Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Lust4Life on July 26, 2017, 12:13:50 pm
-
I'm not happy with the Sony a7RII compared to the Hassie HD5 50c WiFi that I had.
For me, the Sony's primary advantage is the dramatically lighter weight, and substantially lower cost but the image just isn't the same quality relative to what I am used to. I have some neuromuscular issues and the lighter weight is a real advantage, that is until I get the RAW file into Lightroom or Capture One.
Thus, I would like to hear from folks that have PERSONALLY tested the GFX 50c and the X1D.
Landscape is the application with the occasional portrait. Will be primarily wide angle use, but the Fugi wide is not out in general yet.
Jack
-
Will be primarily wide angle use
Diglloyd is surely one of the reviewers with access to both. It's worth a read.
Wide angle without shift capability is somewhat limiting - keystone correction in post-processing would result in loss of pixels, sharpness and angle of view. Neither GFX 50S nor X1D-50C provides wide enough lenses, not to mention that these lenses do not shift.
As for comparison, for 35mm format we have Voigtlander 10mm f/5.6 Hyper Wide Heliar, Canon 11-24mm f/4 L, Irix 11mm f/4, Canon 17mm f/4 TS-E, Nikon 19mm f/4 PC-E etc.
-
Appreciate your response but to spend $100.00 to get the opinion of Diglloyd isn't in my realm of logical.
Thus I am hoping there are members here that will provide real world experience through LL.
As to the Sony a7RII with lenses - absolutely better arsenal of choices! I'm using the Canon TS 17. Issue is not with lenses but the Sony. The RAW files produced are dramatically harsher and more color range compressed than I ever experienced with MFD: Hassie, Leaf or Phase.
Yes, that is the state of the art for Full Frame, but Sony verse D5 50c is kind of like Sex. Once you've had it, it is difficult to give it up!
-
Appreciate your response but to spend $100.00 to get the opinion of Diglloyd isn't in my realm of logical.
You are buying into a system at the order of magnitude of $100,000. Getting itchy/regretting afterwards, selling it and switching to another system can be as costly as thousands of dollars. For $100 you can get some in-depth points which may take you a while to realize even if you have access to both. It can help you make your judgements and minimize buyer's remorse. It can also help you defend your relief when attacked by others in the forum (directly or indirectly). If I was buying into an expensive system I would spend this $100 just for the peace of mind.
Given that your main usage will be landscape, I would assume that you might also need to do some long exposure from time to time. This comparison (http://akimagery.com/hasselblad-x1d-vs--fuji-gfx) shows that the X1D does better for long exposure. Fuji on the other hand is still playing with inflated ISO numbers.
Since you are more of a subjective person, I'd say perhaps the Hasselblad system is more suitable for you, since it's meant to be more luxury. However, I wouldn't feel comfortable if I buy into an early batch with jumper wires (https://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/61956-hasselblad-x1d-teardown-doesnt-look-very-neat-compared-against-sony.html). To be honest, I find the Sony design to be much more advanced and sophisticated.
-
For sure Fuji should have spent more time with Adobe on the raw conversion. If you do high ISO or long exposures you will benefit greatly using other raw converters with files from the GFX.
Fuji's Liveview implementation could be better as it's easy to zoom past a 100% view and in LiveView you cannot just pinch the screen to zoom back down as you can in playback mode.
Paul Caldwell
-
I tested both the GFX and the X1D extensively. Depending upon how you prioritize your needs/wants, I think both cameras can be terrific choices. Both systems use the same sensor and have superb lenses. For the way I would use the system, photographing landscapes, the two most important priorities were (1) the system had to be as small, light and portable as possible and (2) the camera had to have a clean, simple interface that was not cluttered with deep menu systems containing a plethora of optional settings that would be irrelevant to me. As it turned out, the choice for me was easy. The X1D and its lenses are significantly smaller and lighter than the GFX and its lenses. The User Interface and the ergonomics of the X1D were exactly what I wanted. The GFX was not enjoyable to handle and operate. Too many buttons, too many options that clutter up the menus. It was, to me, everything that I don't like about Japanese cameras.
There are, of course, other differences between the two cameras that may be very important to you. The GFX uses a focal plane shutter and there are adapters that allow you to use non-native lenses. You can use Hasselblad HC lenses with the X1D, but that's it, though I should add that it's nice to have tele lenses like the HC 210 and 300 to fill in the system for now. The use of non-native lenses was not important to me and the GFX lenses are so good that I couldn't imagine not using them if I had bought the GFX. The GFX has a tilting LCD. The implementation of manual focus in live view with the X1D is much better than with the GFX. The GFX firmware is more mature. Hasselblad has made significant advances with the X1D firmware since it was introduced early this year. They are not done. There are still some missing features. However, by all accounts, it is stable at this point. Fuji is releasing lenses at a faster clip than Hasselblad. There are 5 GFX lenses now: the 32-63 zoom, the 23, the 63, the 110 and the 120 Macro. Hasselblad has a 30, a 45 and a 90. A 120 Macro will be released by year end, and a 22, a 65 and a 35-75 zoom by early 2018.
I would strongly suggest that you demo or rent each system for an afternoon and try them/hike with them.
-
Hubbell, First, thank you for your informative post. Like you, 98% of my work is landscape and the menu on the Sony aR7II drives me nuts with too many iterations of how they want me to shoot, verse how I want to shoot. Definitely preferred the H5D menu. When I first got the Sony camera I spent hour trying to turn off so many of their defaults, some of which I was not able to turn off as I recall.
As I read your post, I feel you are finding the ease of use and methodology of the X1D in tune with yourself, and it is definitely in tune with me with the elements you described. But, did you actually SEE any difference between the resultant RAW and converted files?
One concern I have is Hassie saving a 16 bit verse Fuji's 14. I do a lot of cloud work and when I work to bring out the drama in the scene with the Sony, which is a 14 bit, I have to be VERY careful to not get banding/signs of compression that I never had with my H5D 50 images. If no resultant image file difference was noted, then one has to define if the substantial cost increase of the X1D is worth it.
As a prior poster missed, I think, is that few of us can extract a living out of Landscapes! But it is and always has been my passion.
Jack
-
I will write more on both when I have the time, but just for now I can say the following. The GFX files are as robust as the Phase One files from the 50Mp back. Can't comment on the h5/6d 50, but in my test the X1D have no benefited from 16bit. (Could be as they aren't or let's say the sensor can't handle 16bit....)
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
As I read your post, I feel you are finding the ease of use and methodology of the X1D in tune with yourself, and it is definitely in tune with me with the elements you described. But, did you actually SEE any difference between the resultant RAW and converted files?
Jack
I am not sure I understand the comparison you are referring to. Between the GFX and the X1D files after running them through a raw converter and printing them? I never had anything that I was motivated to print. However, I did work on them in LR and/or Phocus. As I said, the differences in sharpness in the files between the two systems were not at all significant to me. If you have to crank the raws to 200% or 300% to start see some subtle differences, who cares. They are both excellent. However, I do prefer the general color and tonal rendering that I get with the Hasselblad files. I find its much easier to achieve subtleties. Fuji is very enamored of its Fuji film simulations, and I don't like that look. To me, it shrieks. But that's personal taste.
-
I'm not happy with the Sony a7RII compared to the Hassie HD5 50c WiFi that I had.
For me, the Sony's primary advantage is the dramatically lighter weight, and substantially lower cost but the image just isn't the same quality relative to what I am used to. I have some neuromuscular issues and the lighter weight is a real advantage, that is until I get the RAW file into Lightroom or Capture One.
Thus, I would like to hear from folks that have PERSONALLY tested the GFX 50c and the X1D.
Landscape is the application with the occasional portrait. Will be primarily wide angle use, but the Fuji wide is not out in general yet.
I'm not quite sure how to parse your query. Are you looking for someone who has personal experience with both cameras, or people who have experience with each camera? If the latter, I can help. I have been testing the GFX for on and off for about four months and have posted about 70 reports. You can start here if you're interested:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/fujifilm-gfx-50s-review/
I can't help you if you want someone who's tested both, since I have not used the X1D. I would consider renting it, but I see several problems.
The first is lens selection. I'd like to run tests with native lenses of similar focal length, but with the GFX having 23, 63, 32-64, 110 and 120, and the X1D having 30,45, and 90, that's not possible. I could set the 32-64 to 45 and test against the Hassy 45, but zoom versus prime seems unfair. I could use the Otus 85 on the GFX and test against the 90 on the 1D, but do enough people want to see that to make it worth my trouble? I could use HC lenses on both cameras but my experiences with HC lenses on the GFX tells me that they don't resolve at high contrast to the level the sensor does.
The second is time and cost. I know some people can -- or think they can -- get the measure of a camera in a week. It usually takes me about a month. Renting an X1D and three lenses for that length of time would cost about $3K. That's a pretty big outlay to find out about a camera I'm not going to use. I'd consider it only if I could figure a way around problem one, and if there were a lot of interest.
I might rent the X1D for a week to get a handle on one specific question: what difference do the small microlenses on the GFX make?
I'll write another post with some thoughts about the GFX.
Jim
-
I'm not happy with the Sony a7RII compared to the Hassie HD5 50c WiFi that I had.
For me, the Sony's primary advantage is the dramatically lighter weight, and substantially lower cost but the image just isn't the same quality relative to what I am used to. I have some neuromuscular issues and the lighter weight is a real advantage, that is until I get the RAW file into Lightroom or Capture One.
Thus, I would like to hear from folks that have PERSONALLY tested the GFX 50c and the X1D.
Landscape is the application with the occasional portrait. Will be primarily wide angle use, but the Fuji wide is not out in general yet.
I'm now going to give you a short summary of some of my GFX findings assuming that you don't require someone who has used both cameras. Since you and I both have a7RIIs, I'll compare and contrast. I have been using the 23/4 for about a month, and had no difficulty finding one, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say it's not out in general.
The big difference you're going to see with the GFX versus your a7RII is IQ with native lenses. I have not tested the 32-64, but the 23, 110, and 120 are all superlative lenses -- well beyond any equivalent FE lens that I know of that you can get from Sony or Zeiss. The 63 is merely very good. With Otus lenses on both cameras (the 55 on the a7RII and the 85 on the GFX), the differences are smaller. You'll have to make prints of larger than 15 inches high for the GFX advantages to start to plainly show.
You may have trouble manually focusing the GFX. Others have, and have given up on the camera. I had trouble too, at first. I have come up with a technique that works quite well -- so well that I can now focus the GFX more accurately and consistently than the a7RII.
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/manually-focusing-the-fujifilm-gfx-50s/
I found the GFX UI confusing at first, but now understand and like it. With the a7RII, when I figured something out it was "why the blankety-blank does the camera work this way?" With the GFX, it was almost always "why don't all cameras do it like this?" After using the a9 and the GFX, it is painful for me to use the a7RII UI now, although I know it well.
You're going to be doing landscapes, so you probably don't care about AF, but there are some quirks that need working around with the GFX and AF.
I'll be happy to answer questions.
Jim
-
Since you are more of a subjective person, I'd say perhaps the Hasselblad system is more suitable for you, since it's meant to be more luxury. However, I wouldn't feel comfortable if I buy into an early batch with jumper wires (https://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/61956-hasselblad-x1d-teardown-doesnt-look-very-neat-compared-against-sony.html). To be honest, I find the Sony design to be much more advanced and sophisticated.
Well, at least you aren't subtle when you insult someone.
-
Jim - Regarding just your beginning statement in your first post.
I don't think I could have made it any clearer regarding what I am seeking:
" I would like to hear from folks that have PERSONALLY tested the GFX 50c and the X1D."
The operative word is the use of "and" instead of "either"
Unfortunately, there is no Hasselblad or Fuji dealer that I have found here in North Carolina or rental shop offering them.
Thus, I using LL for what one of it's intended purposes is - learn from others.
Now, it is great that we both have the a7RII as a base point - a comparison to that and your Fuji is quite valuable to me.
Candidly, the cost differential between the X1D and the GFX is in my mind, and pocketbook, very substantial. At this moment, I'm leaning to keeping the money in my pocket and go with the GFX, but I feel I made a mistake with the a7RII and do not wish to jump too fast into the Fuji.
OK, you mention the 23mm Fuji - I have been watching B&H for over 45 days and they show "Coming Soon", and I have been on their "Alert" list for when it shows up. Until it shows, I will not bring a GFX in for testing.
Your paragraph about the user interface - YES! I hate the Sony's. As I said above, I spent hours turning off features that Sony felt I had to abide by. I also hate that they do not have an option to turn off and and all menu options that drop the camera from 14 bit to 12 bit!!
Jim - what has disturbed me the most is the harshness of the RAW files the a7RII generates. The work it takes in software to try to tame this attribute is at times not possible to overcome. Now, I am contrasting to the smooth bit ramps in color and tonal range I am used to from the H5D. But I have had several situation where I could not get an acceptable end image out of the Sony that I know I could have pulled out of a H5D file! Lost opportunities to say the least.
I appreciate your comments and would ask can you address my last paragraph relative to the GFX?
Jack
-
Jim - Regarding just your beginning statement in your first post.
I don't think I could have made it any clearer regarding what I am seeking:
" I would like to hear from folks that have PERSONALLY tested the GFX 50c and the X1D."
The operative word is the use of "and" instead of "either"
There is no Hasselblad or Fuji dealer that I have found here in North Carolina or rental shop offering them.
Thus, I using LL for what one of [its] intended purposes is - learn from others.
I have a long -- albeit temporally distant -- relationship with George Boole. It was not clear to me that you meant the strict use of the word and.
I am sorry to have wasted your time.
I hope you find what you are looking for. There's always LensRentals.
Jim
-
Jim - I have a degenerative neuromuscular disease. I had just started my reply to your post when the damn hand decided to post just the beginning of my thoughts.
Please forgive and read the finished post.
Again, because of the tremors and other attributes I now have, the simpler the menu and the larger the control buttons/wheels the better for me!
You did not waste my time.
Jack
PS: I am reading your review on your blog now.
PPS: Dang, I just checked Adorama - they have one in stock! A 23mm.
-
Jim - I have a degenerative neuromuscular disease. I had just started my reply to your post when the damn hand decided to post just the beginning of my thoughts.
Please forgive and read the finished post.
Again, because of the tremors and other attributes I now have, the simpler the menu and the larger the control buttons/wheels the better for me!
You did not waste my time/
PS: I am reading your review on your blog now.
Thanks for the augmented post. I'll get to that in another response. About your hand. I sympathize, and have more empathy than I would have had a few years ago before I had a brain tumor removed and ended up with diminished use of my left leg.
Jim
-
Jim, yes, add the tremors to all the other little "joy killing" attributes and one could get annoyed.
Then I think of the people I have know and went to their funeral that died at 1/2 of my 70 years of life, and I get over my self pity real fast!
Jack
-
Now, it is great that we both have the a7RII as a base point - a comparison to that and your Fuji is quite valuable to me.
Candidly, the cost differential between the X1D and the GFX is in my mind, and pocketbook, very substantial. At this moment, I'm leaning to keeping the money in my pocket and go with the GFX, but I feel I made a mistake with the a7RII and do not wish to jump too fast into the Fuji.
OK, you mention the 23mm Fuji - I have been watching B&H for over 45 days and they show "Coming Soon", and I have been on their "Alert" list for when it shows up. Until it shows, I will not bring a GFX in for testing.
Your paragraph about the user interface - YES! I hate the Sony's. As I said above, I spent hours turning off features that Sony felt I had to abide by. I also hate that they do not have an option to turn off and and all menu options that drop the camera from 14 bit to 12 bit!!
Jim - what has disturbed me the most is the harshness of the RAW files the a7RII generates. The work it takes in software to try to tame this attribute is at times not possible to overcome. Now, I am contrasting to the smooth bit ramps in color and tonal range I am used to from the H5D. But I have had several situations where I could not get an acceptable end image out of the Sony that I know I could have pulled out of an H5D file! Lost opportunities to say the least.
I don't know what you mean by harshness. In photography in general, that generally means too much contrast, inky shadows, clipped highlights, and the like. a7RII raw files are quite linear and have almost, but not quite, the GFX PDR at base ISO, and fully match it above ISO 640 where the enhanced conversion gain kicks in on the a7RII.
Are you using the same raw converter on both cameras, or are you using Phocus on the Hassie? If so, that could be the difference.
tell me more about what you mean by harshness, and we'll take it from there.
Jim
-
Jim, yes, add the tremors to all the other little "joy killing" attributes and one could get annoyed.
Then I think of the people I have know and went to their funeral that died at 1/2 of my 70 years of life, and I get over my self pity real fast!
Yep. I spent about three months on Keppra after my operation. Boy, did I hate that drug. I hope you've got stuff that has fewer side effects.
Jim
-
Jim, best described as seen by my eye is:
Compressed looking color ramps, particularly in the green ramp.
Contrast is difficult to "back down" without loosing all of the "snap" in the global image area.
Yes to inky/muddled shadows.
High lights hold up very well, so no complaint there.
For the Hassie I used Phocus and for the Sony I use Capture One.
To give you a rough 72pi jpeg look I'll try to post here the color and the resultant B&W files.
-
Jim, best described as seen by my eye is:
Compressed looking color ramps, particularly in the green ramp.
Contrast is difficult to "back down" without loosing all of the "snap" in the global image area.
Yes to inky/muddled shadows.
High lights hold up very well, so no complaint there.
For the Hassie I used Phocus and for the Sony I use Capture One.
This sounds to me like differences between raw processors, since the GFX and a7RII raw files are both nearly perfectly linear, and the GFX has only a bit less noise. I am, of course, assuming that the H6D 50c raw files look like the GFX raw files, which I don't know for a fact but they do use the same sensor and Bill Claff shows them about on top of each other:
http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20GFX%2050S,Hasselblad%20H6D-50c
The GFX handles the high ISOs differently from the Hassie, signaling a push in post in the metadata, which confuses Bill's software there.
Although I no longer use it since I sold my H2D-39, it's clear to me that Phocus does some things exceptionally well.
Jim
-
Jim, I think you touched on one to two points that stay in my thoughts:
1.) RAW Developer:
Phocus - built by Hassie for Hassie.
Sony - Capture One just plugged them in with a little tweeking
2.) Bit depth of the RAW file
Hassie - they must be taking the 14 bit data stream from the array and hardware ramping it to a 16 bit file giving much smoother color ramps. Thus, when I convert from color to B&W, I have quite a bit more data to "push" to bring the drama/intensity I seek in my B&W's.
I have thought of writing a routine that will take a RAW Sony file, split it open, then convert the RAW channel to 16 bits, then repack it as a RAW file.
Would be interesting to see if it replicated the smoother ramps I have worked with for years from Hassie.
Jim, IF I look at the DMAX of the X1D and the GFX, I see no reason to put my money into the X1D.
But that is just part of the evaluation equation, unfortunately.
Have you played with the latest stable of RAW developers?
I'm now wondering if there is one that would surpass the results I'm getting from Capture One with the Sony aR7II files.
Jack
-
Jim, I think you touched on one to two points that stay in my thoughts:
1.) RAW Developer:
Phocus - built by Hassie for Hassie.
Sony - Capture One just plugged them in with a little tweeking
2.) Bit depth of the RAW file
Hassie - they must be taking the 14 bit data stream from the array and hardware ramping it to a 16 bit file giving much smoother color ramps. Thus, when I convert from color to B&W, I have quite a bit more data to "push" to bring the drama/intensity I seek in my B&W's.
I have thought of writing a routine that will take a RAW Sony file, split it open, then convert the RAW channel to 16 bits, then repack it as a RAW file.
Would be interesting to see if it replicated the smoother ramps I have worked with for years from Hassie.
Jim, IF I look at the DMAX of the X1D and the GFX, I see no reason to put my money into the X1D.
But that is just part of the evaluation equation, unfortunately.
Have you played with the latest stable of RAW developers?
I'm now wondering if there is one that would surpass the results I'm getting from Capture One with the Sony aR7II files.
With the RN of the a7RII, the GFX, the X1D, or the H6D 50c, there is plenty of dither for a 14-bit ADC. Adding more bits does not improve the image, even at base ISO.
Here's a whole bunch of posts on dither:
http://blog.kasson.com/?s=dither
Camera raw files don't have Dmax. They have saturation and noise. Are you trying to get at dynamic range? I prefer photographic dynamic range for all purposes except technical ones. At base ISO, all the 51 MP cameras above have about the same PDR, and it exceeds the a7RII, but not by a lot. Above ISO 640, they're all about the same.
I use Lr for normal raw developing, and Iridient Developer if I've got something I can't deal with in Lr.
I suspect that you don't like the C1 camera profiles you've used. Have you tried a lot of them? One fun thing about the GFX is you can use some Fuji film-look profiles:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/fujifilm-profiles-for-the-gfx-50s/
Jim
-
Hi Jack,
The X1D is actually a 14 bit device. It delivers data 16 bits wide, but only each fourth value is actually used. There is some preprocessing done on raw data, though so there are numbers in each "channel".
The only MFDB that actually delivers 16-bit are the 100 MP backs. I have not seen any raw file from the Hasselblad back, but Phase One developed a new 16-bit format for the IQ3-100MP that is actually 16 bit wide.
I have enclosed some RawDigger histograms for the X1D and the IQ3-100MP, it is very clear which is which.
It is hard to say about the harshness. But, Hasselblad is known to have very good rendition of colour in Phocus. Capture One is pretty aggressive in it's defaults with a very clear tendency to oversharpen, at least with the back and lenses I use. Like Jim, I use Lightroom. I actually use it for all my cameras but I use it with home built profiles, using Anders Torger's DCamProf.
Best regards
Erik
With the RN of the a7RII, the GFX, the X1D, or the H6D 50c, there is plenty of dither for a 14-bit ADC. Adding more bits does not improve the image, even at base ISO.
Here's a whole bunch of posts on dither:
http://blog.kasson.com/?s=dither
Camera raw files don't have Dmax. They have saturation and noise. Are you trying to get at dynamic range? I prefer photographic dynamic range for all purposes except technical ones. At base ISO, all the 51 MP cameras above have about the same PDR, and it exceeds the a7RII, but not by a lot. Above ISO 640, they're all about the same.
I use Lr for normal raw developing, and Iridient Developer if I've got something I can't deal with in Lr.
I suspect that you don't like the C1 camera profiles you've used. Have you tried a lot of them? One fun thing about the GFX is you can use some Fuji film-look profiles:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/fujifilm-profiles-for-the-gfx-50s/
Jim
-
Hi,
This is a screen dump comparing rendition in Capture one and Lightroom.
Processing is near default. WB is on second brightest grey patch on ColorChecker. Exposure adjusted to L=51 on the fourth brightest grey patch in LR and to (RGB == 120) in C1.
LR used a colour profile I made with DCamProf. With C1 I used "Phase One P45+ Flash - Easy Grey".
Illumination was studio flash, around 5100K I would guess.
From left to right: P45+/Capture One, Sony A7rII/Lightroom, P45+/Lightroom.
Best regards
Erik
-
I returned my X1D. Great image quality but too cumbersome. The software is just too difficult to use and not great for time sensitive projects.
-
My Ole Buddy Erik!
You examples are exactly what I am talking about! The left file, Capture One, is displaying the attributes that I do not like from my Sony RAW files. When I try to "tame" the file, I loose the "snap" that I want!
OK, tonight I'll play with the aR7II RAW files handled by Lightroom, which I have not done. Should have done that on my own without your "kick in the pants"! Thank you!
Best,
Jack
-
Jack,
I'm a subscriber to the Lloyd Chambers publications. You may want to reconsider subscribing, because (a) the price covers a whole year and will likely have coverage of some (not all perhaps but most probably at least some) new products that you might be interested in, and (2) you can probably ask Lloyd a specific question now and then as to what might be the key for you to decide to move on from the A7rII to the Hasselblad or to the Fuji GFX. Unless Jim Kasson ends up renting the Hasselblad and somehow being able to do the excellent very detailed tests he usually does, or unless you want to fork over a ton of money to rent both cameras and respective lenses, going to Lloyd might (not 100% sure, but possibly...) bring you closer to a decision and end up saving you some money in the end.
OTOH if a different software product or different settings / profiles solves your problem, as alluded in other posts, then that would be worth exploring. I am sticking with Lightroom, due to it being convenient for a variety of my uses, and perhaps most of all due to ... inertia.
Dan
-
"inertia" Ahh yes, that "virus" that was implanted when my DNA was formulated! Actually, not an issue I have. I fast to discard for better once I prove it is better!
Reminds me of a line in a Geneses song:
"I know what I like, and I like what I know"
So why screw with what I already am comfortable with could be applicable.
Candidly Dan, I think I have ruled out the X1D, though it is about a pound lighter with the 30mm verse the Fuji with their 23 (which is actually the wide I would prefer as well).
Pretty much between sticking with the a7RII verse Fuji GFX and the 23.
I already have the 17mm TS-E Canon, Metabones and the Zeiss 55mm 1.8, 85mm GM Sony. Would be quite happy IF I could get an image that a looked that way I want.
Tonight will be the LR play night and see what I can stretch out of it.
jb
-
Pretty much between sticking with the a7RII verse Fuji GFX and the 23.
Then you probably want to look at these two posts:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-12-24-batis-18-wate-on-a7rii/
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-12-244-on-a7rii-vs-fuji-234-on-gfx/
Jim
-
Hi Jack,
Quite a few photographers think that Adobe's recent colour profiles are a bit 'bland'.
You could try the profile I use: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Jack/Sony_ILCE-7RM2_DCDIPD_A7r2_2017-06-06.dcp
Here is info where to put them: http://www.xrite.com/service-support/where_dng_profiles_are_stored_in_the_computer
I used Lumariver Profile Designer at default settings, but I was quiet careful with setting up my target.
Best regards
Erik
My Ole Buddy Erik!
You examples are exactly what I am talking about! The left file, Capture One, is displaying the attributes that I do not like from my Sony RAW files. When I try to "tame" the file, I loose the "snap" that I want!
OK, tonight I'll play with the aR7II RAW files handled by Lightroom, which I have not done. Should have done that on my own without your "kick in the pants"! Thank you!
Best,
Jack
-
Erik- easy grey is a product profile afaik -destined to keep neutrals neutral- - and indeed your image has gone grey.
Hi,
This is a screen dump comparing rendition in Capture one and Lightroom.
Processing is near default. WB is on second brightest grey patch on ColorChecker. Exposure adjusted to L=51 on the fourth brightest grey patch in LR and to (RGB == 120) in C1.
LR used a colour profile I made with DCamProf. With C1 I used "Phase One P45+ Flash - Easy Grey".
Illumination was studio flash, around 5100K I would guess.
From left to right: P45+/Capture One, Sony A7rII/Lightroom, P45+/Lightroom.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi Edmund,
I am not sure what the OP likes or dislikes about C1 processing.
The samples below are all P45+, Left LR/DCamProf, centre C1 and "Easy Grey", right C1 "Portrait Natural".
I have also added a Sony A7rII image.
Left one is LR/DCamProf, centre is Capture One, A7RM2 Generic, right one is LR/Adobe Standard.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks for your suggestion, anyways.
Erik- easy grey is a product profile afaik -destined to keep neutrals neutral- - and indeed your image has gone grey.
-
i have worked with and tested both systems and decided on the fuji although i really wanted to prefer the hasselblad.
i don't think there is much to discuss in terms of differences in files from the sensors....i did prefer he overall look and file quality, i really feel the fuji lenses are slightly better (maybe that is digital correction? i honestly don't care)
if size and weight are a big factor then the X1D is a no brainer, especially if landscapes are the main interest....
the fuji offers an overall better manual (i really enjoy having manual buttons and dials again) and bigger (attachments, lenses, adapters,...) system but is a much bigger and heavier camera. it also starts up much faster, has much less black out and still has better AF.
if someone wants to pay a subscription fee for a website, i don't think there is a right or wrong answer....to me (other then actually holding the camera and playing with it) the most important thing is file quality and there are so many free downloads available from each system that one should be able to make a decision based that.....the idea that either system has a major unknown flaw is just silly at this point, there are so many free reviews and opinions and most agree on the basic issues....if there is a major problem with a lens or body from either system, send them back and get a replacement....easy....
i feel that at this point in time some websites or reviewers are working hard to come up with issues to justify their subscription price....or just to stay relevant....
-
Schefz,
Thank your for your comments. You understood what I was asking in my original post and responded.
I want to be sure I understand your thoughts and have a few questions.
First, you say "i did prefer he overall look and file quality". Was the look you preferred of the X1D or the GFX?
Next, you feel the X1D is a "no brainer" for landscape work. 99% of what I love to capture is landscape BUT when I look at the price difference between just the X1D with the 30mm verse the GFX with the 23, the cost difference is about $2,900 more for the X1D with just a 30mm compared to the GFX with a 23mm (more of the FOV I prefer) and the weight for the GFX with the 23mm is only about 1 pound more. I think saving just a pound is not worth $2,900.00 with a lens that does not have the FOV of the 23mm Fuji.
BUT image quality IS worth it IF there really is a difference that can't be recovered in software.
You state you feel the Fuji lenses are sharper than the X1D's. That is interesting to note and another point for the FUJI.
Jack
-
Schefz,
Thank your for your comments. You understood what I was asking in my original post and responded.
I want to be sure I understand your thoughts and have a few questions.
First, you say "i did prefer he overall look and file quality". Was the look you preferred of the X1D or the GFX?
Next, you feel the X1D is a "no brainer" for landscape work. 99% of what I love to capture is landscape BUT when I look at the price difference between just the X1D with the 30mm verse the GFX with the 23, the cost difference is about $2,900 more for the X1D with just a 30mm compared to the GFX with a 23mm (more of the FOV I prefer) and the weight for the GFX with the 23mm is only about 1 pound more. I think saving just a pound is not worth $2,900.00 with a lens that does not have the FOV of the 23mm Fuji.
BUT image quality IS worth it IF there really is a difference that can't be recovered in software.
You state you feel the Fuji lenses are sharper than the X1D's. That is interesting to note and another point for the FUJI.
Jack
the first time i tested the X1D with the 45 and 90mm lenses head to head vs sony A7RII with GM 24-70, i could not really find a difference big enough in final file quality....i did play with the X1D later with a different 45 and the IQ was definitely better, so i am assuming that the first lens i tried wasn't a great copy.....the camera overall was just too slow for me and the size would be nice but is not a factor for me.....
i have had fuji cameras for decades (incl 645, 680 and 690) and have always found their lenses to be absolutely spectacular and the GFX lenses are no different....the 32-64 is as good as any prime at any point in the range and that alone is crazy to me....
i guess what i am saying is that the differences i did see when i started comparing the GFX files to the sony files must be down to the lenses more so then the sensor, since the sensors are the same in both X1D and GFX....maybe other people prefer hasselblad colors, i always used to shoot fuji film and preferred it to kodak (in general)....all this is of course a very personal opinion....
as for the handling of the X1D vs the GFX....i think the interface of the X1D is pretty amazing but i am just much faster with the manual dials of the GFX...i haven't had a camera with that many dials in a long time and i am really enjoying it (again)....
when i tested the X1D the software also had serious lag and issues but i am assuming most of those are resolved by now in firmware...
as for your personal situation in regard to cameras, one pound can make a big difference in the long run (on a hike?) but if you prefer a certain focal length over another, the answer is obvious....
the price difference is a very nice bonus....
the one thing that has really changed my life is the tilt/rotate attachment for the viewfinder....i can't even explain how awesome it is....
which brings me to my two probably biggest long term drawbacks of the X1D that firmware can't fix: fixed rear screen and no AF point joystick (or controller of some kind)...the first is just strange to me because price could not have been a consideration and size really should not have either...it is totally doable....and just a really, really nice thing to have....the second: i am just assuming that hasselblad got a little blind sighted by fuji and added the movable AF points (not on the touch screen) later in firmware because they could but the implementation is so stupid that i can't see anyone using it....and selecting AF points on the touchscreen just isn't for me....
all that said, i think the X1D is a beautiful camera that can produce amazing results in amazing package....
if the kit includes a tripod, the difference in combined size and weight really isn't that much and then the price, better system and better functionality speak for the fuji IMO
-
Thanks for your reply.
I've set the Fuji GFX and the 23mm in the Amazon cart.
Time to click "Place Order" after reading your comments - JUST DID IT plus using Amazon credit card gets 5% back!
I've been pondering this for too many months - now I'll run my own test
but my test with be with the Fuji 23mm verse the Sony with the Canon 17TSE lens.
I'll use no movements on the Canon lens. It's a sharp lens so I will be going after defining the value of the larger wells of the Fuji sensor and how Fuji handles the RAW write verse the Sony a7RII.
Camera will be here on Wednesday.
I leave for the North Carolina coast on Saturday for 5 days of shooting and testing.
Question: Did you find an L-Plate/bracket you like? I have read that because of the placement of the Fuji battery, finding an L-Plate that isn't a bear to handle changing batteries is a bit of a challenge.
Thanks again for sharing!
Jack
PS: Any settings in the GFX menu that are essential to get right for landscape work? I've started reading the manual just now, but want to get it up and running fast, unlike the mess I had with the Sony determining when it dropped my RAW files to only 12 bits.
-
i rarely use tripods, so i can't say anything about L plates,
i really enjoy not using the menu much at all....the dials and buttons can do pretty much everything....although i wish i was able to access SD card formatting faster....
the shadow recovery is so amazing that i am pretty much always shooting for the highlights now....the biggest difference to the A7RII is the ability of the GFX to retain color information and detail in dark (shadow) areas....
enjoy!
-
Thanks for sharing your findings.
I head to the coast Saturday AM to spend 5 days camping and shooting identical scenes with the a7RII and the GFX.
I've had a little time to look at the menu structure and I like it!
But the key will be the image quality.
Will advise when I get results to share.
Jack
-
....although i wish i was able to access SD card formatting faster....
Press the trash button for 2-3 seconds, then press the rear dial once. The GFX immediately jumps directly into the format menu.
Greeting Gerd
-
Press the trash button for 2-3 seconds, then press the rear dial once. The GFX immediately jumps directly into the format menu.
Greeting Gerd
this does not work for me?
-
this does not work for me?
Me neither.
-
Works for me on the GFX and the x-series cameras.
Press and hold the Trash button until some of the text in the upper right corner of the screen disappears and you and you can then press the rear command dial (whilst still pressing the trash button).
-
OK. Sorry my mistake.
Press and hold the trash button and then press the rear dial once. Then jump the GFX directly into the format menu.
Firmware 1.11 and German language set (whereby the language really should not matter).
Does the quick change between focus peaking works with you?
(only hold the rear dial for a few seconds = focus peaking on / off)
Greeting Gerd
-
Given: Drove to the North Carolina coast camping on Saturday, returned home last night Wednesday.
Shot identical scenes, all on tripod, with Sony a7RII and Metabones+Canon 17mm TSE and the Fuji GFX with 23mm lens.
All images viewed and imported by the latest version of Lightroom 6.
To my eye, there IS a dramatic difference/improvement in the Fuji image verse the Sony.
Fuji is a keeper, Sony will be listed for sale today.
So, what does my statement mean:
1. I have owned and shot over the decades: Leaf, Phase, Hasselblad for decades. Actually entered the digital arena working with Eikonix in developing their digital array and camera,
Sold the H5D 50 WiFi about 9 months ago to test the Sony a7RII in the hopes a smaller and lighter DSLR would give me a comparable image. I did not expect an identical experience, but I expected it to be close from all of the reviews I read.
2. Conclusion - Sony is great IF you are doing Real Estate sales work, general street photography, and other venues that DSLR is native to. BUT for fine art landscape work it is not able to compare to MFD in any way to MY EYE! (You may like it, I'm just stating here what I like.)
When I purchased the Sony, the GFX and it's 23mm were not available, and I had never owned a Fuji camera or worked with them in the past as I had with Leaf and Hasselblad's engineering teams.
My 5 days of testing has produced a clear impression in my mind's eye of dramatically sharper images, much smoother color ramps with out the "harshness" I found in the Sony. Color fidelity is broader and does not need hardly any "tweaking".
Now, Fuji's 23 lens is the sharpest lens I have ever used with extremely large scope of sharpness across a much broader range of stops than the norm. Just seductive to a person who seeks crisp and sharp without a over processed harsh look.
Of course, RAW files are large (and the Fuji RAF files are not opened by Photoshop, but Lightroom 6 does) so I'll not post here.
It is great to find a camera that gets me excited again to go out and "shoot"! That was completely missing with the Sony for me.
Again, this is not introducing anything other than MY preference for a camera and lens to use for my type of landscape work.
So, no "wars" to be started, just saying, get your hands on the Fuji GFX with their 23mm for yourself! It is a great experience.
Jack
-
The RAF files should be opened by latest version of ACR, in Photoshop CC.
Glad you found the camera to your liking.
One thing you might consider in the future, is to work with C1 on the raws. I realize there is no native support. LR/ACR works great on the lower ISO files but I feel still pulls more noise out higher ISO files. Colors are very close between the two converters.
To use C1, 1st convert raf to dng with Adobe dng converter. The edit the exif info for camera name and company name, To Phase One and IQ 350. Note the spaces they need to be there.
C1 will open with the default profile for the IQ 350, but for me the colors are fine. May not work for a studio shooter, but I have read reports where many are OK with it. Will lose the film simulations, but these tend to be over the top to me anyway.
C1 handles the shadows just much better for me and also is a bit more forgiving on the highlights.
Downsides, that I have found are that LR can't make a panorama from the converted C1 tifs where as it can easily make a pano from the same raf files. Not sure what is missing here, but CC works fine on the same tifs as does ptgui. I love to use the GFX in creating hand held panos, where with my P1 back I would need a tripod.
Enjoy the camera.
Paul Caldwell
-
The RAF files should be opened by latest version of ACR, in Photoshop CC.
Glad you found the camera to your liking.
One thing you might consider in the future, is to work with C1 on the raws. I realize there is no native support. LR/ACR works great on the lower ISO files but I feel still pulls more noise out higher ISO files. Colors are very close between the two converters.
To use C1, 1st convert raf to dng with Adobe dng converter. The edit the exif info for camera name and company name, To Phase One and IQ 350. Note the spaces they need to be there.
C1 will open with the default profile for the IQ 350, but for me the colors are fine. May not work for a studio shooter, but I have read reports where many are OK with it. Will lose the film simulations, but these tend to be over the top to me anyway.
C1 handles the shadows just much better for me and also is a bit more forgiving on the highlights.
Downsides, that I have found are that LR can't make a panorama from the converted C1 tifs where as it can easily make a pano from the same raf files. Not sure what is missing here, but CC works fine on the same tifs as does ptgui. I love to use the GFX in creating hand held panos, where with my P1 back I would need a tripod.
Another processing workflow to consider: Irdient XTransformer to DNG, then Lr. Brian's XTransformer has lots of options unavailable when you feed Lr the RAFs.
jim
-
Two great suggestions that I'll experiment with!
Thanks!
Jack
Followup:
1.) CS6 PS will not open the RAF file - I have the latest ACR and PS.
If there is a "secret handshake" to make it work, please let me know.