutter anything implying that somehow different ISOs make different "exposure" equal (when you perfectly well know that it is not).
-
Exactly... m4/3 means shooting at f2.8 and having depth of field of f/5.6 or similar...iso 200 or 400 and a 1/250 flash sync...
exactly no need to bring ISO here. .. it is a different sensor tech in different cameras that allows you to do this... not ISO...
-
That is also true. Nothing is stopping me from shooting my ccd back at 400 iso.... I just think the noise and colors look horrible and not up to my standards. So I won’t. But if I shot at that iso I would obtain the same results in terms of lights. It’s just as you say as well...the sensor tech is different on the new stuff.
-
That is also true. Nothing is stopping me from shooting my ccd back at 400 iso.... I just think the noise and colors look horrible and not up to my standards. So I won’t. But if I shot at that iso I would obtain the same results in terms of lights. It’s just as you say as well...the sensor tech is different on the new stuff.
Yep. Very different sensor tech. The result is where I used to have a 4K pack I now have a 500w head. Sorry if those are the wrong words. (Doos)
-
Hi Jim,
Good point, but when I am shooting macro I often run into the limits.
Best regards
Erik
And then there's HSS, which works well with the GFX and Godox strobes. You do throw away a flock of photons, but you're usually going for the short shutter speeds because you want to open the lens up, and efficiency is not the long pole in the tent.
Jim
-
Re: leaf shutters, flash etc. It's not about overpowering the sun (for me, usually), it's about 100% control of zero ambient in the picture. I shoot in a lot of crappy locations, with mixed lighting I can't turn off or control. But there's very little that I can't eliminate at ISO 50 or 100 at 1/800.
-Doug
-
I went to the Fuji “hands on” with the GFX 100 at Camera West in Rancho Mirage, CA, yesterday afternoon. Spent a couple of hours configuring and then shooting with a pre-production (but pretty close to final) unit.
I know people throw about the “game-changer” word a lot these days - but I think this camera deserves the appellation. I was shooting inside the shop at 1/10th of a second, hand held, and getting RAZOR sharp images. The idea of shooting “off hand” with a medium format camera indoors in low light is almost weird feeling. Ergos are better than my GFX 50s w/ grip. Camera is actually thinner, albeit a tiny bit wider. So close in height as to be not worth mentioning (50s w/ grip). Vertical grip has received some questioning remarks re no “rubberized” stuff on it. I wondered myself. In reality the bottom of the body does have a large patch of rubberized material, and the “paint” of the grip is more tactile than it appears in photos. To wit: the vertical grip is fine. It’s profile “in the hand” is a little different than the horizontal grip, but muscle memory will take care of that in no time at all.
Shutter release is “leaf spring” type like the Fuji X-H1, but a little less “hair-trigger” - so in my opinion about perfect. Shutter is “quiet for a medium format camera.” Sub monitor LCD is very customizable and big enough to see easily even for an old dude with glasses (that would be me). The exposure comp button can be set to “switch” mode (in addition to “press and hold”) so that one can just turn it on and have the rear sub-dial (command wheel) be permanently EC control. That’s my preference since I shoot mainly aperture priority and tweak exposure w/ EC. Lots of customizable buttons. The touch LCD display can be almost limitlessly configured to work like the D-pad buttons that are missing on this camera. Touch implementation seems better than my X-H1.
Camera does have Bluetooth, which allows the Fuji remote phone app to have a “shutter release” only function (with a lock for long exposure work). Brilliant and makes your phone a truly functional remote release. Also for wired release, they put the 2.5mm jack on the right side (facing the back of the camera). “What a concept.” LOL Every other camera I’ve owned has all the ports under a hatch on the left side where it gets trapped under the L-plate and attaching a wired remote becomes a “thread the needle” through some small hole or slot and a total PITA. No more!
I came away more anxious and excited than before. The Fuji reps there said that Fuji has “way underestimated” the initial demand for the body and that known pre-orders exceeded their expectations “by a bunch.” Said that if one isn’t near the top on someone’s pre-order list, “It might be a while until they get one.”
And it almost goes without saying but the detail captured is stunning.
That’s it...
Rand
-
Thanks for the feedback!
Exciting times.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I came away more anxious and excited than before. The Fuji reps there said that Fuji has “way underestimated” the initial demand for the body and that known pre-orders exceeded their expectations “by a bunch.” Said that if one isn’t near the top on someone’s pre-order list, “It might be a while until they get one.”
good old sales reps :D
-
good old sales reps :D
Ordinarily, I’d agree. And frankly hope what I perceive as your inference is correct. But I mentioned a trip I have planned for the first week in September that I’d like to have one to use on, and he wasn’t optimistic.
Rand
-
good old sales reps :D
You're right. The Fuji reps are honest about their surprise at the demand. That is what you meant I'm sure.
I demoed one in L.A. and they told me they will have a hard time meeting demand for initial orders because it's a more complicated camera to assemble with much tighter QC. I believe them.
And yes, what I saw was damned impressive.
-
Ordinarily, I’d agree. And frankly hope what I perceive as your inference is correct. But I mentioned a trip I have planned for the first week in September that I’d like to have one to use on, and he wasn’t optimistic.
Rand
I generally don't believe anything that comes out as "demand has exceeded expectations" from manufacturers. Initial deliveries from upper end products that we receive has historically been small volumes to begin and then ramps up. Every. time. But no one ever says that they are pacing the ramp up or component volumes or successful sensor yields are lower than they had hoped. It sounds much more exciting rom a sales standpoint to say that demand has outstripped supply.
We expect to receive our first shipment of GFX 100 units the first week in July (assuming Fuji holds true to their word and they begin shipping June 27). But the shipments after that, how may units they contain, and the frequency of deliveries will go a long way toward informing someone on our list when they should expect to receive theirs.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
I generally don't believe anything that comes out as "demand has exceeded expectations" from manufacturers. Initial deliveries from upper end products that we receive has historically been small volumes to begin and then ramps up. Every. time. But no one ever says that they are pacing the ramp up or component volumes or successful sensor yields are lower than they had hoped. It sounds much more exciting rom a sales standpoint to say that demand has outstripped supply.
We expect to receive our first shipment of GFX 100 units the first week in July (assuming Fuji holds true to their word and they begin shipping June 27). But the shipments after that, how may units they contain, and the frequency of deliveries will go a long way toward informing someone on our list when they should expect to receive theirs.
Steve Hendrix/CI
The general departure of Phase One from consumer medium format has really depressed this forum's PR quotient - even our dealers are becoming realistic and down to earth.
Edmund
-
The general departure of Phase One from consumer medium format
Odd, if Phase One has generally departed from consumer medium format, they have neglected to tell me, the 24 other employees of Digital Transitions, or the many customers who have purchased Phase One medium format systems over the last year.
Maybe you're confusing their transition to full-frame 645 for new products as a lack of commitment to a range of products? The opposite is true, at least for us; DT has a wider range of price options that we've ever had before. Refurbished systems (https://www.dtcommercialphoto.com/product-category/refurbished-backs-bodies-lenses/pre-owned-phase-one-digital-backs/) start under $10k with a full warranty, guaranteed condition, all new accessories, and professional dealer support. I'd have to check the sales books but, at least here in the USA, we've sold more $10-20k systems than any previous year (we've also sold more systems at the higher price points than any previous year; sales are up across the board, as is our staffing, location investment, and number of events around the country). I couldn't speak to other markets or other dealers, but DT, at least, has not "generally departed from consumer medium format".
It's true there are great options at lower price points than a Phase One system, but that's been true since day 1. Phase One provides the system with the most umph, for those that want or need it. Honestly the "Phase One sky is falling" narrative that has persisted on this forum for more than a decade is just so strange. It's like being constantly told its raining, when you're sitting next to a window with sunlight streaming in.
-
The general departure of Phase One from consumer medium format has really depressed this forum's PR quotient - even our dealers are becoming realistic and down to earth.
Edmund
If you peruse my posts you'll see I've never been anything other than that, thank you.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
1. Phase One provides the system with the most umph, for those that want or need it. Honestly the "Phase One sky is falling" narrative that has persisted on this forum for more than a decade is just so strange. It's like being constantly told its raining, when you're sitting next to a window with sunlight streaming in.
They also sell the most unfinished camera at such a high price and the firmware updates have been a little embarrassing as well... I’m just glad I have an IQ3 as well....
-
They also sell the most unfinished camera at such a high price and the firmware updates have been a little embarrassing as well... I’m just glad I have an IQ3 as well....
You'll get no disagreement from me on that; Phase One owes its IQ4 users a major feature update. You can only issue so many minor updates that start with "this isn't a big update, just some low-hanging fruit we could address while working on the bigger stuff" before people rightfully start to be very frustrated.
-
Thanks for that! I also get that it was a big change from the IQ3 platform, but it also has been over 6 months now and so much stuff is still missing or not really finished... I mean why the **** isn’t there ad hock WiFi connection?!?
What I must disapprove is Phase Ones YouTube Channel promising to a of stuff raving how robust, perfect the new hardware is and how powerful everything is, (did I mention robust before...), how important the communication to the customer is with future features and stuff like beta tools....
So far this has been the biggest BS in a long time I can remember.... so far there is no openness or communication at all from Phase One. (Im not talking about dealers, who have to take the heat.)
-
If you peruse my posts you'll see I've never been anything other than that, thank you.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Indeed. But I do so like Chocolate Soufflé and marketing puffery :)
Edmund
-
I could have been around for a while but I just noticed that the manual for the GFX-100 is on-line now. Useful to peruse to look at functionality. For example there is no crop mode (eg to allow 1:1, 3:2, 16:9, 35mmFF etc), but lots of other good stuff.
http://fujifilm-dsc.com/en/manual/gfx100/gfx100_omw_en_s_f.pdf
-
Looks like I didn't search well enough. Lots of crop modes on page 104. No 60mp 3:2 though.