Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: mtakeda on April 12, 2017, 03:35:08 pm
-
Lloyd Chambers has criticized a lot on this model's focus issues and quite frankly by looking at the images he put on I do not see what the problems are. I may not have trained eyes and I would appreciate it if anybody would help me to understand the points. Thank you in advance.
-
I subscribe his medium format site, so I follow his tests with, let's say, critical interest. Obviously, some eyes are more forgiving than others, regarding technical aspects, as some eyes are more forgiving, regarding composition and art related aspects.
His main working hypothesis is: why bother with MF if Nikon 810 with Otus lenses can make it better. you may follow that or not, but if you do, you have a high benchmark regarding image quality and lens performance which apparently the Fuji standard lens and zoom lens do not reach.
His observations are subtle but IMO clearly visible. The focus of these lenses (or at least his copies) seem to be really inconsistent, a bunch of problems with front- and backfocus, and focus-shift at different distances, and in the case of the zoom apparently a decentering problem. Not very inspiring for landscape shooters, at least for me. If you download for example the Pine Creek South Fork image from the zoom (far distance), it is impressive how sharp the lens is in the centre with very nice microcontrast and how bad it is on the right side. The normal lens has strong faint violet fringing wide open, etc. etc.
I would dare to conclude that Fuji made some serious compromises in order to keep the prices down, including lens design (interaction of hardware and baked-in software corrections in RAW) and QC.
Feel free to shoot me 8)
-
I wonder what the use of the 50MP MF is if there will be a soon Nikon d8... 50MP.
According to lenscore.org the Otus 85mm can do 80MP wide open...
In my own tests i see that my Nikon lenses will do sometimes 130MP + in the center at the right aperture...
-
I am not particularly interested in the technical details--just the end product. I've had the GFX for 2.5 weeks, and I am still figuring it out. I haven't had a problem with the focus in terms of walking around with the camera on autofocus (as opposed to on a tripod). I am inclined to shoot it in manual focus mode when on a tripod. This afternoon I was taking a close look at the focusing tools built into the camera, and I was impressed with the various aids (including the screen that shows graphically the depth-of-field range, as well as the second smaller rectangle display that highlights a particular area. Now I need to go out and practice with it. As for softness at the edges, I have been satisfied with my prints, but I am going to go back and take a closer look. I will say, that the autofocus is slow, but I didn't buy the camera to shoot sports. It can take time for it to lock in, particularly if the light is low.
I do wish Fuji had not baked the lens profiles into the RAW files. It would be nice to see exactly what is happening.
To some extent, there seems to be a "rain on people's parades" aspect to the recent discussion of medium format at a lower price point--I don't mean to suggest that it is you. For the longest time, people hoped for a lower price entry point to MF. Now that two manufacturers have given it to us, I've seen a spate of articles saying, "Not any better than FF 35mm." Today (April 12, 2017), there was a review on PetaPexel by Ken Kaminesky of the GFX. You don't need to read the review. Just take a look at the images he posted. I imagine he can produce some very nice prints with those.
Whether it is the Hasselblad X1D or the Fuji GFX 50s, both cameras produce great images. I can better say that in the case of the GFX since I have only seen X1D images that others have created. No doubt that both Hasselblad and Fuji have their competitive juices running, which means that we can expect to see firmware improvements and second generation cameras will deliver even better images.
My main issue with the camera so far is that it is not a tech camera. Obviously I knew that when I bought it, but I also use an Arca Swiss RM3di, and I really notice the absence of movements in terms of framing shots. Having said that, the RM3di isn't the easiest camera to travel with, particularly with the lenses and extension tubes.
Good luck
-
I am currently also a subscriber of Lloyd chambers blog and generally I appreciate his very critical view on cameras and lenses.
But - as a user of the GFX w/ 63 - I have to disagree with many of his critics because I just don't see them. Of course I only can speak for the GF 63f2.8 lens, because that's the only one I got (yet).
AF focus accuracy
If I select a small focus point and twenty times focus at open aperture to objects (w/ sufficient contrast) in various distances I 19 times perfectly catch sharpness at the focus area and 1 time I'm slightly off.
Of course focusing is not super quick because of contract detection but everyone knows that phase detection is technically impossible with this generation of Sony sensor, for that feature one has to wait for a camera update in 2018/2019 using the upcoming 100 MP BSI sensor.
Manual focusing
Of course it's focus-by-wire but IMO well implemented with very little clearance when focusing back and forth close to the perfect focus point.
It's true that somehow the image in the EVF or back screen does not 'pop' so much into the focus than other cameras (I will do a comparison w/ Sony A7RII) but I see no problem to focus correct manually, as I have to do using the Zeiss ZE 135f2, Leica R 180f3.4, Canon TSE 17, 24 a.s.o..
GF 63f2.8 performance
I would rate my Fuji 63 sample as one of the best lenses that I know and have, summing up all characteristics:
Sharpness
Center sharpness is perfect at any aperture (apart from diffraction closing more than f8 of course), corner sharpness is already impressively good at open aperture, very good at f4 and excellent at f5.6. My sample is also very evenly sharp at all four corners.
Focus shift
I did tests using a tripod, manually focused at open aperture at f2.8 to f11 at about 2 m and 3 m. Can't find any focus shift that would diminish image sharpness.
And: In autofocus, the lens focuses at the chosen working aperture (like Sony A7), so even if a certain amount of focus shift would be apparent, it would not cause any trouble.
Distortion
Fuji incorporated automatic correction for distortion, light fall off and chromatic aberration into the raw file (and the jpg, but I don't use). ACR carries out the corrections accordingly so one can't see them - normally .
Only if opened in Iridient X Transformer, switched off the auto-correction, exported as DNG and opened in ACR one can see the effects. Distortion is very little, maybe 1%, light fall-off at open aperture also, maybe half a f-stop, CA too. I see no problem in the auto-correction because I anyhow would apply it in ACR (apart from the fact that ACR adds a slight concentric wave pattern interpolation artifacts towards the image corners correcting the distortion, visible especially in darker even areas, but that's an Adobe fault, not Fuji's).
LCA
Very little greenish/ reddish halos back/ in front of focus point.
Bokeh
IMO absolutely great, one of the best I am aware of: soft transitions in the out-of-focus areas and absolutely round out-of-focus lights (at open aperture).
Otus comparison
Chambers every 20 lines of his blog writing repeats that the Otus (55) is better than the GF 63. The Zeiss Otus lens line is close to perfection, no question, but I don't see the point to compare again and again a manual focus 135 3K EUR lens with an auto focus medium format 1.5K EUR lens.
I anyhow would rate the resulting image quality of the GF 63 to be very close to the Otus (at comparable apertures).
I don't have an Otus but maybe I do a comparison to the (IMO also excellent) Sony/Zeiss FE 55f1.8 next weekend.
So far I'm perfectly happy with the camera and lens (just waiting for an one f-stop faster version ;-).
-
Thank you, gentlemen for positive input. I have seen many image examples including the one on Petapexel and been very impressed with high degree of resolution and sharpness. In the end unless there is fatal defects in products it is individual choice not by the other. And I have not seen such defect and as a matter of the fact the camera is quite opposite. Thank you again.
-
I am currently also a subscriber of Lloyd chambers blog and generally I appreciate his very critical view on cameras and lenses.
Manual focusing
Of course it's focus-by-wire but IMO well implemented with very little clearance when focusing back and forth close to the perfect focus point.
It's true that somehow the image in the EVF or back screen does not 'pop' so much into the focus than other cameras (I will do a comparison w/ Sony A7RII) but I see no problem to focus correct manually, as I have to do using the Zeiss ZE 135f2, Leica R 180f3.4, Canon TSE 17, 24 a.s.o..
We can quibble till the cows come home about many things in assessing the accuracy of Lloyd's evaluation of the GFX lenses. However, having used a GFX for 30 days, there is no question to me that he is right in concluding that the implementation of manual focus in magnified live view in the GFX EVF is unacceptably poor. I have a Sony A7RII and an X1D, and there is no comparison with how crisply the perfect focus point snaps into and out of place in the EVF with those two cameras. With the GFX, you move the focus ring back and forth struggling to see where the perfect focus point snaps into place. This is readily apparent if you compare the GFX side by side with the A7RII or the X1D. It is mystifying to me, as the specs on paper of the GFX EVF are so superior.
-
We can quibble till the cows come home about many things in assessing the accuracy of Lloyd's evaluation of the GFX lenses. However, having used a GFX for 30 days, there is no question to me that he is right in concluding that the implementation of manual focus in magnified live view in the GFX EVF is unacceptably poor. I have a Sony A7RII and an X1D, and there is no comparison with how crisply the perfect focus point snaps into and out of place in the EVF with those two cameras. With the GFX, you move the focus ring back and forth struggling to see where the perfect focus point snaps into place. This is readily apparent if you compare the GFX side by side with the A7RII or the X1D. It is mystifying to me, as the specs on paper of the GFX EVF are so superior.
I agree. I waited about seven months for my X1D and then cancelled the order and bought the GFX because it looked to be superior to me. But when actually used, the GFX was (for me and my work) disappointing. Too much quality somehow shaved in lens development to keep the costs down. So, back it went. I now have a copy of the X1D and am finding my way how to use it properly. I listed my comments in the X1D impression thread for those interested. But it works well.
-
No problem with manual focus at all. Certainly not any worse than my d800 which was the worst camera I have used live view on. (Not counting CCD backs...)
For my shooting style (stopped down to at least F5,6) there never was any real benefit from the Otus Glas. That was also the reason when I used my Nikon, after testing the Otus for a week I decided it was a waste of money. (Don't get be wrong they are amazing lenses, just not better for my style)
The Fuji Glas is great as is the X1D. Nothing amazing but very very solid.
Just one side note, I really don't understand how someone can find the X1D 90 any better than fujis 120. In my week of testing both it certainly wasn't.
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
I don't read Lloyd, but from his comments that have been posted it's apparent to me he is not a fan of Fuji cameras, period. If you don't feel that has some effect on his opinion, I would strongly disagree.
There have been a lot of comments on lack of quality of the Fuji Glass:
My comments are that the optics are excellent, and yes they are light weight but I am happy to have 1/4 the weight of a P1 Schneider LS lens if I can see the same optical quality, which I do with all three of the lenses I have. I fully agree on Christopher's comments on the optics thus won't repeat anything. They are overall excellent to my findings. The 32-64 has a bit of rectinier distortion @ 32mm and on the far left side mine is a bit softer. So I can't give that lens a 100% great overall review. But so far I have found it to interfere with any photography. The 120mm is amazing and so is the 63mm. The fact that Fuji did not use a LM on the 63mm is a BIG disappointment to me as it's AF speed is much slower and it will hunt much more often.
There have been a lot of comments on the issue of baked in sharpening on the Fuji Raw:
If you use non supported raw converters on the Fuji Files, which would have no way of reading anything baked in, the files appear fine and sharpen up just they do in LR. I personally don't believe it's possible to bake in a sharpening setting to any file but I will leave it at that. Yes, Fuji bakes in the optical corrections to the files that has always been the case with all Fuji cameras, and yes LR will see these and apply them, there do not include sharpening.
There have been several comments on the fact that Fuji bakes in diffraction corrections to the raw:
If you use any Fuji camera and turn on "lens Optimization" yes, Fuji will bake in diffractions corrections to the jpg files. THESE ARE NOT supported by raw converters like LR or ACR or even C1 (on the supported x-trans cameras). This has been published many times as these raw converters developers did not want to take the time to figure the algorithm that Fuji used. I have no reason to believe that for some reason, this now works on the RAW for the GFX. I have contacted Fuji US and they have told me the "lens Optimization" only applies to jpg and IN CAMERA RAW conversions where the Fuji optimization data can be read.
There have been many comments on the lack of ability to use Magnified Live View to manually focus:
Again, it's possibly that users don't have a good understanding of Fuji cameras. With Fuji you have two options for the EVF to display the file. As it is with exposure taken into account. And a more wide open max lighted view (display preview off). This 2nd option will give a fully lit view for live view display but you can easily over expose the image since you may forget to read the exposure meter on the far left. With the preview effect off, even in very low natural lighting I have no problems with manual focus in Live View.
There have been many comments on the lack of sharpness in magnified Live View:
Yes, if you zoom in all the way the details will be hard to see. Please understand if you are zoomed in all the way, you have zoomed way past a 100% view, more like 150%. This is similar to attempting to view an image on a D810 in live view with the magnification zoomed all the way in. Net you really can't tell much. You have 3 zooming options for the Magnified live View, and I tend to use the one in the middle. If you are attempting this without peaking enabled, I believe you will have a lot more trouble determining good focus.
Also, please understand that in preview mode, if you hit the zoom button one time, the camera's default zoom is WAYYY past a 100% view, and you can't determine accurate focus. I no of no way currently to dial that one touch zoom down like you can with Nikon. But you can pinch the screen like with an iPhone to shrink the maxed out view back down. In my experience you need to zoom out close to 1/3 of the default view.
Can't compare to the X1D as Hasselblad is still shipping these in a very limited amount.
I just have issues with the fact that it appears that some reviews don't understand anything about Fuji's design, and dive in, and then start making claims that the camera is defective, when it's clear they don't have a full understanding of Fuji's Focus by wire setup. It's not perfect but it works. If there is a fault for sure the way Fuji designed the neck strap lugs is a bit stupid? They make the use of any other type of strap hard to do and the lug will flip around and get in the way of the memory card door. I prefer to use the Peak Design straps.
Paul Caldwell
-
....No problem with manual focus at all. Certainly not any worse than my d800 which was the worst camera I have used live view on. (Not counting CCD backs...) ....
So manual focus on the GFX50 with liveview is not worse than the worst camera that you have ever used?
that is reassuring... ;)
The problem with the d800/d800e liveview was you could not see a 100% image; the d810 does not have this problem anymore.
What still can be better is the image quality in low light.
-
IMO that manual focus life view issue is totally exaggerated by some users (and reviewers). It's just that the sharpness doesn't pop in so much like at certain other mirrorless cameras, still MUCH easier to focus properly than on a DSRL with split screen. I guess other brands just do a stronger realtime sharpening of the life view image, so it make that image look sharper. Fuji easily could achieve this by a future firmware update. But that functional detail is for me not at all a dealbreaker to choose the camera or don't or choose the X1D instead. To get the camera in operation within about 2 seconds (instead of 4-5 seconds like the Sony A7RII or 10-15 like the Hasselblad X1D), to choose the focus point (and size) on the fly with the joy stick, to have a two axis tilt display, the availability of rather fast 50/85 mm equivalent lenses (63f2.8 and 110f2), to achieve 4x battery life and 8x w/ battery grip compared to the 1DX and of course to be able to adapt quite any lens w/ sufficient image circle to the camera, the reliability of a Fuji product, all that together made me choose the GFX, the slight imperfection of manual focus does not play any role to that decision.
-
I would dare to conclude that Fuji made some serious compromises in order to keep the prices down, including lens design (interaction of hardware and baked-in software corrections in RAW) and QC.
After purchasing the GFX and working with it, I came to the same conclusion. The lenses IMO are not remarkable or if I remark it is like this. Of course, each one of us must have a threshold for lens quality that we look for. So, I can understand where some folks will say the GFX lenses are just what they want. All I am saying is that they are not just what I want. I wish they were, because the X1D system (which I now am testing) is quite a bit more expensive, etc.
As for the folks that comment on Lloyd Chambers forums and on his approach: I find Chambers very accurate and I should point out that he is like the last of the real lens reviewers who even bother to cover lenses. Please tell me who does as much or a better job and please include their links and I will check them out.
-
The best review is the one done by yourself. You found it unacceptable. End of story. I find it works very similar to other Fuji cameras and kept it.
It's possible to study some things to death.
I don't read Lloyd. I use a camera and if it works I keep it. I personally find it hard to follow a review where the user is so negative against the product.
The micro focus on issues that things are being taken too amazes me especially when it's clear that many basic working features is the GFX have been misunderstood by certain reviewers. If LLoyd is unable to take a useable image with the GFX then shame on him.
To call the lenses cheap and or under performing is also a bit disappointing to see.
Paul Caldwell
-
For anyone who doubts Lloyd's point about how poorly implemented the magnified live MF focusing is with the GFX, don't take his word for it. Pick up an X1D or a Sony A7rII and compare it side-by-side with a GFX. The difference in the ability to achieve perfect focus is shocking.
BTW, like most of the reviewers who drink the manufacturer's Kool Aid and don't critically evaluate what they purport to be "reviewing", Lloyd calls it like he sees it. Lloyd may not like Fuji X series cameras, but he explains WHY he doesn't based upon the way he works. And Lloyd is no Hasselblad apologist either. He has carefully analyzed the AF errors in the X1D that are apt to occur in certain cases and he called it out loud and clear.
I don't know what it is with Fuji and the GFX. It feels to me like a cult where no criticism is allowed by the members and all members jump to defend the object of the cult if an outsider criticizes any aspect of it. Geez, it's a camera! Calm down.
-
I feel that this topic is getting gnarley. For me it is useful for those among us who have actually bought a camera like the GFX (or the X1D) to give our comments. I have no previous experience with or attachment to either Fuji or Hasselblad. Share experience and comments, but let's have respect for different points of view and uses.
-
For anyone who doubts Lloyd's point about how poorly implemented the magnified live MF focusing is with the GFX, don't take his word for it. Pick up an X1D or a Sony A7rII and compare it side-by-side with a GFX. The difference in the ability to achieve perfect focus is shocking.
BTW, like most of the reviewers who drink the manufacturer's Kool Aid and don't critically evaluate what they purport to be "reviewing", Lloyd calls it like he sees it. Lloyd may not like Fuji X series cameras, but he explains WHY he doesn't based upon the way he works. And Lloyd is no Hasselblad apologist either. He has carefully analyzed the AF errors in the X1D that are apt to occur in certain cases and he called it out loud and clear.
I don't know what it is with Fuji and the GFX. It feels to me like a cult where no criticism is allowed by the members and all members jump to defend the object of the cult if an outsider criticizes any aspect of it. Geez, it's a camera! Calm down.
No cult, just mis information. As I have pointed out. It's all dependent on how you have the camera setup. I have access to the A7r, and rII, and own the D810 and 800. I don't see any problems. They all view the same and if you magnify the Sony IMO it's at times just as hard. I do take and have taken exception to the comments that the lens are cheap and not up to the standards of MF from some. That's just not the case. The optics are amazing. The issue of baking in sharpening is IMO totally false, as I have stated, just use a non supported raw converter that doesn't even know that file is from a GFX, they look the same as a LR conversion. This is easy enough to test for anyone the process has been well enough documented.
All I am trying to point out is people are attempting to take one seemingly mis informed, pre disposed review and make it the definitive answer to the camera and that is tragic.
You and I disagree on the magnified live view use. No problem. Both opinions matter as we obviously view the needs or use differently. Neither opinion is the definite just like Lloyd's is not either. I can clearly state that if you don't have the preview options setup correctly and the camera is not giving you the max viewable image then yes magnified Live View on the GFX can be difficult, just like it is on any other Fuji designed camera. From you use of the X1D I have no doubt that they are doing something like P1's Live View and automatically adjusting the exposure to allow for easier focus without need to make any menu changes which is also fine.
Paul Caldwell
-
+1 for reliability of Lloyd Chambers' reviews. Whenever I get serious about switching main camera platforms (as I am now), I research things to death and resubscribe to his website. There are only a few really reliable and truly independent sources of info in the camera world, and a reason it costs a pretty penny to get access to Diglloyd. In my experience, time has proven out the quality of his initial equipment reviews.
On paper, the GFX actually looks better at least to me than the X1D. That doesn't appear to me to be the case generally reading/seeing people's early experiences. Knowing lenses and peripherals are more important from a long term investment perspective than the camera back and seeing discussions like this, I may have to bite the bullet and get the X1D. It appears to be on a reasonable path to the future -- mirrorless, likely at least competitive lens-wise with the best, the back is good but has room for improvement over the next 2-5 years (especially as better 100mp sensors roll out). More expensive than it needs to be maybe, but I guess I have some faith that will keep Hasselblad at the leading edge.
-
I'm a little late to this, but I can respond to a few of the points made.
I find that the magnified focusing experience with the GFX is a step down from the a7RII (which was a small step down from the a7R) when peaking is not used. When peaking is used in conjunction with mag view, I find the GFX works well. You may have to mess with the peaking lenels to find the one that works best with your chosen lens and magnification.
With respect to comparing the Fuji 63 to the Otus 55, I have done an on-axis quantitative testing on the GFX with the 63 and the Otus 85 (not 55, though I can do that if there's interest):
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/fuji-632-8-focus-shift-and-loca/
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/a7rii-gfx-on-axis-sharpness-w-otus-85/
They are quite different lenses. The Otus sharpest aperture is f/2.8. I think that's true of the Otus 55 as well. The Fuji sharpest aperture is f/5.6. The Fuji has more LoCA (the Otus has very little), but not a whole lot. The Otus at its sharpest aperture is sharper than the Fuji, but not by much. The Fuji focus shift is moderate at worst.
If you are comparing the Otus on the a7RII to the Fuji on the GFX, the Fuji is sharper on axis. It's not even close. On-axis sharpness is mostly a function of the sensor here, not the lens. For that reason, the Otus might be an even better lens on a higher-res sensor.
I did not do informal qualitative tests of the Otus 55 on the ar&II versus the Fuji 63 on the GFX, but here are tests that include both of those combinations:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/otus-55-on-d810-a7rii/
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/zony-55-on-a7rii-fuji-63-on-gfx-50s/
If you poke around the blog, you can find tests with the 120 macro as well.
My take on the two Fuji lenses is that the 120 macro is a tour de force, and the 63 is merely very good.
Jim
-
Great stuff, Jim. Particularly happy to learn about the April 1 flooby dust issues ;) Also glad to read someone post about a reasonably good copy of the Fuji 63.
A long shot question -- are you contemplating comparing the X1D lenses anytime soon? This kind of objective testing between the Fuji and X1D lenses I haven't seen yet and would be at least selfishly speaking unbelievably helpful.
-
Great stuff, Jim. Particularly happy to learn about the April 1 flooby dust issues ;) Also glad to read someone post about a reasonably good copy of the Fuji 63.
A long shot question -- are you contemplating comparing the X1D lenses anytime soon? This kind of objective testing between the Fuji and X1D lenses I haven't seen yet and would be at least selfishly speaking unbelievably helpful.
I generally test only equipment that I intend to use for my own photography. I have no plans to use the X1D. The reasons are the lack of FP shutter and the fair to only-good performance of my HC lenses on the GFX, and my assumption that they would perform about as well on the X1D, leaving the X1D with a limited lens selection. I am happy with the performance of the Otus 55 and 85, plus the Zeiss 135 Apo, on the GFX for square images, and mostly happy for 4:5 images. I suppose that when the X1D become easy to rent I could do something.
Thanks for the kind words. I've got a lot more GFX testing ahead of me, and I'm still taking requests.
I think that this afternoon I'm going to do a head to head quantitative on-axis test of the a7RII/Otus 55 and the GFX/63.
I already did a qualitative test of the a7RII/Otus 55 and the GFX/Fuji 120 that was interesting, st least to me:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/otus-85-on-the-a7rii-fuji-120mm-macro-on-the-gfx-50s/
Jim
-
I'll at least follow your A7RII/Otus 55 GFX 63 results with great interest. I'm contemplating leaving the Sony platform for either the X1D or GFX as my main shooting platform in the next week or two, am leaning toward the X1D but totally despise spending money unnecessarily. (I actually read about flooby dust a few days after you broke the story).
-
In today's blog, Lloyd Chambers compares the Fujifilm GFX vs Hasselblad X1D, Canon 5DS R, and Nikon D810. In detail.
https://diglloyd.com/
-
No need to read his stuff, sure you can, but I would suggest GETTING the stuff and actually comparing it side by side.
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
In today's blog, Lloyd Chambers compares the Fujifilm GFX vs Hasselblad X1D, Canon 5DS R, and Nikon D810. In detail.
https://diglloyd.com/
WRT imprecise AF, I have a test protocol, which you may or may not think is adequate:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/another-medium-tele-test-batis-af-vs-mf/
If a few of you like the protocol, and if there is sufficient interest, I'd be happy to run that test with the GFX and the 120 or 63.
Jim
-
WRT imprecise AF, I have a test protocol, which you may or may not think is adequate:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/another-medium-tele-test-batis-af-vs-mf/
If a few of you like the protocol, and if there is sufficient interest, I'd be happy to run that test with the GFX and the 120 or 63.
Thanks Michael - I would likely have missed that page as I've already read way past it. That's exactly why we subscribe!
Jim, you have one vote here. I can see the misfocus in Lloyd's pics and words, so it could be very helpful to see something more measurable.
-
Here's the on-axis a7RII/Otus 55 vs GFX/Fuji 63 test:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/a7riiotus-55-vs-gfxfuji-63/
WRT "focus instability", there is no indication that the Fuji manual focus moved at all during the considerable time it took to collect the data. Of course, on the focus-by-wire lens, you can't expect focus position to persist through power cycling.
Jim
-
Here's the on-axis a7RII/Otus 55 vs GFX/Fuji 63 test:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/a7riiotus-55-vs-gfxfuji-63/
Your whole GFX series, including this one, is fascinating and extremely helpful to me Jim. It's scientifically allowing at least me to reach the conclusion (supplemented with a week's worth of other mostly less helpful reviews) that at least for non-sports, non super telephoto shooters who manually focus at each aperture (as I do), the GFX platform is a likely a step up from a more expensive Otus + A7RII platform. Never mind the improvements when the GFX gets a 100MP back. Of course there's a lot of qualifications in that statement that readers are advised to understand, but it's right up my personal alley anyway. Bravo! You could charge for this stuff!
As an aside, now my only remaining task is to figure out whether the X1D is worth its premium over the GFX. That has me stumped for now. The driver in that last choice may be more my wife than the specs!
-
It ones again shows how baaaaaaad the Fuji lenses are. ;)
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
Hi,
Jim Kasson is quite positive about that lens. He also has the Otus 85 and the Otus 55.
Yesterday he posted a limited comparison of the GFX 63 with Otus 55 on the Sony A7rII:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/a7riiotus-55-vs-gfxfuji-63/
Best regards
Erik
I am currently also a subscriber of Lloyd chambers blog and generally I appreciate his very critical view on cameras and lenses.
But - as a user of the GFX w/ 63 - I have to disagree with many of his critics because I just don't see them. Of course I only can speak for the GF 63f2.8 lens, because that's the only one I got (yet).
AF focus accuracy
If I select a small focus point and twenty times focus at open aperture to objects (w/ sufficient contrast) in various distances I 19 times perfectly catch sharpness at the focus area and 1 time I'm slightly off.
Of course focusing is not super quick because of contract detection but everyone knows that phase detection is technically impossible with this generation of Sony sensor, for that feature one has to wait for a camera update in 2018/2019 using the upcoming 100 MP BSI sensor.
Manual focusing
Of course it's focus-by-wire but IMO well implemented with very little clearance when focusing back and forth close to the perfect focus point.
It's true that somehow the image in the EVF or back screen does not 'pop' so much into the focus than other cameras (I will do a comparison w/ Sony A7RII) but I see no problem to focus correct manually, as I have to do using the Zeiss ZE 135f2, Leica R 180f3.4, Canon TSE 17, 24 a.s.o..
GF 63f2.8 performance
I would rate my Fuji 63 sample as one of the best lenses that I know and have, summing up all characteristics:
Sharpness
Center sharpness is perfect at any aperture (apart from diffraction closing more than f8 of course), corner sharpness is already impressively good at open aperture, very good at f4 and excellent at f5.6. My sample is also very evenly sharp at all four corners.
Focus shift
I did tests using a tripod, manually focused at open aperture at f2.8 to f11 at about 2 m and 3 m. Can't find any focus shift that would diminish image sharpness.
And: In autofocus, the lens focuses at the chosen working aperture (like Sony A7), so even if a certain amount of focus shift would be apparent, it would not cause any trouble.
Distortion
Fuji incorporated automatic correction for distortion, light fall off and chromatic aberration into the raw file (and the jpg, but I don't use). ACR carries out the corrections accordingly so one can't see them - normally .
Only if opened in Iridient X Transformer, switched off the auto-correction, exported as DNG and opened in ACR one can see the effects. Distortion is very little, maybe 1%, light fall-off at open aperture also, maybe half a f-stop, CA too. I see no problem in the auto-correction because I anyhow would apply it in ACR (apart from the fact that ACR adds a slight concentric wave pattern interpolation artifacts towards the image corners correcting the distortion, visible especially in darker even areas, but that's an Adobe fault, not Fuji's).
LCA
Very little greenish/ reddish halos back/ in front of focus point.
Bokeh
IMO absolutely great, one of the best I am aware of: soft transitions in the out-of-focus areas and absolutely round out-of-focus lights (at open aperture).
Otus comparison
Chambers every 20 lines of his blog writing repeats that the Otus (55) is better than the GF 63. The Zeiss Otus lens line is close to perfection, no question, but I don't see the point to compare again and again a manual focus 135 3K EUR lens with an auto focus medium format 1.5K EUR lens.
I anyhow would rate the resulting image quality of the GF 63 to be very close to the Otus (at comparable apertures).
I don't have an Otus but maybe I do a comparison to the (IMO also excellent) Sony/Zeiss FE 55f1.8 next weekend.
So far I'm perfectly happy with the camera and lens (just waiting for an one f-stop faster version ;-).
-
Anyone care to summarize Lloyd Chamber's opinions on the comparison between the GFX, X1D and D810?
John
-
Jim, to be completely candid, I have no idea at all what all of those charts and graphs you are producing demonstrate in terms of real world results. The analysis that Lloyd Chambers provides is derived from actual PHOTOGRAPHS that we can look at with our eyes and judge for ourselves. That's the way I like to evaluate things. When Lloyd raised questions about the accuracy of the AF performance of the X1D and the 90mm lens, I looked at the photographs he produced as evidence. Then, I went out to see if I could see the same things he was seeing by shooting photographs myself. And, guess what, I saw the same things Lloyd saw. Same thing with the sloppiness of the MF focusing in magnified live view that Lloyd is complaining about with the GFX. I saw the same thing with my eyes.
-
.....
Focus shift
I did tests using a tripod, manually focused at open aperture at f2.8 to f11 at about 2 m and 3 m. Can't find any focus shift that would diminish image sharpness.
And: In autofocus, the lens focuses at the chosen working aperture (like Sony A7), so even if a certain amount of focus shift would be apparent, it would not cause any trouble.
...
Is it really true that GFX auto-focuses at working aperture? I know that my A7rII does and it causes me headaches as even the GM lens occasionally does focus-hunting if the aperture is f/8 or smaller.
I read that you can focus manually at working aperture by using M mode and pressing DOF button.
-
Jim, to be completely candid, I have no idea at all what all of those charts and graphs you are producing demonstrate in terms of real world results. The analysis that Lloyd Chambers provides is derived from actual PHOTOGRAPHS that we can look at with our eyes and judge for ourselves. That's the way I like to evaluate things. When Lloyd raised questions about the accuracy of the AF performance of the X1D and the 90mm lens, I looked at the photographs he produced as evidence. Then, I went out to see if I could see the same things he was seeing by shooting photographs myself. And, guess what, I saw the same things Lloyd saw. Same thing with the sloppiness of the MF focusing in magnified live view that Lloyd is complaining about with the GFX. I saw the same thing with my eyes.
I appreciate that there are people who understand the world in different ways, and respect your point of view. I like quantitative results where possible, so our perspectives are different. I'm sorry that you don't see the relevance of what I have posted to your photography. I suggest you not bother to click on the links that I will continue to provide if you find that my approach is not helpful to you.
I have so far posted no measurements of AF or MF accuracy with the GFX. I have made a set of test exposures for AF performance this afternoon, and I will be working on analysing them. However, I don't think that you'll find the results satisfying, as they will be quantitative.
Jim
-
Hi,
At this time I sort of feel that Diglloyd's reporting is a bit unprecise. I don't think he mentions focusing method or focusing point selection.
If you don't know the circumstances it would be difficult to draw conclusions.
Let's take an example. He has an example with a mountain landscape being in perfect focus with some boulders in front out of focus. If he put the AF-point/points on the boulder the image is clearly mis-focused. If the camera was allowed to choose AF point, it would be a different question. Many cameras would focus on the object closest to the image, but it could also be a good focusing strategy to focus on the mountains. That is what I would do.
Shooting medium aperture covers up the focusing difference pretty well.
It seems that corners/borders are not so great on that 63 mm. It is quiet possible that the 63 mm lens on the X1D would deliver better corners would it exists. But fact is that Hasselblad doesn't have a lens round 63 mm. Standard lenses are often a compromise. The Fuji 120 macro seems to be a truly great lens with almost no focus shift at close distances and very little axial chroma as measured by Jim Kasson. Jim mostly measures near axis data, so his findings don't tell about borders or corners, but that lens probably has little focus shift.
It is quite possible that Hasselblad achieves better AF, although that would come as a surprise in a sense. Fuji has doing CDAF for a long time, the X1D is Hasselblad's first try.
Twenty times view finder magnification may be a bit too much. You want to focus at axtual pixels and 20X is probably beyond that.
Gearing of focusing is extremely important with magnified live view.
Best regards
Erik
Lloyd Chambers has criticized a lot on this model's focus issues and quite frankly by looking at the images he put on I do not see what the problems are. I may not have trained eyes and I would appreciate it if anybody would help me to understand the points. Thank you in advance.
-
At this time I sort of feel that Diglloyd's reporting is a bit unprecise. I don't think he mentions focusing method or focusing point selection.
If you don't know the circumstances it would be difficult to draw conclusions.
I have followed Lloyd Chamber's Medium-Format subscription for some time, also vetted the same cameras (Pentax K1, GFX, X1D, etc.) and had plenty of personal correspondence with Chambers over these issues. I don't find him "imprecise" as you mention it, but very careful and thorough all the way as regards these AF issues. He certainly is well aware of focus points and their selection.
Personally, I don't use AF on these cameras, but I do very much use manual focus. I don't care for focus-by-wire (in general), but having used both the GFX and X1D, for the kind of still-life manual-focus I do, I find the X1D to be very usable and accurate. I had a lot more trouble with magnifying and focusing the GFX. Could be just different strokes for different folks.
-
Hi,
What I find imprecise is his reporting, not necessarily his testing.
Best regards
Erik
I have followed Lloyd Chamber's Medium-Format subscription for some time, also vetted the same cameras (Pentax K1, GFX, X1D, etc.) and had plenty of personal correspondence with Chambers over these issues. I don't find him "imprecise" as you mention it, but very careful and thorough all the way as regards these AF issues. He certainly is well aware of focus points and their selection.
Personally, I don't use AF on these cameras, but I do very much use manual focus. I don't care for focus-by-wire (in general), but having used both the GFX and X1D, for the kind of still-life manual-focus I do, I find the X1D to be very usable and accurate. I had a lot more trouble with magnifying and focusing the GFX. Could be just different strokes for different folks.
-
Hi,
What I find imprecise is his reporting, not necessarily his testing.
Best regards
Erik
I hear that, but then you go on to give a hypothetical involving him (with a boulder), with a lot of "If he did this, etc.) and to me we should be thankful that he (one of a few) is doing this kind of testing. Just my two cents. It comes off as disparaging of him, rather than trying to get to the bottom of all this AF stuff. I don't mean to be aggressive, just I feel it is a little unfair.
-
I guess the way I look at Lloyd's review is it's just a data point - a very helpful one at that. At the end of the day, all I care about is whether the camera does what I want it to do in my hands. For my kind of photography, landscape/seascape, I have found the GFX to be an excellent performer. Most cameras have some limitations/quirks and understanding those limitations/quirks is helpful. I have also been around long enough to know that testing one camera and one lens is helpful but we have all seen the variability that can exist from lens to lens. Reviews are helpful but draw your own conclusions! Sometimes I get the feeling that people like to use reviews to support their decision or to point out why their choice is better than someone else's choice.
-
I guess the way I look at Lloyd's review is it's just a data point - a very helpful one at that. At the end of the day, all I care about is whether the camera does what I want it to do in my hands. For my kind of photography, landscape/seascape, I have found the GFX to be an excellent performer. Most cameras have some limitations/quirks and understanding those limitations/quirks is helpful. I have also been around long enough to know that testing one camera and one lens is helpful but we have all seen the variability that can exist from lens to lens. Reviews are helpful but draw your own conclusions! Sometimes I get the feeling that people like to use reviews to support their decision or to point out why their choice is better than someone else's choice.
The problem here is that few of us can afford to buy both systems and compare. I had to do it one system at a time, sending back and trying another. That is why I read these various reviews, aside from incidental interest in all things photographical.
-
Fair enough. I guess that's why some people rent the systems first. I guess us early adopters pay some price for our impatience :)
-
Is it really true that GFX auto-focuses at working aperture? I know that my A7rII does and it causes me headaches as even the GM lens occasionally does focus-hunting if the aperture is f/8 or smaller.
I read that you can focus manually at working aperture by using M mode and pressing DOF button.
I checked:
At apertures from f2.8 to f5.6, the camera closes the aperture to that value and performs the auto-focus at that f-stop as soon as the shutter is half pressed.
At apertures smaller than f5.6, the aperture is first closed to that particular value, so one sees in life-view the world at that chosen aperture but as soon as the shutter is pressed half to focus, the aperture opens to f5.6 (that means auto-focus is carried out at f5.6), as soon as the shutter is fully pressed for the exposure, the aperture is closed to the first value.
So in first case, the slight focus-shift has no impact on focus precision because focusing is carried out at working aperture, in second case focus-shift has very little impact, because only the slight shift between f5.6 and smaller apertures is relevant.
Interestingly, f5.6 seems to achieve enough contrast for the focusing, otherwise Fuji would not have implemented it in such way.
In comparison the Sony A7RII:
w/ Batis 85f1.8
The behaviour is different than described in a previous post of that thread, sorry my bad.
At any working aperture, the camera closes the aperture to that value (life-view at that value like GFX), pressing the shutter half for auto-focus: the aperture is opened nearly completely but not totally, let's say to f2. Shutter fully pressed for exposure, the aperture closes again to the first value.
w/ Loxia 21f2.8
Because the aperture of the Loxia is fully mechanical, it stays closed at the chosen value. So one sees the life-view image at that aperture value and also must manually focus at that value.
-
The other thing about Lloyd's reviews that make them so valuable to me is that Lloyd doesn't own most of the equipment he reviews. That's true with the GFX and the X1D. When someone owns a camera or lens and "reviews" it, the outcome always seems preordained. I mean how often do you see someone who owns a camera or lens or is an "Ambassador" who has been provided a camera or lens to review give that camera or lens a negative review.
-
The other thing about Lloyd's reviews that make them so valuable to me is that Lloyd doesn't own most of the equipment he reviews. That's true with the GFX and the X1D. When someone owns a camera or lens and "reviews" it, the outcome always seems preordained. I mean how often do you see someone who owns a camera or lens or is an "Ambassador" who has been provided a camera or lens to review give that camera or lens a negative review.
I don't care whether they own the equipment or not, but mostly about what they have to say about it that I can weigh in my mind. With the odd lens to check out, I can always send it back. But with systems like the GFX, the X1d, and even the Pentax K1, a lot of work can be Required. With the K1, I had to spend months finding the lenses that I could use on the system, only to send it back and gradually sell off the lenses. I still have the X1D system and am thinking of keeping it, but time is running out for me to decide. And I can't find an extra battery either.
-
"My take on the two Fuji lenses is that the 120 macro is a tour de force..."
Well said, Jim. It is one of the best lenses I have ever used - and I have used plenty - and a country mile better than the Hassy HC 120mm. And that is before one adds in the benefit of OIS on a macro lens, incredibly useful if you use hot / LED lights in a studio, or shoot portraits or botanical work in moderate light. The 32-64mm is merely excellent.
I get the impression some people resent the GFX and look for faults that are not there or exaggerate those that are.
Focus issues? I have found none.
-
The other thing about Lloyd's reviews that make them so valuable to me is that Lloyd doesn't own most of the equipment he reviews. That's true with the GFX and the X1D. When someone owns a camera or lens and "reviews" it, the outcome always seems preordained. I mean how often do you see someone who owns a camera or lens or is an "Ambassador" who has been provided a camera or lens to review give that camera or lens a negative review.
Lloyd buys quite a lot of his own gear if the lists of his used equipment for sale that appear irregularly are any indication. He also has some kind of relationship with Zeiss, as indicated by his trip report last year.
I see no indication that either of those serve to make Lloyd a biased reporter. He is scrupulous in his testing methods, and documents what he finds in detail. I like quantitative testing, but I pay happily to subscribe to Lloyd's qualitative stuff. In fact, most of the time, we end up looking at the same issues from different perspectives. Sometimes we disagree, but that in no way diminishes the respect I have for the man.
He is really a valuable asset for anyone looking for independent testing.
Jim
-
Lloyd buys quite a lot of his own gear if the lists of his used equipment for sale that appear irregularly are any indication. He also has some kind of relationship with Zeiss, as indicated by his trip report last year.
I see no indication that either of those serve to make Lloyd a biased reporter. He is scrupulous in his testing methods, and documents what he finds in detail. I like quantitative testing, but I pay happily to subscribe to Lloyd's qualitative stuff. In fact, most of the time, we end up looking at the same issues from different perspectives. Sometimes we disagree, but that in no way diminishes the respect I have for the man.
He is really a valuable asset for anyone looking for independent testing.
Jim
Exactly!
-
I've finished the first pass GFX AF testing with the 63/2.8, and the results are a little confusing to me:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/fujifilm-gfx-af-accuracy/
Warning: those of you who don't like graphs will hate that blog post. OTOH, you probably wouldn't like to look at 700+ images that are all pretty close to being alike, either. Still, I advice you to ignore this post.
First off, the AF system is delivering very sharp images. That's the good news. The not-so-good (I hesitate to call it bad, considering the quality level that we're talking about here) news is that at f/4 and f/5.6 the spread is wider than one would like, and the average is lower than one would expect. Not a lot, mind you. But enough to make me curious. Because the spread widens at the two suspect f-stops, it's hard to say that there is a systemic error source such as not focusing at the taking aperture, but I think there might be.
Here are the test conditions:
- ISO 100.
5000K illumination, bright enough so that the f/2.8 exposure was 1/320 second
Target distance 3 meters
AF focus/release/priority: focus
Rapid AF: off
Pre-AF: off
AF-S
117 AF point mode, center point chosen, default size.
EFCS on
Pre-release half-shutter depression time: 750 milliseconds
Shutter release full depression time: 250 milliseconds
Camera moved 4 mm between exposures over a total range of 0 to 160 mm (40 moves, 41 exposures per stop)
Camera motion applied by Cognisys focusing rail, with 1250 msec post-move settle time
Shutter timing does by the same Cognisys controller
RRS heavy-duty legs
Arca-Swiss C1 head
If you think I left something important out, please let me know.
Jim
-
Very interesting results, Jim. That is consistent with those noted by Lloyd Chambers. In that regard, I sent you a private message on this site that you might find interesting and might want to follow up on.
-
I checked:
At apertures from f2.8 to f5.6, the camera closes the aperture to that value and performs the auto-focus at that f-stop as soon as the shutter is half pressed.
At apertures smaller than f5.6, the aperture is first closed to that particular value, so one sees in life-view the world at that chosen aperture but as soon as the shutter is pressed half to focus, the aperture opens to f5.6 (that means auto-focus is carried out at f5.6), as soon as the shutter is fully pressed for the exposure, the aperture is closed to the first value.
So in first case, the slight focus-shift has no impact on focus precision because focusing is carried out at working aperture, in second case focus-shift has very little impact, because only the slight shift between f5.6 and smaller apertures is relevant.
Maybe this has something to do with what seems to be increasingly reported critical focusing problems with the GFX.
1. If Fuji lenses have focus shift across apertures (which seems mostly undisputed), and if it is focusing at F5.6 for all aperatures greater than F5.6, then it almost by definition will not focus critically.
2. Jim Kasson's latest blog (see a few posts up) notes auto focus problems beginning at apertures greater than 2.8 (i.e., 4.0 and 5.6 included). So this phenomenon, if true, would not explain what he observes there. But if by chance the camera focuses at 2.8, it would explain what he observes. Are you sure the camera focuses at 4.0 and 5.6 when those apertures are selected? If Fuji has programmed the GFX to obtain a faster auto focus by focusing at 2.8 (or up to 5.6), that would come at the expense of critical focus. Maybe that works in the consumer camera market....
3. All this shouldn't seem to affect the mysterious manual critical focus issues a few people have reported on elsewhere. But it might provide a lead to those inclined to follow it. Since I'm becoming inclined to bite the bullet and go for the X1D, I lack that inclination.
-
I just received the review GFX 50 with the 63mm and 120mm lenses. I shot a lot of images under a number of situations on Saturday and found the AF worked just fine. I shot everything handheld as I was just messing around and getting a feel for things, and even at low shutter speeds made some nice images. I don't see a lot of differences from the Sony A7rII images but the images are nice. I will try to put up a quick preliminary report this week showing images at 100%. It was easy to set a focus point with the joystick. At this point of the testing, I have to say I am impressed. Dynamic range and sharpness are real good. I have a nice example of that. This will be a fun camera to review. Time this week will be limited due to travel and a load of meetings. The camera feels good in my hands. And, the 120mm lens is very impressive. As with my XT-2 it is a fun camera to shoot with.
-
Looks like the 120 macro is affected by whatever is causing lower-than-expected AF sharpness at some f-stops. It looks like it's only f/5.6 in this case. Also, the levels of sharpness are so high (MTF50 beyond Nyquist in some cases!) that I doubt if anyone would see this effect outside of a laboratory setting, or if they were pixel-peeping and looking for it.
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/fujifilm-gfx-with-1204-af-accuracy/
Warning: there are numbers and graphs in the link above. Some of you may wish to pass it by.
Jim
-
Looks like you're on to something here, Jim. Still excellent graphs and numbers all around as you note, but something is going on that at least we care about.
Would be interesting to see if manual focus for some reason suffers from the same effect (as at least one widely followed reviewer suggests). If you can peak at the iris when focusing in live view at F16, for example, and see whether live view is using F16 (or F2.8, 4 or 5.6), that might possibly help suggest answers.
Living on an island in the middle of the Pacific (with dealers 2,500 miles away), I might be your archetypical most appreciative reader right now. It sure would be nice to figure out that these fine focus issues are focus aperture related that might be solved by a firmware fix and aren't wired into the hardware. By the way, the GFX is back in my sights now due to the bokeh issues I've listed in a separate post.
-
By the way, the GFX is back in my sights now due to the bokeh issues I've listed in a separate post.
Didn't see the post yet, but that was on my list to test with the HC lenses on the GFX. However, I couldn't get the Fuji H-mount adapter to fire the leaf shutters.
I was thinking that, at just the right f-stop and shutter speed, that the H-lenses might have an apodization effect.
Jim
-
Not having them, I tried to look up the specs on the HCD lenses but couldn't find info on the blades, easily at least. My bokeh concern is about the XCD lenses which, if the H is like them, you might see when testing. At full aperture the XCD appears to produce octagonal bokeh that seems quite displeasing to me with bright or high contrast in the background. See https://diglloyd.com/blog/2017/20170214_2028-HasselbladX1D-90f3_2-bokeh-OOF-night.html
The GFX lens line uses a 9 circular blade design in contrast that should produce much smoother, more pleasing bokeh in contrast. And I see that in GFX image samples on the internet. The trade off may be for sunstars. I think I'd rather have smoother bokeh and to me, the type of bokeh I see in the XDC lens line so far (there is a paucity of images on the net with high contrast bokeh as of today) is a huge negative.
-
Would be interesting to see if manual focus for some reason suffers from the same effect (as at least one widely followed reviewer suggests). If you can peak at the iris when focusing in live view at F16, for example, and see whether live view is using F16 (or F2.8, 4 or 5.6), that might possibly help suggest answers.
With the 120/4, f/5.6 looks fine with manual focus (the usual warning about numbers applies here):
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/fujifilm-gfx-with-1204-mf-accuracy/
I don't see any manual focusing strangeness, although there are a few things I like to see changed about the manual focusing experience in the GFX. BTW, I could say the same about just about every camera I've used.
I'll test the 63 with MF tomorrow.
By the way, I'm using the stop-down feature of the camera to focus at taking aperture. As an aside, it's a lot easier to focus this lens if you turn on the OSS function. I forgot to turn it off before making the exposures once, and it didn't seem to hurt the results, but I haven't included that data in the above post.
Jim
-
Thanks for doing this one Jim. This is an important test for the 120mm given other reviews by good reviewers less scientifically expressing doubts about the MF. These results are exactly as I'd expect them to be assuming no MF issues. F5.6 ain't an unimportant stop either.
Now if you could just get rid of the numbers, graphs, and all that repeatability stuff ;)
As an aside, I'm not coming to an easy answer on GFX vs X1D, but you breathed life back into the GFX platform in my mind seeing that MF is apparently unaffected by the focusing bug. I'm going to have to do an old fashioned pros and cons list to sort through it all. You may have seen that the Fuji 23 F4 and 100 F2 are rumored to be announced on Wednesday, April 19. Must...be...dispassionate...
-
As an aside, I'm not coming to an easy answer on GFX vs X1D, but you breathed life back into the GFX platform in my mind seeing that MF is apparently unaffected by the focusing bug. I'm going to have to do an old fashioned pros and cons list to sort through it all. You may have seen that the Fuji 23 F4 and 100 F2 are rumored to be announced on Wednesday, April 19. Must...be...dispassionate...
Consider also that you can use these lenses on the GFX, but not the X1D;
Otus 55 and 85
Zeiss 135/2 Apo
Nikon 58/1.4
Nikon 105/1.4 (wide open only)
Summicron-M 50
Canon 17 T/S
And probably a lot more.
Jim
-
I was thinking that, at just the right f-stop and shutter speed, that the H-lenses might have an apodization effect.
I was thinking the same but apparently you get angular bokeh, which does not compute. So maybe what people are seeing is not about the shutter?
-
Hi,
Keep in mind that numbers can be nasty, but they don't lie. Human vision is easy to fool. Quite possible that the focusing errors Jim has noted would not be observable in prints. After all, if you compare large prints you need to move your eye from one to other.
The focusing error that Jim has observed is very odd.
Reminds me. In Jim's early tests it semt like it was focusing on the red channel. I don't think Jim found an explanation, but it was also very odd.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks for doing this one Jim. This is an important test for the 120mm given other reviews by good reviewers less scientifically expressing doubts about the MF. These results are exactly as I'd expect them to be assuming no MF issues. F5.6 ain't an unimportant stop either.
Now if you could just get rid of the numbers, graphs, and all that repeatability stuff ;)
As an aside, I'm not coming to an easy answer on GFX vs X1D, but you breathed life back into the GFX platform in my mind seeing that MF is apparently unaffected by the focusing bug. I'm going to have to do an old fashioned pros and cons list to sort through it all. You may have seen that the Fuji 23 F4 and 100 F2 are rumored to be announced on Wednesday, April 19. Must...be...dispassionate...
-
The focusing error that Jim has observed is very odd.
Reminds me. In Jim's early tests it semt like it was focusing on the red channel. I don't think Jim found an explanation, but it was also very odd.
The red channel focusing was observed with a particular lens on an a7RII, not the GFX. That is not what is going on with the GFX. I don't know what the GFX is really focusing on, and the high scatter in the data at the suspect f-stops makes me think that is not reliably focusing on anything. Again, I want to emphasize that the error is small.
Jim
-
Hi Jim - along the above lines, I don't know if you have started the 63mm MF tests yet, but a real world distance test for that lens might set up an interesting contrast. I'm imagining something along the lines of those trees where you did corner comparisons between lenses, looking instead for near/far focus misses. Just a thought.
-
Hi Jim - along the above lines, I don't know if you have started the 63mm MF tests yet, but a real world distance test for that lens might set up an interesting contrast. I'm imagining something along the lines of those trees where you did corner comparisons between lenses, looking instead for near/far focus misses. Just a thought.
That's gonna have to wait for better weather, and, because of the statistical nature of the AF issue, will require multiple shots.
I did do the lab test this morning (usual warning about numbers):
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/fujifilm-gfx-with-632-8-mf-accuracy/
Conclusion: manual focusing at the taking aperture works fine (but you gotta remember to hit the stop-down button first), and is much better than AF at the questionable f-stops of f/4, f/5.6, and f/8, and is somewhat better at the other f-stops.
Jim
-
Good luck with that solution. [G] With the GFX, I couldn't reliably use manual focus in magnified live view even in good light with the lens wide open. I can't imagine trying to do that in low light with the lens stopped down (e.g., for landscape photography at the transitional times of day around sunrise and sunset).
-
Good luck with that solution. [G] With the GFX, I couldn't reliably use manual focus in magnified live view even in good light with the lens wide open. I can't imagine trying to do that in low light with the lens stopped down (e.g., for landscape photography at the transitional times of day around sunrise and sunset).
Were you using it in conjunction with peaking? For me, that makes all the difference. I find it quite acceptable with peaking turned on, though I wish there were less aggressive settings available.
Jim
-
Conclusion: manual focusing at the taking aperture works fine (but you gotta remember to hit the stop-down button first), and is much better than AF at the questionable f-stops of f/4, f/5.6, and f/8, and is somewhat better at the other f-stops.
Another great test. It pays to manually focus For many reasons, and that's true for reasons seen here with the GFX. Maybe even more interesting is what you saw incidentally with your follow up wide open 16 shot test ... if that variance comes from the focus by wire implementation as you suspect, presumably you would not see that with a good purely mechanical focus lens. That could impact lens choice, especially after the 100MP back comes out in a few years.
I predict your series will live on for a while! Good stuff Jim!
-
P.S. Also, the 16 shot test results (if it is a loosey goosey focus by wire or other lens issue) could provide at least some suggestion of why the AF system performs more erratically than one might hope for.
-
Were you using it in conjunction with peaking? For me, that makes all the difference. I find it quite acceptable with peaking turned on, though I wish there were less aggressive settings available.
Jim
No. I did not try it with peaking. I have a Sony A7RII and have tried peking with it but found it too "indiscriminate"so I never thought to try it. I am not sure how you would do an objective test to see how reliable your stopped down, manual focus technique would be in practice in low light conditions in the field, but it would be interesting to just compare visually a bunch of attempts using both the AF and your MF approach on the same scene in low light. It's apparent that the GFX lenses are extremely capable, but the issue is being able to wring the best out of them on a reliable basis.
-
No. I did not try it with peaking. I have a Sony A7RII and have tried peking with it but found it too "indiscriminate"so I never thought to try it. I am not sure how you would do an objective test to see how reliable your stopped down, manual focus technique would be in practice in low light conditions in the field, but it would be interesting to just compare visually a bunch of attempts using both the AF and your MF approach on the same scene in low light. It's apparent that the GFX lenses are extremely capable, but the issue is being able to wring the best out of them on a reliable basis.
I don't find the a7RII peaking indiscriminate at max magnification, although it certainly is at full frame. I wish the GFX were more like that, considering that the sensor is so sharp. I do like it that the a7RII has a third peaking setting. I did a comparison of the a7RII peaking and the Atomos Shogun peaking at high magnification, and ended up liking the a7RII's sudden threshold, although the Shogun's adjust ability was better. Still, the Shogun is a big step up for the D810, which doesn't offer peaking.
None of these cameras offer peaking for variations in both directions, which is bad in a way and good in a way. The bad is obvious. The good is that you can change sensitivity by camera rotation with a subject whose contrast is anisotropic. The C! provides a convenient way to do that.
Jim
-
Hi Everyone,
Peaking is just some kind edge detection on the live view image, as far as I understand. On the A7rII viewfinder resolution is around XGA, using edge detection on an XGA image serving as proxy for a 7K image is obviously very coarse.
I normally don't use peaking, except as a 'navigation tool' when doing tilts. Peaking is very good finding a near optimal tilt. After that I switch to magnified view an do the rest. This works very well under field conditions.
In dark places, I prefer to use maximum aperture for focusing. A problem with maximum aperture is that there may be to many residual aberrations to gain a clear focus, that is the exact cause of focus shift, once you get rid of the periferal rays you get a different and better focus. A perfect lens would have zero focus shift and it would perform best at full aperture.
Personally, I would like to see more of high quality lenses of medium aperture, that are well corrected enough to reach peak performance across the field no later than f/5.6.
Another factor is steepness of focusing. It is helpful to have a lens that snaps in and out of focus, while you still need to be able to move the ring with some precision. Dead on focusing makes some demands on lens, gear and photographer!
Best regards
Erik
I don't find the a7RII peaking indiscriminate at max magnification, although it certainly is at full frame. I wish the GFX were more like that, considering that the sensor is so sharp. I do like it that the a7RII has a third peaking setting. I did a comparison of the a7RII peaking and the Atomos Shogun peaking at high magnification, and ended up liking the a7RII's sudden threshold, although the Shogun's adjust ability was better. Still, the Shogun is a big step up for the D810, which doesn't offer peaking.
None of these cameras offer peaking for variations in both directions, which is bad in a way and good in a way. The bad is obvious. The good is that you can change sensitivity by camera rotation with a subject whose contrast is anisotropic. The C! provides a convenient way to do that.
Jim
-
I normally don't use peaking, except as a 'navigation tool' when doing tilts. Peaking is very good finding a near optimal tilt. After that I switch to magnified view an do the rest. This works very well under field conditions.
Sounds like you're not using peaking in conjunction with magnified view. That's where it works best, IMHO. That also gets around most of the resolution problem that you mentioned.
Jim
-
Erik had an idea that, given the modest amount of focus shift of the Fuji 63, that it might be a better strategy to focus wide open.
Turns out he was right, at least at 3 meters:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/fujifilm-gfx-with-632-8-wide-open-mf/
Jim
-
Hi Jim,
Thanks for the suggestion! i have not found as useful as you do and that may depend on my lenses being more mediocre than yours. ( :-) or what you call it :-( ).
But, life is a learning experience. I know how to listen, so I will test with different settings.
BTW, I really would like to have a camera that I could set up from my computer, using a real menu system or even CLI :-)
Best regards
Erik
Sounds like you're not using peaking in conjunction with magnified view. That's where it works best, IMHO. That also gets around most of the resolution problem that you mentioned.
Jim
-
Erik had an idea that, given the modest amount of focus shift of the Fuji 63, that it might be a better strategy to focus wide open.
Turns out he was right, at least at 3 meters:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/fujifilm-gfx-with-632-8-wide-open-mf/
Sadly, that trick doesn't work with the 120 mm f/4 macro.
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/fujifilm-gfx-with-1204-wide-open-mf/
Jim
-
i have to say that i never shoot on tripod and only have the zoom for my gfx 50 so far but i even chasing people around i find the AF pretty amazing....i am getting close to the same keeper rate as with the A7RII and GM 24-70...but i am not shooting sports, just lifestyle, fashion stuff....AF is no problem at all....
i used to shoot phase and leaf backs on mamiya RZ and 645 and gave up on it because it was impossible to get a good keeper rate....
i have used hasselblad H bodies and the AF is awful, phase is not much better....
i was really excited and really wanted the X1D...tried it and wasn't to happy with files and AF, maybe it was the earlier FW release but it just wasn't the step up for me from the sony....at least not with the AF (and don't get me started on the idiotic "moveable" AF point solution....hasselblad just messed that one up....the fuji nipple is the much better hardware solution that hasselblad just does not have....
anyway, i guess i will pay more attention to my files and see when what is not 100% in focus....the biggest difference to me is that i am so used to IBIS and i definitely have to adjust to shooting only 1/125 and up....
and yes 1/125 sync is a major bummer but hopefully someone will come up with a HSS solution sooner then later...have been trying a cactus V6II but it is not working...yet...
since this is a focus thread: i have no issues with focus on my body and lens...but that does not mean i doubt all these other experiences....the way i know fuji, we will have a firmware sooner then later to fix things.....and i am sure we will have to thanks Jim at that point for putting in all the work to point things out....
-
i have to say that i never shoot on tripod and only have the zoom for my gfx 50 so far but i even chasing people around i find the AF pretty amazing....i am getting close to the same keeper rate as with the A7RII and GM 24-70...but i am not shooting sports, just lifestyle, fashion stuff....AF is no problem at all....
i used to shoot phase and leaf backs on mamiya RZ and 645 and gave up on it because it was impossible to get a good keeper rate....
i have used hasselblad H bodies and the AF is awful, phase is not much better....
i was really excited and really wanted the X1D...tried it and wasn't to happy with files and AF, maybe it was the earlier FW release but it just wasn't the step up for me from the sony....at least not with the AF (and don't get me started on the idiotic "moveable" AF point solution....hasselblad just messed that one up....the fuji nipple is the much better hardware solution that hasselblad just does not have....
anyway, i guess i will pay more attention to my files and see when what is not 100% in focus....the biggest difference to me is that i am so used to IBIS and i definitely have to adjust to shooting only 1/125 and up....
and yes 1/125 sync is a major bummer but hopefully someone will come up with a HSS solution sooner then later...have been trying a cactus V6II but it is not working...yet...
since this is a focus thread: i have no issues with focus on my body and lens...but that does not mean i doubt all these other experiences....the way i know fuji, we will have a firmware sooner then later to fix things.....and i am sure we will have to thanks Jim at that point for putting in all the work to point things out....
I should have said this in my latest assessment/post of two days ago, so let me say it in response to your comment. I pretty much agree with you that AF is pretty good. When I was out on Saturday photographing the Trump Tax Return Protest in Chicago, I found it worked great picking people out of the crowd or with speakers. I did find, however, that it had problems when I was walking against the crowd as they marched toward me, trying to get photographs of individual marchers. If they got too close to me, I lost focus. Having said that, I have not yet really delved into the focusing menu options to see whether I could improve the hit rate.
-
I should have said this in my latest assessment/post of two days ago, so let me say it in response to your comment. I pretty much agree with you that AF is pretty good. When I was out on Saturday photographing the Trump Tax Return Protest in Chicago, I found it worked great picking people out of the crowd or with speakers. I did find, however, that it had problems when I was walking against the crowd as they marched toward me, trying to get photographs of individual marchers. If they got too close to me, I lost focus. Having said that, I have not yet really delved into the focusing menu options to see whether I could improve the hit rate.
after looking at some more files for this specific issue, i agree with everything you are saying as well....
the biggest issue for me is that AF-C just does not work or at least not in a way that i would be able to use it....there is a setting for the user to choose the image to be taken at the time the shutter is pressed or when the camera achieves focus....i prefer to have the image taken at the time i press the shutter....maybe i should try the other way but i have bad memories of this not working out too well for me in the past...that frustrated feeling of jamming down the button only to miss that moment and get a (maybe sharper?) one too late....
looks like fuji will come out with a major firmware in the near future....
either way, for larger then 35mm digital capture this is heads and shoulders above anything and everything else out there....not even close...
-
Here's a summary of where I am on the GFX focusing issues.
Manual focus
The controls for the GFX focus magnification are ergonomically excellent. Press the back thumb wheel to enter magnified view, and spin it to change magnification. Unfortunately, the maximum magnification is not enough for critical focusing. That means that you have to use peaking. Peaking seems to have a bad name because it's such a blunt instrument when you're looking at the full image, but as the magnification goes up, it becomes more and more useful. However, with the GFX you only have two peaking sensitivities available (not counting off), and that's not enough. With a sharp lens and a high-contrast target, even at maximum magnification, setting the peaking to low will still light up the finder too much when the image is close to being in focus. With mechanically-focused lenses, you can find one side of sharp and then the other side, and split the difference. That doesn't work with focus-by wire lenses, since a given amount of twist of the focusing ring translates to different amounts of lens element motion depending on how fast and how far you move the ring.
All the things above conspire to make critical manual focusing fairly good (but far from great) with adapted helicoid lenses and barely acceptable with the native focus by wire lenses. I'd put the focusing with adapted lenses about the same as the D810 (that only applies if you turn peaking on in the GFX, though -- the D810 doesn't have peaking). With the two native lenses I've tried -- the 63 and 120 macro -- the focusing experience is better than the D800, but short of the D810. In no case does the GFX provide manual focusing that's the equal of the a7R, or even the a7RII. The standard of focusing tolerance is not the same across those cameras, since the GFX is capable of so much greater sharpness when the image is in focus; I'm being harder on the GFX because it can do so much more, and thus the consequences of a small focusing error are greater.
The best strategy for manually focusing the 63 mm f/2.8 lens is to focus wide open. The best way to deal with the 120 macro is to focus at taking aperture, or maybe slightly open from there.
Autofocus
With both native lenses, autofocus works will wide open. It also works well stopped down a fair amount. But it gives inconsistent and inaccurate results at f/4 and f/5.6 with the 63 mm lens, and at f/5.6 with the 120 macro. If you know that, you can work around the issue, which I'm hoping Fuji will fix in firmware real soon now.
Since f/8 on the GFX is about like f/5.6 on a full frame camera for diffraction and depth of field, stopping down that far is not much of a privation, and you can always use both lenses wide open if you want to blur the heck out of the background.
By the way, I don't find the GFX MF/AF mode that useful. If you've enabled it, you can autofocus the lens, then twist the focusing ring. That immediately gets you magnified view, and you can tweak the focus. However, you can't get back to viewing the full frame without losing your focus point. Or at least I can't figure out how to do it. It's probably something involving back-button focusing. I'll play with it some more.
But after doing all this testing, I've cancelled my order for the 32-64 mm zoom. I don't intend to use the camera in a setting where that lens would be most useful. That leaves me with no wide angle lenses at present, since I haven't found a FF wide that adapts well to the GFX, but I'll just wait for the 23 mm lens that was announced today.
Let me put this in perspective. There are many uses for the GFX -- perhaps the majority of them -- for which the present autofocus performance is just fine. This autofocus issue is only important if you're trying to get the most of the great sensor and the sharp native lenses. I think this situation is a ittle like the a7R shutter shock. There are many people who said that the effect didn't exist. They said that because they thought their pictures looked just fine to them. There will be many GFX users who feel the same way about the autofocusing on their cameras.
I'd be happy to discuss this with anyone who wishes. I'm also open to questions and suggestions for testing. In the absence of either, I'm going to move on tho other things.
Jim
-
To Jim Kesson:
Even though your approach is more technically oriented than how I like to approach equipment, I have found your posts here and on your blog interesting and they have made me more knowledgeable. I thank you for the extensive amount of work you put into analyzing the issues. I suspect that the folks at Fuji do monitor sites like LL, and I hope they address the issues you have raised in the coming firmware update that was announced today. You have provided the community of GFX users are real service. BTW, I've been looking at your website, and there is some terrific work there.
-
+1. Jim thanks. Heroic work and hope Fuji gives you a ring.