Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: cgarnerhome on March 02, 2017, 11:56:02 am
-
Initial thoughts on the GFX50S –
I wanted to start a thread on user experience with the GFX50S now that they are starting to ship. Since I’m heading to Japan in 2 days for a couple of weeks I don’t have time to process images. So, this is likely not much help to people but it’s a start.
First some perspective that may be helpful. I currently shoot with the XF100 and the Nikon 810 as my backup camera. I shoot primarily seascapes and landscapes. I have never owned a Fuji camera so no experience with their menu system. My reason for buying the GFX50S is to use it as my primary camera when weight is an issue or if I’m limited to one camera and need a smaller pack. I realize that much of my comparison is based on my experience with my Phase One which has an exceptional user interface that’s very intuitive.
Yesterday I received my shipment that included 3 lenses – the 63/2.8, the 32-64/4 and the 120/4. I also received the EVF tilting adapter.
These are my initial random observations based on only trying to make sure everything worked properly before I left for my trip.
- Everything worked right out of the box which is always helpful :)
- The weight was what I expected and certainly meets my expectations.
- Setup of the menu was fairly straight forward and on only took a few minutes. Raw was available but why large JPEG and sRGB is the default setting makes no sense to me. Does Fuji really believe that people who buy these cameras don’t shoot raw! I thought there were a few things in the operation that weren’t intuitive but a Fuji user should have no problem.
- Only 1 battery is included which seems ridiculous to me. Additional batteries are not available yet which makes the camera pretty useless for me at this time.
- The quality of the camera seemed adequate but didn’t impress me. It’s not an attractive design but certainly has a utilitarian feel/look to it. In my hand, I thought the balance was only OK. I know this is very personal but when I hold a camera with one hand at my side I like the hold to feel secure. Not so here.
- The lenses quality matched the body quality. Auto focus seemed very responsive and quiet and it’s very easy to change focus points. The lens shades are a bit flimsy in my mind.
- The EVF was very responsive and provided adequate resolution. I don’t have a lot of experience with EVFs so it’s hard for me to compare. It works for me.
- The rear display is nice and do like the ability to tilt it. The resolution is excellent and it’s easy to evaluate the sharpness of images. Very simple to zoom to 100% and then move the image around to evaluate sharpness.
- For what it’s worth, the JPEGs on the display seem to very accurately render the colors of the image.
- Perhaps I haven’t figured it out yet but I believe I need a cable release for long exposures. Aperture priority is limited to 30 seconds so I need to use bulb for longer exposures. I don’t understand why camera manufactures don’t allow you to increase shutter time to 60 minutes in the manual mode. My XF100 allows you to do that.
Bottom line. Good first impression, and assuming the images quality is there, I believe this will be a very strong competitor in the market. It should represent good value on a relative basis. Hopefully, this will start a thread of real world experiences.
-
Hi there,
Thanks for sharing. If I may ask what made you go for the Fujifilm and not Hasselblad X1D, if weight was a concern?
-
I felt like it would be a more robust system and that Fuji would make a commitment to continue to improve it. I have to admit I did not like the way Hasselblad handled the communication of the X1D launch. I also felt that Fuji was a more stable company. Very subjective at the end of the day.
-
I previously stated the - following
- Perhaps I haven’t figured it out yet but I believe I need a cable release for long exposures. Aperture priority is limited to 30 seconds so I need to use bulb for longer exposures. I don’t understand why camera manufactures don’t allow you to increase shutter time to 60 minutes in the manual mode. My XF100 allows you to do that.
I was wrong, you can do it by very simply setting the shutter speed dial to T and sensitivity dial to the C. This activates the control of the command dials to set aperture and shutter. Easy enough!
-
Thanks, Cam. Could you comment on the speed/latency of the live view zoom/scroll, perhaps in comparison to the IQ100 back?
-
No comparison! The display has better resolution and is very quick and easy to set focus.
-
No comparison! The display has better resolution and is very quick and easy to set focus.
Which one is better?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would really hope the GFX as the IQ screen has been around for a while. ;)
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
Sorry - the Fuji vastly superior.
-
Sorry - the Fuji vastly superior.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sorry - the Fuji vastly superior.
The one thing about the Fuji that concerns me is the sync speed with strobes :/
-
Cam
Thanks for your input. Mine is with UPS as we speak. I was new to Fuji a few months ago and bought the XT2 book for quick reference. It offers very good points and real world insight for setup and he explains why he changes various settings. Since I understand the GFX menu is similar to that of the XT2 menu, I would start out with my XT2 settings on the GFX and see how they influence exposures, focus,etc. Some GFX hints come out through Fujirmors I notice from time to time.
-
The one thing about the Fuji that concerns me is the sync speed with strobes :/
That is slow, but you can still solve it two ways: 1) use HSS like a Nikon or Canon user; 2) use the H adapter with a HC lens, which will support the leaf shutter and flash sync up to 1/800th (but without AF).
-
The Fuji EX-500 supports HSS and works great with the X-T2. I know that the GFX supports the EX-500, not sure if GFX 500 supports HSS but not sure why it would not. I know that Fuji made a point of holding the EX-500 for months to make sure it would work with the GFX, (at least one reason for the delay).
I have used the EX-500 with the X-T2 with HSS and shutter speeds of 1/500 and 1/1000 and it works very well. No blackout and good light.
Paul Caldwell
-
Which one is better?
Cheers,
Bernard
I have a IQ150 and the LCD is not as good as the GFX. The Fuji LCD is ways sharper than the P1. I don't know if the IQ3Xx has a better LCD.
I think focus control of my IQ is not always easy. But no problem with gfx one.
-
This comparison matches my experience with IQ3-100 versus X1D. The X1D version of the sensor just seems to have a way faster readout, where the 100mp Phase implementation has a lag when zooming. It kind of looks like it is "gaining up" to the correct readout amplification over the course of a few frames or something.
Subtle, but those little delays add up and make a zoom-heavy workflow like mine really tedious.
It would be interesting to know if the IQ350 is faster. (Or, for that matter, if the H6D-100 is the same.)
-
The image quality is there in spades, believe me. I have had my GFX 50S for all of 48 hours, with just the 120mm F/4 Macro so far, and have been blown away by it.
I agree build quality is 8/10, good but not exceptional, but the 120 Maco is superb the focusing accurate, the dynamic range superb, the high ISO perfomance even better.
What's not to like?
Looking forward to the zoom and tilting viewfinder due in a few days
First shots with the GFX 50s and 120mm Macro, Raw conversions using SilkyPix 8
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/March%202017/_DSF0056_Silky.jpg)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/March%202017/_DSF0093.jpg)
-
This comparison matches my experience with IQ3-100 versus X1D. The X1D version of the sensor just seems to have a way faster readout, where the 100mp Phase implementation has a lag when zooming. It kind of looks like it is "gaining up" to the correct readout amplification over the course of a few frames or something.
Subtle, but those little delays add up and make a zoom-heavy workflow like mine really tedious.
It would be interesting to know if the IQ350 is faster. (Or, for that matter, if the H6D-100 is the same.)
On the H6d-100c is takes less than 1 sec to enter live view and around 0.5 sec to zoom to 100% anywhere in the scene after a double tap on touch screen.
The quality of live view at 100% is higher than on the D810 and more than suitable to allow perfect focusing even in low levels of light.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Quentin,
I agree with your assessment. I shot a few images around the yard today and I was impressed with what I saw. Using the 63mm and using Iridient for raw conversion, the color was very accurate and the images sharp edge to edge. It will obviously take some real testing but I'm very pleased with what I see so far.
-
I'd like to know how fast and accurate eye detection is.
-
On the H6d-100c is takes less than 1 sec to enter live view and around 0.5 sec to zoom to 100% anywhere in the scene after a double tap on touch screen.
The quality of live view at 100% is higher than on the D810 and more than suitable to allow perfect focusing even in low levels of light.
Cheers,
Bernard
+1 - I have both and totally concur.
-
I am VERY sorry to report that Diglloyd (Lloyd Chambers), who has received a Fuji GFX, has almost nothing good to say about it, so far. In fact, this may be the most disparaging initial review of a camera I have ever seen him offer.
Since I will receive the camera in a few days, I will see for myself, but it definitely throws a cast on my happy expectations. You can read some of his comments here:
https://diglloyd.com/
If you want to read chapter and verse, as I did, you would have to subscribe to his Medium Format column, which for me is more than worth it. If his comments bear out, I may return the whole system or immediately sell it and retire from the wanting-a-medium-format-camera syndrome... for a while.
-
I am VERY sorry to report that Diglloyd (Lloyd Chambers), who has received a Fuji GFX, has almost nothing good to say about it, so far. In fact, this may be the most disparaging initial review of a camera I have ever seen him offer.
Since I will receive the camera in a few days, I will see for myself, but it definitely throws a cast on my happy expectations. You can read some of his comments here:
https://diglloyd.com/
If you want to read chapter and verse, as I did, you would have to subscribe to his Medium Format column, which for me is more than worth it. If his comments bear out, I may return the whole system or immediately sell it and retire from the wanting-a-medium-format-camera syndrome... for a while.
I am not a subscriber of Lloyd Chambers page. But I read his blog from time to time, and I have read his first comments on the GFX. His problem with not being able to get out of "continous shooting mode" - to me it sounds a bit like one of the bracketing modes was turned on (just an idea).
My general feeling is that he often does look into things very intense, I like that. But very often the comments he publishes on the blog are a bit impulsive - very much on the bright or very much on the disappointed side. Rarely in between. Before he had the GFX he wrote: "no one looking for maximum image quality and able to afford things like Zeiss Otus or Leica SL would be in their right mind to choose a 35mm DSLR or a Leica SL or whatever—it makes no sense in this new context. The Fujifilm GFX is not just rocking the boat, the boat has flipped over."
I had the GFX for about 18 hours and I did not experience anything like what he describes in his blog. Yes - that camera is very customizable, and that has the disadvantage that you can accidentally change settings by using a function button (and there are lots of it - even the command dials offer seperate functions when you press them). But that is nothing that I could not learn to use in a short time. Having a simple interface and having a customizable camera for a lot of situations without diving deep into menus are goals that point into different directions. Of course it is a question of how clever things are laid out to have a good compromise. We will see how other users comment on how good Fuji has done this. My impression was quite positive.
Best regards - Marc
-
We will see how other users comment on how good Fuji has done this. My impression was quite positive.
Best regards - Marc
Glad to hear it. I remain hopeful, but I have found over the years that I can depend on Chamber's comments; at least they usually coincide with my own.
My interest in the GFX is so specific, that I may be able to get from it what I need. I seldom use autofocus and almost always use base ISO, etc. I should be able to setup the camera for what I need and not bother with much else. This is not a "walk-around" camera for me, but rather a tripod-based workhorse for stacking and doing nature and landscape photography. And I need to be able to field my many Nikon F-mount lenses with the GFX. As they say: we shall see.... and pretty soon. Otherwise, I will just sell it and move on.
-
I am VERY sorry to report that Diglloyd (Lloyd Chambers), who has received a Fuji GFX, has almost nothing good to say about it, so far. In fact, this may be the most disparaging initial review of a camera I have ever seen him offer.
Being accident-prone seems to be part of his business model. He does, occasionally, find real bugs or limitations, but they are not often ones that affect real world shooting.
That said, it's early days for these 50Mpx cameras. Fuji has the resources and a track record for fixing things, but I'd wait for some longer-term use experience reports, before diving in.
-
Being accident-prone seems to be part of his business model. He does, occasionally, find real bugs or limitations, but they are not often ones that affect real world shooting.
That said, it's early days for these 50Mpx cameras. Fuji has the resources and a track record for fixing things, but I'd wait for some longer-term use experience reports, before diving in.
I have already dove in and have to vet the camera and keep it, return it, or sell it... in fairly short order here. I can do that. If the IQ is there, I can put up with a lot.
-
Hello Guys,
i could shoot with the GFX on the Fujifilm roadshow in germany. The whole systeme is very light for mid format and even DSLR like D810. But it does not fell cheap. Here is a photo from this. First is a overview, second is 100% ..
Colors could be not so good. Pictures are from RAW Therapee "Out of Cam".. With 120mm Lens.. f/4.5..ISO100
-
Thank goodness, Digital Lloyd does not like the camera, that means it will be a keeper for sure. I have never seen anything from him showing he preferred the Fuji Brand and has never had much positive things to say about them. His concern of x-trans and artifacts is well known. I agree x-trans is has it's issues, but if you are willing to work with alternatives then the issues are mostly irrelevant. If are familiar with a Fuji X series camera the learning curve appears to be minimal on the GFX.
More positive and knowledge reviews over on Imaging Resource, which interestingly has the exactly opposite opinion.
Go figure.
Paul Caldwell
-
Thank goodness, Digital Lloyd does not like the camera, that means it will be a keeper for sure. I have never seen anything from him showing he preferred the Fuji Brand and has never had much positive things to say about them. His concern of x-trans and artifacts is well known. I agree x-trans is has it's issues, but if you are willing to work with alternatives then the issues are mostly irrelevant. If are familiar with a Fuji X series camera the learning curve appears to be minimal on the GFX.
More positive and knowledge reviews over on Imaging Resource, which interestingly has the exactly opposite opinion.
Go figure.
Paul Caldwell
+1
-
I have had the GFX with the 32-64 lens for a few days now and have no issues with it whatsoever; so far I am loving it. Also, Iridient Developer Beta 3 is doing a good job of processing raw files. Having the X series of Fuji bodies made it a no brainier to use this camera and I haven't cracked the books yet. I hope to read the Manual when I have time.
-
Over the years there are three things I have learned about Llloyd:
1. He has a type of photography he does and a way he does it and his reviews and evaluations are heavily colored by this. His evaluations have a lack of empathy for other types of photography, photographic subjects or photographic workflows.
2. He has a flair for the dramatic and as another posted pointed out he seems bimodal in his views, its either utter garbage or the greatest thing since sliced bread. Some seem to think he does this to drive subscriptions to his site.
3. He has got to be about the unluckiest person I've heard of in terms of getting gear with severe issues.
In general, these days I don't trust/value any online reviewers, opting to try stuff myself and make my own conclusions.
-
Hello Guys,
i could shoot with the GFX on the Fujifilm roadshow in germany. The whole systeme is very light for mid format and even DSLR like D810. But it does not fell cheap. Here is a photo from this. First is a overview, second is 100% ..
Colors could be not so good. Pictures are from RAW Therapee "Out of Cam".. With 120mm Lens.. f/4.5..ISO100
Hi,
The colors are indeed not there yet in this conversion, but that's something that can be solved. However, I'm looking at the slight 'mazing artifacts' in the eye's pupil area. Did you use the AMaZE algorithm for demosaicing?
Cheers,
Bart
-
My initial reaction to the camera is that the image quality is excellent but I do find the menu a little confusing. I have not shot Fuji before so I'm unfamiliar with their menu system. As mentioned previously, those that own a Fuji will likely find it easy to operate. I now have it set up so I don't have to mess with all the menu options. It took me a couple of hours to get comfortable with it. I now know about 90% of what I need to know so I'm sure after a couple of weeks of shooting I will get there. I don't view that as unreasonable investment in time to learn a new camera system. The user interface is certainly less well designed than the XF100. Regarding the lenses, I found all 3 lenses easy to operate and more than meet my expectations in image quality. I have to admit when I shot with the 120mm, I thought something was wrong with the lens but found out that when the lens is mounted on the camera the loose "element" sound went away. "A roll of quarters rattling around in a tin can" is an extreme exaggeration. You do get a light thud sound when you rock an unmounted lens back and forth. The lens functioned perfectly and was very sharp. Overall, I do think the ergonomics of the system are not that great but I'm now comfortable with it and very happy with the quality of the files so far. At the end of the day I care most about image quality, company commitment to the product line and reliability/durability. Over time we will find out about reliability/durability. Currently my expectations have been met and I'm happy with camera.
-
I have to admit when I shot with the 120mm, I thought something was wrong with the lens but found out that when the lens is mounted on the camera the loose "element" sound went away. "A roll of quarters rattling around in a tin can" is an extreme exaggeration. You do get a light thud sound when you rock an unmounted lens back and forth. The lens functioned perfectly and was very sharp.
The 120mm has optical stabilization, what you heard is the floating element inside it. :)
-
Hi,
The colors are indeed not there yet in this conversion, but that's something that can be solved. However, I'm looking at the slight 'mazing artifacts' in the eye's pupil area. Did you use the AMaZE algorithm for demosaicing?
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
There was a grid on the octabox flash. You could see this mosaic in the JPEG and raw converted files.
I am not really familiar with raw therapee. I use this only if the GFX files. I will give irident a try and look if the mosaic are already there...
-
Hi Cam,
Good point on the 120mm. Many of the OIS lenses will have a element that appears to move when the lens is powered off. I have both the 50-140 and 100-400 and the 50-140 has the same issue. Also if the GFX glass is like all the other X OIS, most will make a slight noise when the lens is on the camera and the camera on, even with OIS off. The 50-140 I have is by far the loudest in this regard. Outdoors you will not hear it, but indoors for sure. I have tried a couple of other 50-140 lenses from other photographers, and they all make a bit of noise, but not as loud as mine. Mine was early in the life. As the 120mm is only lens with OIS, if you hear a rattle in the 63 or 32-64, something may be wrong.
One note, Fuji will continue to add features functions both via firmware (so existing cameras can take advantage of them) and physical changes. A classic example of this is the 4 way button on the X-T1. Early cameras you really had to push hard to make the buttons engage, and there was a lot written on ways to add material to the buttons. Later cameras Fuji fixed this with a different version of the 4 way that had a much more tactical feel. The X-T2 had the better style buttons from the 1st ship.
But Kudo's to Fuji for all the extras that they passed on to the X-T1 in the 1st year with firmware, like ES and improved video.
Paul Caldwell
-
..... away. "A roll of quarters rattling around in a tin can" is an extreme exaggeration. You do get a light thud sound when you rock an unmounted lens back and forth.....
I had the same with some lenses with the small x system of Fuji. Sounds strange but this is normal to some lenses. The inner focus lens is not fixed and could move without energy from the body.
I have opened a call at the Fuji support and the said this...
-
Oh Sorry double answer... :-)
-
Lloyd Chambers... the only reviewer on the entire Internet who managed to screw up his Fuji GFX.
cyron123, it looks like you didn't apply a Color/Bundled Profile in Raw Therapee. At the top, you can choose Bundled Profiles/Generic/Natural 1/Natural 2/Punchy 1/Punchy 2, etc to get an actual "look" to the image. Or maybe I'm wrong?
You can also take a profile from Adobe Camera Raw (DCP files from any camera) and apply it via Color management/Custom, and then check the Tone Curve and Look Table boxes.
-
To me the best solution is pull down the Iridient X transformer, and run it on the GFX files, just apply the defaults, then open the dngs in LR. Or fiddle the the full version of Silkypix Vr8, allows a 30 day trial US version. Myire software is the distributor. I doubt the software Fuji is including with the camera is much better than the version they gave with the X-T2 (dumbed down Silkypix).
Paul Caldwell
-
Yes now it is better Thank you.
To me the best solution is pull down the Iridient X transformer, and run it on the GFX files, just apply the defaults, then open the dngs in LR. Or fiddle the the full version of Silkypix Vr8, allows a 30 day trial US version. Myire software is the distributor. I doubt the software Fuji is including with the camera is much better than the version they gave with the X-T2 (dumbed down Silkypix).
Paul Caldwell
-
Hello guys,
i have try out the demo of Irident Transform to DNG. The mosaic is already there. I think it is of the small grid on the flashbox. And this means moire..
-
Hello guys,
i have try out the demo of Irident Transform to DNG. The mosaic is already there. I think it is of the small grid on the flashbox. And this means moire..
Okay, if it is a grid on the Octabox, then the Bayer CFA demosaicing algorithm did the best it could. The false color aliasing can be suppressed, and the detail is actually there. It looks quite good, and the aliasing (due to non-gapless microlenses) seems less than I expected, on this subject anyway.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hello guys,
On the roadshow the Fuji guy said to me capture one will support the GFX. Only the raw pictures but no tethering.
Only for info. I don't know if this is right. We will see... :-)
-
No C1 support. Fuji has now clarified this.
Sadly it seems that the Fuji rep was mis informed and or did not understand fully P1's policy on not supporting non P1 MF products
Paul Caldwell
-
Hi,
Moiré and MFD go hand in hand. But I would guess the GFX is pretty decent in that regard.
Best regards
Erik
Hello guys,
i have try out the demo of Irident Transform to DNG. The mosaic is already there. I think it is of the small grid on the flashbox. And this means moire..
-
No C1 support. Fuji has now clarified this.
Sadly it seems that the Fuji rep was mis informed and or did not understand fully P1's policy on not supporting non P1 MF products
Paul Caldwell
Not sure that is so sad. Apparently, P1 views the camera as competitive with its own cameras.
-
Not sure that is so sad. Apparently, P1 views the camera as competitive with its own cameras.
Fuji used to own the marriage market in Japan, a large volume of domestic sales will lower the launch cost of their system
-
Not sure that is so sad. Apparently, P1 views the camera as competitive with its own cameras.
That's too bad, because coming from the DSLR side of things, I was just getting ready to buy their software. There is no way I intend to buy their hardware. Too much money. So I feel they are making a bad business decisions, because many might try their software in this new MF-mirroless window, and perhaps upgrade into their hardware. My belief is that this will harm them, not protect them. Just my two cents.
-
Not sure that is so sad. Apparently, P1 views the camera as competitive with its own cameras.
I have made this argument before, "what competition"?
The IQ350 or IQ150? with the XF platform. I can't take anything away from either of these, but I don't see them as "competition" to the X1D or GFX, as both would well over 12K to 20K more expensive. I have to believe in today's market, price is a primary consideration before anything else. All systems share the 50MP sensor, and if anything Fuji has pushed the tech of the sensor farther than anyone else, with ES, EFC, and a possibly improved set of micro lenses.
I have been a P1 user for years, still am, but I was a big believer in CMOS long before many MF users, as the CCD vs CMOS (CCD being so much better) seem to have gone by the way side now that Hasselblad brought the X1D out.
If P1 does a mirrorless product, it will be months away (I really can't see them bringing out a 50MP mirrorless as it will be a bit old news), and when it does it will odds are still be 2x to 3x the price point.
So I just don't see them having anything that is real competition to either the X1D or GFX.
C1 is getting a bit limited anyway for what I do, no pano tools or exposure blending from raw files which is where I prefer to work. Love the colors and layers and tethering, but I disagree that either of these cameras are "real" competition for P1.
Paul Caldwell
-
Has anyone tried the Hasselblad C mount to Fuji G mount yet? Does it work with Hasselblad C-mount lenses or only the old Fujinon C mount lenses?
-
Has anyone tried the Hasselblad C mount to Fuji G mount yet? Does it work with Hasselblad C-mount lenses or only the old Fujinon C mount lenses?
Who makes this one? I know Fuji has he GFX to HB HC mount.
-
That's the one I'm referring to - sorry if I was unclear.
Who makes this one? I know Fuji has he GFX to HB HC mount.
-
Hello guys,
i have try out the demo of Irident Transform to DNG. The mosaic is already there. I think it is of the small grid on the flashbox. And this means moire..
For me, this doesn't look like a grid on the the flash box....
Regards,
Ben
-
As I am still waiting for the camera, it's been interesting to read some of the reviews.
1. Digital Lloyd, has apparently a defective camera, stuck in continuous mode. That has been confirmed now by Fuji. His testing has been limited, but now he has some observations on this blog.
2. Imaging Resources, has now posted a side by side of 3 test shots, between the GFX and IQ100, iso 100, 1600, and 6400. The interesting thing is to look at the ISO 6400 on the Fuji, quite impressive.
One other note to shooters. It's clear now that Fuji totally mirrored their current AF/MF design with the GFX, so it's fly by wire. This does have it's drawbacks so I wanted to post a few thoughts.
1. Fuji lenses may or may not have a MF/AF clutch on the lens, many of the primes by Fuji in the X series, (14mm, 16mm for example) have a clutch on the lens barrel. If you switch between MF/AF here, the lens stays where you left it and you are in MF mode. If you switch back and forth between shoot and play mode the lens should hold the same focus point and if you turn off the camera, the lens will again hold the same focus point. This is due to the clutch in the lens.
2. I can't tell if the lenses for the GFX have a clutch, it appears the 120mm does not. So you can only go between MF/AF from the camera body. This can cause some issues. If you switch to from AF to MF, via the camera body, odds are you will get a focus check in the EVF (again I assume this is just like the X series). This is because the focus is focus by wire, and just by switching from AF to MF, you can slightly change the focus. So you need to hit either focus check or zoom in and double check your focus. Also if you are in AF and switch from shoot to play to check your images, again odds are your focus point will have shifted just a bit and you will need to refocus. Again if your lens has a clutch to go from MF to AF, you can switch back and forth from shoot mode to play mode with no problems.
3. Turning off the camera will reset your focus, even if you are in MF mode with the X series camera, and again it's safe to assume the GFX will work the same way. So remember after turning on the camera in MF mode either this focus check or manually focus by zooming in.
I have seen a few references to the "lens modulation optimizer". This is option to help remove effects of diffraction, however the GFX manual does not imply if it applies to raw files. In the X series camera LMO only applied to in camera jpgs. As the GFX can convert in camera to both jpg and tif, I assume that LMO applies to these files when selected. However it's not clear if it applies to raw files. Also a raw converter would have to understand the LMO settings and apply them during the conversion, something that has not been done to the APS-C X-trans files.
These are issues that are known and common to any x series shooter but if you are not aware of how the Fuji Focus by wire works, you can end up getting frustrated quickly IMO. Focus Check is covered on page 102 of the GFX US users manual.
Paul Caldwell
-
Hello Paul,
Yes I could confirm the 120mm and the zoom has no clutch. Only switching at the camera or a small switch at the lens like Nikon.
I have talked to the Fuji rep and you could override the focus by the hand wheel. And the wheel does not rotate if you focusing...not like some phase one lenses..
The focus motor is not a geared motor like older lenses. It is driven by a linear motor like ultrasonic on canon ..Nikon?
The zoom is silent. The 120mm I can not say because it was too loud on the roadshow..
-
I have seen a few references to the "lens modulation optimizer". This is option to help remove effects of diffraction, however the GFX manual does not imply if it applies to raw files. In the X series camera LMO only applied to in camera jpgs. As the GFX can convert in camera to both jpg and tif, I assume that LMO applies to these files when selected. However it's not clear if it applies to raw files. Also a raw converter would have to understand the LMO settings and apply them during the conversion, something that has not been done to the APS-C X-trans files.
Lens profiles seem to be baked in RAW files, I'm not sure if this is the default behavior or not but this is how Lightroom can perform lens corrections without the need for lens profiles in the application itself. LMO, per Fuji official documentation, seems to deal with diffraction and corner sharpness on JPEG files.
-
As it Turns Out, No GFX for Me
I am sorry to report that after examining the Fuji GFX 50s system in some detail, for my work mind you, it is not quite ready for prime time. I am sure many will be happy to have it, but for the particular type of close-up work I do, it just does not quite make it. I can mention a few things, but keep in mind most of these are probably particular to me.
Although it was not that important to me, the GFX is boxy and unattractive physically. I could not have cared less, as long as it was a workhorse for the particular kind of photo work I do. Sadly, I remain unimpressed by the GFX as a workhorse, and this after putting it through its paces as to what most concerns me.
The two lenses that I purchased with it (63mm and 120mm) did not cut the mustard. The 63mm lens simply is not what I was led to expect in Fuji lenses. There was nothing I could find to recommend it, and I would have returned it if I had kept the system.
The 120mm Macro is a different story. It actually is sharp and generally OK. However it is big as all get-out and extends so far out (with its hood) from the body of the GFX that in magnified mode I picked up vibrations of the tiniest floor movement in the studio. That and the fact that its widest aperture is f/4 made it not something I would actually find myself using. And the results did not compare to many of the lenses I have for FF, like the Zeiss Otus series, and others. I had hoped it would sweep me off my feet, but here I stand.
After that, I told myself that the GFX is the least expensive 50 Mpx digital back on the market, and I have dozens of lenses (non-Fuji) that I am waiting to use on the camera. And so I did. I found out, for instance that all of the Zeiss Otus APO lenses (plus the 135mm APO Zeiss) all work well on the GFX. No vignetting, aside from the Otus 28mm, which has a slight corner darkening, but still (for my interests) very usable. That was all good, but there was bad news after that.
While your use may vary, I soon found out that mounting these non-Fuji lenses on the Fotodiox Nikon adapter (which does both “G” and older F-mount lenses) worked, but a price was paid for doing so in terms of IQ. Wanting to keep the GFX, I did my best to give the GFX the benefit of the doubt with these alternative lenses, but common sense overtook me and instead I began to doubt the benefit of doing all this. And hanging heavy glass off the end of the GFX led me to go looking around the studio for some rails I have to support the larger lenses.
And lastly, and perhaps most important for me was that (at least I found) in post-processing the raw files (using ACR) did not have the bandwidth I am used to in the Nikon D810. In particular the blacks, which on the Nikon D810 seem to stretch out forever, on the GFX were there and blown in a flash. What is this? It is almost like their files are not true raw. Perhaps they are some pre-processed form of raw, and I will await the techsperts to tell me what is happening there. As for me, I REALLY didn’t like it. If there is one thing that sealed the deal for returning the system, that was it. I need raw files with at least as much bandwidth as the Nikon raw files.
I had no trouble using the menus, and while the EVF (and LiveView) screens were not totally as nice as I had imagined, they were nicer than the ones on my Nikon D810. Still, when they get dark and grainy, they get dark and grainy. After waiting seven months for the X1D and since January for the GFX, I was loathe not to have a MF mirrorless camera, but as it turns out, I don’t have one.
Again, don’t mind me. I have a very narrow range of what I appear to need to be happy with photo gear. I wouldn’t even bother to post this report, except that I made so much noise about the advent of the GFX, that I feel I owe a report to someone, if only to myself. So, there we have it.
I will wait for the MF scene to continue to develop and perhaps Nikon might actually come across with a 50 Mpx D820 and I would be happy with that. Certainly the Nikon D810 is the finest (all around) camera I have ever used and I will continue to use it. I might even purchase a second copy!
-
Hi Michael,
Thanks for sharing!
Best regards
Erik
As it Turns Out, No GFX for Me
I am sorry to report that after examining the Fuji GFX 50s system in some detail, for my work mind you, it is not quite ready for prime time. I am sure many will be happy to have it, but for the particular type of close-up work I do, it just does not quite make it. I can mention a few things, but keep in mind most of these are probably particular to me.
Although it was not that important to me, the GFX is boxy and unattractive physically. I could not have cared less, as long as it was a workhorse for the particular kind of photo work I do. Sadly, I remain unimpressed by the GFX as my workhorse after putting it through its paces as to what most concerns me.
The two lenses that I purchased with it (63mm and 120mm) did not cut the mustard. The 63mm lens simply is not what I was led to expect in Fuji lenses. There was nothing I could find to recommend it, and I would have returned it if I had kept the system.
The 120mm Macro is a different story. It actually is sharp and generally OK. However it is big as all get-out and extends so far out (with its hood) from the body of the GFX that in magnified mode I picked up vibrations of the tiniest floor movement in the studio. That and the fact that its widest aperture is f/4 made it not something I would actually find myself using. And the results did not compare to many of the lenses I have for FF, like the Zeiss Otus series, and others. I had hoped it would sweep me off my feet, but here I stand.
After that, I told myself that the GFX is the least expensive digital 50 Mpx digital back on the market, and I have dozens of lenses (non-Fuji) that I am waiting to use on the camera. And so I did. I found out, for instance that all of the Zeiss Otus APO lenses (plus the 135mm APO Zeiss) all work well on the GFX. No vignetting, aside from the Otus 28mm, which has a slight corner darkening, but still (for my interests) very usable. That was all good, but there was bad news after that.
While your use may vary, I soon found out that mounting these non-Fuji lenses on the Fotodiox Nikon adapter (which does both “G” and older F-mount lenses) worked, but a price was paid for doing so in terms of IQ. Wanting to keep the GFX, I did my best to give the GFX the benefit of the doubt with these alternative lenses, but common sense overtook me and instead I began to doubt the benefit of doing all this. And hanging heavy glass off the end of the GFX led me to go looking for some rails to support the larger lenses.
And lastly, and perhaps most important for me was that (at least I found) in post-processing the raw files (using ACR) did not have the bandwidth I am used to in the Nikon D810. In particular the blacks, which on the Nikon D810 seem to stretch out forever, on the GFX were there and blown in a flash. What is this? It is almost like there files are not true raw. Perhaps they are some pre-processed form of raw, and I will await the techsperts to tell me what is happening there. As for me, I really didn’t like it. If there is one thing that sealed the deal for returning the system, that was it. I need raw files with at least as much bandwidth as the Nikon raw files.
I had no trouble using the menus, and while the EVF (and LiveView) screens were not totally as nice as I had imagined, they were nicer than the ones on my Nikon D810. Still, when they get dark and grainy, they get dark and grainy. After waiting seven months for the X1D and since January for the GFX, I was loathe not to have a MF mirrorless camera, but as it turns out, I don’t have one.
Again, don’t mind me. I have a very narrow range of what I appear to need to be happy with photo gear. I wouldn’t even bother to post this report, except that I made so much noise about the advent of the GFX, that I feel I owe a report to someone, if only to myself. So, there you have it.
I will wait for the MF scene to continue to develop and perhaps Nikon might actually come across with a 50 Mpx D820 and I would be happy with that. Certainly the Nikon D810 is the finest (all around) camera I have ever used and I will continue to use it. I might even purchase a second copy!
-
Interesting comments so far on the GFX. I am waiting for our review unit to arrive. Hopefully next week. If it does arrive I'll take it with me to Iceland for 2 weeks and see how it does in the field. I do believe the medium format market is just beginning to take hold. Based on what I hear the GFX is selling very well and has a lot of content customers. You can count on Fuji to improve the system over time with new lenses as well as firmware. There still is a lot of talk about a large MP solution coming from Sony. I have pretty good inside connections and I think we will see something interesting from Sony. They have been real quite of late. I'll keep you posted on what I learn along the way.
-
Hi Kevin,
Is this "large MP solution coming from Sony", is it in a MF or DSLR form? Have been on the fence about the Fuji, Michaels input has pushed me off it for now, plus my need is really for more MP's, preferably in DSLR form.
-
Michael..... I think your post is a must read for anyone who is considering this camera. A couple of things stood out - your frustration with the size of the 120 and its ability to sense that the world is turning. At that focal length 'nothing' can move. I was also surprised and concerned by your findings regarding bandwith for the raw files. I shot with the Leaf CMOS version of that chip and never had those issues but that was Leaf and this is Fuji.
Thanks much for the very worthwhile reading post.....
Victor
-
Michael..... I think your post is a must read for anyone who is considering this camera. A couple of things stood out - your frustration with the size of the 120 and its ability to sense that the world is turning. At that focal length 'nothing' can move. I was also surprised and concerned by your findings regarding bandwith for the raw files. I shot with the Leaf CMOS version of that chip and never had those issues but that was Leaf and this is Fuji.
Thanks much for the very worthwhile reading post.....
Victor
I still want to know why the raw files (carefully set) were not more flexible. It was more like I would expect from a JPG file, but it was the size and name for raw. That is a real puzzle and I don't need puzzles like that...just now.
-
I don't want to be harsh, but I'm also not surprised Michael. I expected the whole thing and I have to say I really didn't get your interest in these low end medium format systems. As it looks like your happy with your Nikon. I for one would never want to go back to the d810, the colours are just awful. Don't get me wrong it's a good system, I just would never want to go back from my phase.
I will have the GFX next week or so and will have more to say, but I expect to keep it until Sony finally gets their act together. However, we all know something is coming, but with Sony you never know when.
The talk about a new high end sony sensor has been spooking around for over a year, as has a d820..... these systems really aren't that expensive and switching is done quickly. Till then I believe the GFX will serve nicely for rough environments, where my XF better stays in the bag.
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
I still want to know why the raw files (carefully set) were not more flexible. It was more like I would expect from a JPG file, but it was the size and name for raw. That is a real puzzle and I don't need puzzles like that...just now.
Hi Michael,
I tried some pushing with GFX raws. And I found them to be impressive.
Fuji GFX, 63mm f2.8 prime at f5.6, handheld at 1/55th of a second, ISO 100, RAW file. Attached are 100% crops of the image converted with iridient developer, first one original, second woth exposure pushed 5 stops. Posted it over at GetDpi a few days ago.
What kind of flexibility did you expect that you did not find in the GFX files? Do you have images to share that show that the files are not "flexible" (in comparison with you D 810)? I am just curious to understand.
Best regards -
Marc
-
Hi Michael,
I tried some pushing with GFX raws. And I found them to be impressive.
Fuji GFX, 63mm f2.8 prime at f5.6, handheld at 1/55th of a second, ISO 100, RAW file. Attached are 100% crops of the image converted with iridient developer, first one original, second woth exposure pushed 5 stops. Posted it over at GetDpi a few days ago.
What kind of flexibility did you expect that you did not find in the GFX files? Do you have images to share that show that the files are not "flexible" (in comparison with you D 810)? I am just curious to understand.
Best regards -
Marc
As mentioned in my post, I hoped to find something as flexible as the raw files from the Nikon D810 that I am used to. I took shots of the same scene with the D810 and when I adjusted the black-point slider, it had a very wide bandwidth. However, with the GFX it was very, very short, like I would expect from something like a JPG with less flexibility. I didn't find that and I have 100 or so files, but you have my basic comments. Perhaps by the nature of raw GFX are not flexible. I am not an expert on this camera, but just giving my take on the experience with the GFX, as many of us here do. I am sure that many will be examining these and I look forward to hearing what others find. At the moment I am not going to take the time to go further into it. Obviously the GFX is a powerful system at a reasonable price point. It just did not meet my needs, which I admit are very specialized.
-
I see plenty of push for my use. That is of course very individual in nature and need.
Found the 120mm to be very sharp but the hyperlocal range is very tricky and I still need to work on that for a while. For sure mine is capable of hand held work, but mounting it to a tripod is helpful. As size, coming from P1, I found it small, compared to anything in the BL Schneider range. The OIS works very well for me hand held.
One issue, Fuji and their Focus by wire on this system is very different and will possibly give new users fits.
The zoom to 100% playback mode is way way past a true 100% view, so your first thought is how did I get this so out of focus. You need to zoom back quite a bit. Also the screen works like the iPhone in that you can pinch to zoom in or out. Nice feature. Zooming across an image is very fast.
Live View is very similar to how it works on the X-T2. I can't find a way to pinch to zoom in Live View which would be very nice, as the zoom at first goes way past where you want it. The peaking on the camera is very good however and that helps. The 32-64 is very sharp, but as it's focus by wire only, no manual clutch it will take getting used to.
Weight, not an issue for me, coming from the D810 14-24 or K1 and 15-30 both weight more and have more mass. Or the XF and a lens.
My only real concern is that Fuji did not consider a need for true manual focus, and kept the lenses in the FBWire design.
Looks like all 6 of the first lenses are manual focus clutch-less, IMO a bit oversight especially considering the price.
The 120mm IMO is a bit priced on the high side, and it has the same issue as many Fuji OIS lenses, with a moving element which makes noise as you pick up the lens.
Paul Caldwell
-
And lastly, and perhaps most important for me was that (at least I found) in post-processing the raw files (using ACR) did not have the bandwidth I am used to in the Nikon D810. In particular the blacks, which on the Nikon D810 seem to stretch out forever, on the GFX were there and blown in a flash. What is this? It is almost like their files are not true raw. Perhaps they are some pre-processed form of raw, and I will await the techsperts to tell me what is happening there. As for me, I REALLY didn’t like it. If there is one thing that sealed the deal for returning the system, that was it. I need raw files with at least as much bandwidth as the Nikon raw files.
I am not surprised. Even the DR of the H6D-100c isn't significantly superior to that of the D810 from my casual usage first evalutation. It is very very good compared to pretty much anything else (probably at the same level of the IQ3-100), but the D810 was groundbreaking when it was released 2.5 years ago.
There are other advantages in terms of image quality though that probably also apply to the GFX, such as pixel sharpness, resolution, probably colors,... but the (inconvenient?) truth is that a D810 + Otus stitched image can do anything the high res backs do when stitching applies... and then more as resolution goes up. Now the next thing for me is to start stitching with the Blad. i hope to have the chance to do that in 2 weeks from now.
Now, it is true that 100mp in one shot is convenient!
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/772/33117207582_97084af901_o.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3883/33231657396_8ceaa699e7_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don’t think I made it clear enough that the Fuji camera is an impressive piece of work. It does almost everything I need, plus some things I didn’t even think to want that I like. I ordered, bought one, and waited. This was after I cancelled my order (of seven months) for the Hasselblad X1D, which had its own problems, like no way to properly do alternative lenses, at least at this time.
Where the GFX did not perform well enough for me was with lenses. The two I ordered, the 63mm and the 120mm Macro, were not what I am used to, plain and simple. I believe I pointed those problems out. What needs to be understood is that I am used to lenses like the Otus series (55mm, 85mm, and 28mm), the 135mm Zeiss (really an Otus), the Nikkor Noct, the El Nikkor APO 105, the Printing Nikkors, the CRT Nikkor, the AM-ED LF Nikkors, the Voigtlander 125mm APO-Lanthar, plus Rodenstock, Schneider, and other key lenses, and many more.
My hope was that these lenses would work well with the Fotodiox adapter (which is not all I could want), and they did work, but just not QUITE well enough to carry on what I am used to with the Nikon D810 for what I need. I also tried the GFX on the Cambo Actus with some of the LF lenses and that was better, actually. That is a much better use for the GFX for those type of lenses that fit bellows use.
I found many, many things to like in the GFX. I just need more megapixels (believe it or not) and a camera that can use my lens collection without too much loss in IQ. I could not get it. That’s it. No one is more sorry about this than I am.
-
Hello Michael,
Can you say more about your Actus LF lenses experience? What lenses have you use? Shift Tilt? How much ICC on the Raw is needed and what software have you use.
Thank you.
-
Hello Michael,
Can you say more about your Actus LF lenses experience? What lenses have you use? Shift Tilt? How much ICC on the Raw is needed and what software have you use.
Thank you.
+1
-
Hello Michael,
Can you say more about your Actus LF lenses experience? What lenses have you use? Shift Tilt? How much ICC on the Raw is needed and what software have you use.
Thank you.
Having a fair number of fine lenses, in my experience the best bargains today on really fine lenses are those LF lenses in Copal #0 mount or lenses like the Nikkor AM-ED lenses (120mm and 210mm), where in "AM", "A" stands for apochromatic and "M" stands for macro. Many of the enlarger lenses also are fine, plus the various industrial lenses (for scanners, etc.) amount to a treasure trove of great lenses, if you take the time to pick through them. The Nikkon Printing Nikkors, like the 150mm, are impeccably corrected and work well in the studio or, with care (and hoods), in the field. I have three of them.
As for the GFX, while mounting my standard Nikon F-Mount lenses like the Otus, Leica R lenses (converted), and so on, the GFX did not work out to my satisfaction as too much IQ was lost in the adapter exchange, this is not true for the GFX on a bellows.
The GFX works on the Novoflex BALPRO T/S, the Cambo Actus, and the Rollei X-Act 2 technical cameras, which I have. I had ordered from Capture Integration their first unit off the line from Cambo that features the GFX mount, but had not received it yet. By using the GFX>Nikon-F adapter from Fotodiox, I tested it and the GFX works fine. The larger GFX mount will work even better, of course. If I were wealthy, I would perhaps keep the GFX just for use with the technical cameras. As it was, I had to sell a lot of lenses, good lenses that I never use, just to get the GFX.
The GFX worked fine on the Cambo Actus, but so does the Nikon D810 and other cameras like the Sony A7Rii, for which I also have an Actus adapter. And the Pentax K1 has an adapter available for the Actus, as well. I sold my K1 for similar reasons as the GFX.
The small, light, portable Cambo Actus does not have all of the movements that my Rollei X-Act 2 does, but the Rollei weighs around 14 lbs. I am too old to enjoy carrying that thing around. The Actus has all of the movements I need to use and I have just ordered a 300mm rail (and accompanying bellows) for the Cambo Actus, which will allow me to better use some of the more extreme industrial lenses like the Nikkor Macros (four special lenses for long bellows).
You have to keep in mind that I am primarily a close-up photographer and since I live in a cold climate (Michigan), half the year it is too cold to go outside with a camera and lenses; at least, I don’t. During that time I work in my tiny studio.
Bottom line, the best lens bargains today IMO are the LF lenses and the various exotic industrials, provided that you are not using them for landscape photography. Some don’t reach infinity. My single most-used lens is the El Nikkor 105mm APO lens. Note the “APO,” which is the one to get, not the standard non-APO El Nikkor 105mm.
I am branching out into landscape photography these days, so lenses like the Zeiss Otus 28mm lens are perfect for that IMO. I find that I have to pay top dollar for great lenses, but you only need like one or two of them to last a lifetime and they hold their value.
As for software, I use Adobe Bridge as a finder and ACR in Photoshop for post-processing. I know Lightroom inside and out, but it is too slow for my taste and its catalogs in my experience have been known to suddenly get unusable, losing the keywords, etc. on hundreds of thousands of images. Ouch!
-
Hi Michael,
You mention too much IQ was lost with the Fotodiox adapter, can you elaborate on that? Did the adapter feel well made and did you have any issues with the Nikon or Zeiss lenses on the mount?
Thanks
Paul Caldwell
-
Hi Michael,
You mention too much IQ was lost with the Fotodiox adapter, can you elaborate on that? Did the adapter feel well made and did you have any issues with the Nikon or Zeiss lenses on the mount?
Thanks
Paul Caldwell
I have never been that happy with the Fotodiox quality. I use it because they care enough to provide what I need, but I always look for a better-quality adapter once I find one that I need. In this case, the Fotodiox GFX>Nikon adapter is not too bad. It is made for "G" lenses, but if used properly can take the F-Mount Nikon lenses. A problem I often have with Fotodiox is getting it to properly lock or click into place. As you know, it is possible to attempt to mount a Nikon adapter and for it not be the correct one of the three prongs to seat. So it turns in, but never clicks, exposing your lenses to just falling out. In the case of this Fotodiox lens adapter, as always, I have trouble making sure that it mounts securely.
And, in addition, making it more difficult, there is a small ring of white circles, of which in order to mount F-Mount lenses, only the first white dot (filled in) has to be placed across from a mark or it will NOT show aperture change as you move the aperture ring on your lens. This ring of white dots is near the mount and is free moving (no clicks), so it interferes with trying to mount the lens – makes it difficult and more dangerous. That is one point.
As for the lens IQ, we have to keep in mind that lenses like the Zeiss Otus series are very, very carefully put together lenses. So, when we just mount them on a strange adapter, it is apparent that this interferes with the IQ of the lens. And that interference either is OK or it is not. With the GFX, I did not "like" what it did to my lenses, which work better (of course) on their native Nikon mount. It did not take me long to decide that what I gained with the GFX was less than what I lost in IQ from the adapter.
The bottom line is that we really can’t mess much with great lenses which are designed to work perfectly as they are. Because I use these lenses for close-up work, and they often are not designed for close-up, I have tried (of course) little extensions (like shims) to get closer. For the most part, this does not help at all. I have found that Nikon’s shortest extension, the K-1 Ring, with about 5.8mm extension works “well enough” to actually use.
So, I am in a quandary. The lenses I use are not happy unless on their native mount, but I would like to have more megapixels. So, I have to wait for Nikon to get around to offering more megapixels. As I have mentioned before, one workaround is to use a technical camera, where the lenses are meant to be used on a moving bellows. And, I do this a lot.
So, for me it is either wait for Nikon or perhaps Sony to offer greater megapixels. I might be happy with the Hasselblad X1D, but I gave up my place in line and have no way to get one except wait who knows how long.... which I just did for seven months! And that camera does not really allow external lenses, so there I am, caught between the devil and the deep-blue sea. With new gear, it is always like this.
-
I wonder how the GFX would perform on the Cambo WRS 1600 with excellent Roddy lenses? Anyone know or have comments? Actually is there a way to adapt the GFX to that frame?
-
I wonder how the GFX would perform on the Cambo WRS 1600 with excellent Roddy lenses? Anyone know or have comments? Actually is there a way to adapt the GFX to that frame?
I take it you know that they have added the GFX mount to the Cambo Actus, by adding a riser on the front standard and changing the rear standard completely, so that now the camera plate is easily interchangable. It is helpful to know that with the wider GFX mount they did NOT have to change the bellows size.
-
Interesting reading.
One thought I can comment on is that the 50MP Sony sensor does not have the DR of the IQ3100. I sold my 645Z to get the 3100 and it is in a league all its own. Those comments I cannot agree with at all.
I have been in drenching downpours with my 3100 and decided to get the GFX as a foul wether backup as I very much liked the 50MP sensor on the 645Z which was very flexible using LR. Now I have become thoroughly satisfied with C1 and will try all avenues not to go back to the "pay for the rest of your life" Adobe formula.
I have received my GFX and zoom. Having switched to the XT2 recently I find the menu setup similar, but not without GFX specific setting needs. I am sure I will be changing settings for a while until better satisfied with my output. I am no expert and have spent at least one hour customizing the menu for my needs. I do not shoot inside and at close range as I am a landscape photographer with which this camera will fit in just fine assuming IQ is as good or better than the 645Z files. That said I very much like the challenge of street photography with my XT2's.
I have barely used the GFX so far as I only received it yesterday so no specific image comments yet as I am still deciding which RAW converter I will use.
Take a look at recent XF+3100 images below from Grand Canyon Monsoon and Yosemite Winter. All of the Tundra series was taken using the Sony 50MP sensor in the 645Z.
http://www.louisfoubare.com
-
As for the lens IQ, we have to keep in mind that lenses like the Zeiss Otus series are very, very carefully put together lenses. So, when we just mount them on a strange adapter, it is apparent that this interferes with the IQ of the lens. And that interference either is OK or it is not. With the GFX, I did not "like" what it did to my lenses, which work better (of course) on their native Nikon mount. It did not take me long to decide that what I gained with the GFX was less than what I lost in IQ from the adapter.
Sorry I have no idea what you are talking about.
A 'bad' adapter might be too loose, the two mounts not parallel, slightly too short or too long or the inside not very matt black and light absorbing.
Now what was the problem with the Nikon-Fuji Fotodiox adapter that you did not get 'the IQ' of the Otus lenses, that you expected.
Please upload raw file to see the effects.
Same with the talking about the 63mm Fuji lens. Please proof with raw files why the lens did not satisfy you.
Thx.
-
Sorry I have no idea what you are talking about.
A 'bad' adapter might be too loose, the two mounts not parallel, slightly too short or too long or the inside not very matt black and light absorbing.
Now what was the problem with the Nikon-Fuji Fotodiox adapter that you did not get 'the IQ' of the Otus lenses, that you expected.
Please upload raw file to see the effects.
Same with the talking about the 63mm Fuji lens. Please proof with raw files why the lens did not satisfy you.
Thx.
I have done my best to describe about the adapter, etc. I can't help it if you don't know what I am talking about. Any time that we vary a mount via an adapter, there are consequences. That's my point and all i have to say here.
-
Hello,
here is a RAW conversion made with the new Lightroom. 100% like the same area some threads before...
No sharpening. ISO100, 120mm Lens, same mosaic like Raw Therapee
-
Sorry I also don't get it. An adapter works or it doesn't.
As long as there is no technical fault ( wrong measurements ) I don't get what your IQ problem is. (Except that FF lenses might just be not good enough for the larger sensor.)
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
Hello,
here is a RAW conversion made with the new Lightroom. 100% like the same area some threads before...
No sharpening. ISO100, 120mm Lens, same mosaic like Raw Therapee
Moiré will be allways there on pixel level on the sensor matrix combined with a sharp lens...
The good thing is it will be on the 50MP level so in the detail.
The photo looks good since you did not need sharpening at all.
You need photoshop or whatever to fix it.
Or do more if you do not like the octagonal...
-
Sorry I also don't get it. An adapter works or it doesn't.
As long as there is no technical fault ( wrong measurements ) I don't get what your IQ problem is. (Except that FF lenses might just be not good enough for the larger sensor.)
+1
it is just a tube, so the only thing that can happen is that it is not straight; then you have some defocussed areas.
or you cannot reach infinity. Since you are into macro that will not be an issue.
It does not change anything on the side of the optics used.
-
All I know is that in my experience with many adapters over the years, is that some are made better than others, some twist, bend, warp, etc. and any anomaly affects the lens. In my case, the Otus lenses clearly are up to the task of the GFX. So, all I am saying is that I personally did not like the way the GFX (adapter, sensor, camera - whatever could be the reason) worked with alternative (non-Fuji) lenses. That is all I know or cared about: how did it work for me. Check it out for yourselves. It may be fine for you. And, as I pointed out earlier, some of it could be the nature of the raw GFX files for all I know. Or, it could well be a combination of factors. Some of you, please check it out and report what you find. I have reported, returned my GFX, and am moving on to other concerns, but am interested what others turn up.
-
I had a complete kit of the Otus lenses (28, 55 & 85) and tried them all of the GFX. While the center resolution met expectations, the quality quickly degrades towards the edges. I can't speak for everyone, but the reason I invested in this kit was to shoot wide open, not stopped down to avoid vignetting.
Long story short, I sold my Otus kit as I don't plan to return to the 35mm format given the recent entries by Fuji and Hasselblad.
-
I am quite interested in this discussion, since I have ordered the Fuji GFX and Fotodiox Nikon adapter. I have the Zeiss Nikon mount 55mm Otus and 135 APO. I use these lenses with a Novoflex adapter on my Sony A7RII with outstanding results, and hope they will work on the Fuji. (I can't focus them as reliably or well on a D810, which has great dynamic range but what I consider to be woefully deficient manual focusing.)
I agree fully that adapters matter. Hopefully Novoflex will make some for the Fuji. At the same time, while I am hopeful I also don't assume that the Zeiss 55 and 135 will work to full quality on the Fuji, good adapter or not. They certainly appear to have the resolution to do so, but weren't designed for the larger sensor.
So I am very interested to see whether they will work to full speed, and if not whether it is an artifact of the Fotodiox adapter or instead the lenses themselves when mounted to the larger sensor. Any further thoughts would be welcome!
-
Just off the top of my head, but the 35mm lenses were not designed to cover a larger sensor and typically degrade by in sharpness and vignetting towards the edges. This will just be more pronounced on the larger sensor area. You can crop away these extreme edges, but then you are just throwing away pixels because of the lens.
-
Moiré will be always there on pixel level on the sensor matrix combined with a sharp lens...
And even more with the small microlenses and thus the lower-than-100% fill factor.
Jim
-
Just off the top of my head, but the 35mm lenses were not designed to cover a larger sensor and typically degrade by in sharpness and vignetting towards the edges. This will just be more pronounced on the larger sensor area. You can crop away these extreme edges, but then you are just throwing away pixels because of the lens.
I love square photographs. The GFX cropped to 1:1 is a 38MP sensor. The diagonal of a 33x33mm and a 24x36mm sensor aren't that different. That is why I retain hope.
Jim
-
Hi Jim,
Imaging Resource now has Studio Scene shots. Looks pretty good to me and the 63 mm lens at f/8 looks very sharp to me. Moiré is all around in the expected places.
Best regards
Erik
And even more with the small microlenses and thus the lower-than-100% fill factor.
Jim
-
Hello,
Does anybody has a comparision between the 63mm and zoom lens from Fuji? The zoom have to be not so good -this is physics -but how much?
-
I have the zoom and it is very good but can't compare to the 63mm as mine is back ordered.
Images compare well to those taken with other MF zooms like the ones from P1.
Paul Caldwell
-
So I spent yesterday shooting with the GFX. FMy friends at Lensprotogo got one, and we did 3 shoots, a model in the studio, headshots and environmental portraits, and food, and shot both with my h5x/credo60 and the Fuji. My first impressions, thinking about, "Would this fit in my workflow, would I buy it, what would it replace?" etc."
Trying to think about it in the context of my work that I shoot the H5X for (lit environmental portrait, studio portraits and food):
- It's a fun camera, the AF and high ISO were nice (the iso 3200 files look really clean, comparable to my D5). I don't have a ton of experience with this sensor for comparison though, but it was about what I expected. I haven't really dug into post on the files yet, but first impressions are really good.
- The grip area felt constrictingly small for my right hand/thumb area. They tried to jam a lot in that area where your thumb rests, and though I'm sure I'd get used to it, there was a lot of unintentional button pushing. However, the ability to push the command dials in and change settings that way was really nice.
- The touch screen wasn't as responsive as I'd hoped, nowhere near the iphone, D5 or Credos in responsiveness or performance.
- I'd never shot EVF before yesterday, and while the performance of it was good, the user experience to me was weird. I'm sure I'd get used to it do a degree, but there was a surprising blackout in between shots. I'd take a photo, and the camera would basically pause while processing (with the EVF I expected the screen to be always on). We ended up turning off image review, because if you try and shoot quickly with your eye to the finder, the shot you just took will pop up. It was annoying there was no option to have review set to on for the LCD only. I.e. I shoot, take my eye away form the finder and see it on the back LCD, as you might on a OVF camera.
- The size and weight are fantastic, small and quiet, especially comparing it for food work, with the 90mm it's way, way lighter than the hassy and the 120mm.
Mike from Lenspro will have more on their blog soon.
-Doug
-
Thickness accuracy of adapters is crucial when using them with IF lenses. I've just started testing a Rokinon SP/XP 14mm/2.4 (manual focus for Canon EF) using 2 adapters on a Sony A7R2. A Metabones IV which reaches infinity focus well before the stop, and a Sigma MC-11 which is almost spot on for infinity/stop. When focusing on infinity in the center of the lens the corners of images using the Metabones are just awful, smeared and completely unusable, while the same test using the Sigma yields very usable results.
Is this the kind of issue you saw in your files Michael? Do you know if the lens reached infinity focus before the stop or were you just testing at closer distances?
Regards
-
Is this the kind of issue you saw in your files Michael? Do you know if the lens reached infinity focus before the stop or were you just testing at closer distances?
Regards
I was not concerned with infinity, but only close-up. My problem was that I was not happy with the IQ I got from the lenses I use the most. It is a crap-shoot. Sometimes adapters and extensions work well; sometimes they don't. Perhaps our techsperts could explain why. I only know whether it is better than what I am used to or as good. If it is less good, then I can't use that lens/adapter combination on a camera. With the GFX, I was not satisfied with what I saw. But this is not to say you would not be. I am very fussy.
-
On the subject of the blackout, I can't understand why some cameras seem to have this. On Mine the black out is no different than the X-T2, .5 of a second? Basically the time it takes to blink your eye. I have the image preview off. Using a fast card Lexar 1000x which is not the fastest. For me what blackout there is is not a problem. Not a studio shooter however. But for landscape, attempting a pano with a long blackout, can be quite difficult.
Edit: the blackout is longer with the 120mm than the 32-64. With the 120mm about 1 second or so it seems, which is slower than the 32-64.
I also use the P1 backs, and the LCD to me is not an issue, in fact I have been impressed with it so far. The screen is much faster on zooming than my P1 is (all my P1's over the years), and continues to be fast as you fill up the card. P1 tends to pixelate on zooms over time especially as the card starts to fill up. The screen works like the iPhone screen for zooming, in that you can pinch it in to decrease zoom and pinch out for zoom. However, if you have the camera setup for image review, 1.5 seconds, you can't use the LCD for zooming here, as you can with a P1 back. This mean you constantly need to hit the play button to see the image. A simple thing Fuji might fix with firmware in the future.
The grip will be better if the vertical grip is added, but that just adds more weight. The Q button is in the way for me as I constantly hit it with my thumb, could have been better located. The play button, also could have been put somewhere else, as you need to move the camera to see it unlike the X series. I guess over time I will get used to the location.
To me the image playback zooms in over 100%, and this causes you to have to zoom back on each image to really get a true idea of focus. Not sure if you can set the zoom to stop at a certain amount but I need to check on this. But the amount of zoom you get when double tap the screen is too much and the image will look out of focus (at least to me). Scrolling with a swipe is very quick also.
When previewing an image, you tend to move your hand in front of the EVF, and thus the LCD will turn off, so when using the LCD, I will turn off the EVF as an option.
Personally love having an aperture ring on my lenses again.
Paul Caldwell
-
I had a complete kit of the Otus lenses (28, 55 & 85) and tried them all of the GFX. While the center resolution met expectations, the quality quickly degrades towards the edges. I can't speak for everyone, but the reason I invested in this kit was to shoot wide open, not stopped down to avoid vignetting.
Long story short, I sold my Otus kit as I don't plan to return to the 35mm format given the recent entries by Fuji and Hasselblad.
This is exactly what I thought would happen. As good as the Otis lenses are the image circle just doesn't seem large enough to keep fine detail out to the edges.
Victor
-
GFX + 63mm
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3907/33304624676_d8f47beeaa_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SK1UAQ)DSCF0039-1 (https://flic.kr/p/SK1UAQ) by AHMED GENCAL (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ahmedgencal/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2901/33193313572_d38c9202b2_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SzbpFS)DSCF0016-1 (https://flic.kr/p/SzbpFS) by AHMED GENCAL (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ahmedgencal/), on Flickr
-
This is exactly what I thought would happen. As good as the Otis lenses are the image circle just doesn't seem large enough to keep fine detail out to the edges.
I think that that may also have to do with the adapter one uses (and where in the image resolution is evaluated). Vignetting is of course something else to consider.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart..... I'm assuming that the adapter is flat (within .001mm) and that it allows the lens to reach infinity or beyond. If its not flat it should be easy to spot with a trained eye as the image will have line of focus variation. Not reaching infinity should be real easy to see. I've always kept shifting to a minimum with my LF lenses as to stay within the sweet spot of the image circle. Once beyond the image detail starts to suffer and its very difficult to get that back in post. I want my images to be sharp edge to edge..... I'm only speaking for myself.
Victor
-
On the subject of the blackout, I can't understand why some cameras seem to have this. On Mine the black out is no different than the X-T2, .5 of a second? Basically the time it takes to blink your eye. I have the image preview off. Using a fast card Lexar 1000x which is not the fastest. For me what blackout there is is not a problem. Not a studio shooter however. But for landscape, attempting a pano with a long blackout, can be quite difficult.
Edit: the blackout is longer with the 120mm than the 32-64. With the 120mm about 1 second or so it seems, which is slower than the 32-64.
I also use the P1 backs, and the LCD to me is not an issue, in fact I have been impressed with it so far. The screen is much faster on zooming than my P1 is (all my P1's over the years), and continues to be fast as you fill up the card. P1 tends to pixelate on zooms over time especially as the card starts to fill up. The screen works like the iPhone screen for zooming, in that you can pinch it in to decrease zoom and pinch out for zoom. However, if you have the camera setup for image review, 1.5 seconds, you can't use the LCD for zooming here, as you can with a P1 back. This mean you constantly need to hit the play button to see the image. A simple thing Fuji might fix with firmware in the future.
The grip will be better if the vertical grip is added, but that just adds more weight. The Q button is in the way for me as I constantly hit it with my thumb, could have been better located. The play button, also could have been put somewhere else, as you need to move the camera to see it unlike the X series. I guess over time I will get used to the location.
To me the image playback zooms in over 100%, and this causes you to have to zoom back on each image to really get a true idea of focus. Not sure if you can set the zoom to stop at a certain amount but I need to check on this. But the amount of zoom you get when double tap the screen is too much and the image will look out of focus (at least to me). Scrolling with a swipe is very quick also.
When previewing an image, you tend to move your hand in front of the EVF, and thus the LCD will turn off, so when using the LCD, I will turn off the EVF as an option.
Personally love having an aperture ring on my lenses again.
Paul Caldwell
My understanding is that the EVF blackout is attributable to the Sony 50MP sensor in the GFX. I tested the GFX and the EVF blackout is about .6 seconds with the zoom. It doesn't seem to matter whether the GFX is set to shoot just RAW or both RAW and JPEG. The X1D has an EVF blackout of about 1.1 seconds shooting just RAW. If the X1D is set to shoot both RAW and JPEG, the EVF is much longer. It's unclear whether the EVF blackout with the X1D is a firmware "issue" that can be improved over time. While the GFX is better on this score, for a photographer who is shooting in a way where he wants to be able to track the movement or gestures of the subject in real time, I would think both the GFX and the X1D are problematic.
I should underscore that EVF blackout is NOT the same thing as "shutter lag." I tested the X1D and the shutter lag was about 100 milliseconds compared to a Leica M9 at about 80 milliseconds.
-
I had a complete kit of the Otus lenses (28, 55 & 85) and tried them all of the GFX. While the center resolution met expectations, the quality quickly degrades towards the edges. I can't speak for everyone, but the reason I invested in this kit was to shoot wide open, not stopped down to avoid vignetting.
Long story short, I sold my Otus kit as I don't plan to return to the 35mm format given the recent entries by Fuji and Hasselblad.
I understand that you wanted to use them wide open, but do you know how the edge quality was when stopped down? f2.8?
I can imagine these lenses will not be good wide open on a larger sensor than FF. But the recent entries by Fuji and Hasselblad start @ f2.8
So a logical question is are they better than the Otus lenses ? @ F2.8
Then try to find a MF f1.4 28mm lens ( or even a f2.8 28mm lens )
Would be interesting to hear your experience in this.
-
I have a range of Mamiya 645 MF lenses. I would like to hear of anyone's experience using these lenses on the GFX with fotodioX adapter.
My primary use for this camera would be for landscapes focussed at infinity, but I would also take other types of photographs.
-
I was not concerned with infinity, but only close-up. My problem was that I was not happy with the IQ I got from the lenses I use the most. It is a crap-shoot. Sometimes adapters and extensions work well; sometimes they don't. Perhaps our techsperts could explain why. I only know whether it is better than what I am used to or as good. If it is less good, then I can't use that lens/adapter combination on a camera. With the GFX, I was not satisfied with what I saw. But this is not to say you would not be. I am very fussy.
It could be Michael, that the adapter was not stiff enough to support the lens and ensure the optical axis was perfectly straight from the front of the lens to the sensor. Fuji did extensive development on the GF lens mount to ensure requisite rigidity as only a very, very minor deviation would impact image quality. Acc. to Fuji, the DOF of a light ray at f/2 is from the front to the back of the sensor is 10 microns, so they have to engineer tolerances to the micron level.
This is one of my principle concerns with 3rd party adapters; will be they provide the requisite rigidity and mounting stiffness that was desinge into the camera body or the Fuji-developed adapters?
Just food for thought.
-
It could be Michael, that the adapter was not stiff enough to support the lens and ensure the optical axis was perfectly straight from the front of the lens to the sensor. Fuji did extensive development on the GF lens mount to ensure requisite rigidity as only a very, very minor deviation would impact image quality. Acc. to Fuji, the DOF of a light ray at f/2 is from the front to the back of the sensor is 10 microns, so they have to engineer tolerances to the micron level.
This is one of my principle concerns with 3rd party adapters; will be they provide the requisite rigidity and mounting stiffness that was desinge into the camera body or the Fuji-developed adapters?
Just food for thought.
Absolutely. I have a whole box of adapters that prove this. IMO, it was a combination of factors, like a perfect storm, which resulted in images less useful to me than those from my Nikon D810. I mentioned that often Fotodiox is first out with adapters, but that they vary in quality, quite a bit. I am sure that many of these concerns will be addressed by Fuji and better adapters. I could go on and on, but many GFX folks resent this and now that I don't have one, it may not be well received. And I have given my rough overview, with the proviso that I don't know all of what the problem is, just that I don't (at this point) come out ahead in the image department with this camera when using non-Fuji lenses. And I did not find the lenses made by Fuji for the GFX that interesting for my work. I did not have the zoom, but zooms (in my experience) are less corrected, in general. I feel the GFX is a good camera for a technical camera and I liked what I saw when I put it on the Novoflex BALPRO and (via a Nikon>GFX adapter) on the Cambo Actus.
The legendary Voigtlander 125mm APO-Lanthar did OK on the adapter, if that is of interest.
-
Absolutely. I have a whole box of adapters that prove this. IMO, it was a combination of factors, like a perfect storm, which resulted in images less useful to me than those from my Nikon D810. I mentioned that often Fotodiox is first out with adapters, but that they vary in quality, quite a bit. I am sure that many of these concerns will be addressed by Fuji and better adapters. I could go on and on, but many GFX folks resent this and now that I don't have one, it may not be well received. <SNIP>
And this is the fundamental issue with the folks on many photography forums. Folks get so caught up requiring validation of their choice of their favorite brands that they get upset when they read examples of how a camera may not meet another customer's requirements. What this is, is a fundamental lack of understanding that each customers needs, while they may be different from others, are all still valid.
Fortunately, the camera manufacturer market understands this, though, which is why we have literally an embarassment of riches in photographic tools these days.
Cheers.
-
Hello Paul,
Thank you. Could you show us a 100% picture? Only a cutout is needfully. This would be cool.
Thank you.
cyron
I have the zoom and it is very good but can't compare to the 63mm as mine is back ordered.
Images compare well to those taken with other MF zooms like the ones from P1.
Paul Caldwell
-
....Using a fast card Lexar 1000x which is not the fastest. For me what blackout there is is not a problem. Not a studio shooter however. .....
I made a similar experience with my XT2. The "Blackout" in die finder is ways longer if I use an Sandisk Extreme (60MB/s) and a Lexar 2000x (300MB/s). There is a big "Blackout" with the slower card. With the lexar there is no Backout.
I think with 50 Mpix of the GFX this problem is much more noticeable.
Because i had only a small time with the GFX i had not enough time to watch on this point.
-
I made a similar experience with my XT2. The "Blackout" in die finder is ways longer if I use an Sandisk Extreme (60MB/s) and a Lexar 2000x (300MB/s). There is a big "Blackout" with the slower card. With the lexar there is no Backout.
I think with 50 Mpix of the GFX this problem is much more noticeable.
Because i had only a small time with the GFX i had not enough time to watch on this point.
The blackout time is based on how fast the sensor can read out the data....Fuji made the blackout time as short as they possibly could. I noticed the blackout time when demoing the camera, but personally find that it does not pose any practical problem whatsoever with how I, or most photographers, would actually use the camera and/or the situations it would be used in. The blackout time is less time than it takes to wind the film and re-cock the shutter on a Hasselblad 501-series film camera, and many, many pros got their work done with with a Hassy for many, many years.
-
The blackout time is based on how fast the sensor can read out the data....Fuji made the blackout time as short as they possibly could. I noticed the blackout time when demoing the camera, but personally find that it does not pose any practical problem whatsoever with how I, or most photographers, would actually use the camera and/or the situations it would be used in. The blackout time is less time than it takes to wind the film and re-cock the shutter on a Hasselblad 501-series film camera, and many, many pros got their work done with with a Hassy for many, many years.
Not to mention that you couldn't see anything until the film was wound because of the non-instant-return mirror.
But we demand more of our cameras now. I thought the Hassy H2D-39 was OK in the studio for portraits until I started going back and forth between it and a D3. And the D5 is even faster to AF, and faster to advance. You have to turn your strobes way down to get them to recycle fast enough to keep up.
Jim
-
Not to mention that you couldn't see anything until the film was wound because of the non-instant-return mirror.
But we demand more of our cameras now. I thought the Hassy H2D-39 was OK in the studio for portraits until I started going back and forth between it and a D3. And the D5 is even faster to AF, and faster to advance. You have to turn your strobes way down to get them to recycle fast enough to keep up.
Jim
Perhaps we demand more of our cameras now simply because of the specs they provide. I used to deal with spec-chasing in a similar sense back when I rode sport bikes competitively. Guys would rush out to buy the latest, greatest 600cc sportbike based on specs determined by a lap around Willow Springs Raceway, only to get their doors blown off at the race track by an experienced motorcycle racer on a stock Kawasaki 250 Ninja. They didn't understand why they were getting their doors blown off riding a 110+ bhp bike by a guy riding a bike with 27 bhp. Of course, what it came down to had virtually nothing to do with specs and everything to do with knowing how to ride. Specs may sell cycle magazines and sport bikes, but they don't have a lot to do with practicality in the real world. Skill, OTOH, does matter in the real world.
My point was more that I don't think that for the uses that this camera will primarily be used for: portraiture, editorial/advertising/commerical, architectural and landscape, etc. that the blackout time poses any practical issues for the photographers it was intended for. The GFX isn't, and wasn't intended to be, a "decisive moment" camera, that's the purview of an X100F or a Leica M. It wasn't designed to be a PJ camera like a Canon 1-D or Nikon D-series, either. But it will do things those other cameras can't. Moreover, I think it's good to slow down a little bit, be a bit more deliberative with one's photography. It certainly has helped mine.
-
The blackout time is based on how fast the sensor can read out the data....Fuji made the blackout time as short as they possibly could. I noticed the blackout time when demoing the camera, but personally find that it does not pose any practical problem whatsoever with how I, or most photographers, would actually use the camera and/or the situations it would be used in. The blackout time is less time than it takes to wind the film and re-cock the shutter on a Hasselblad 501-series film camera, and many, many pros got their work done with with a Hassy for many, many years.
Right...lets stay in the 70's a little longer.
-
There's no perfect camera, clearly. I shoot H5X and D5. I wanted to love the Fuji, but it just doesn't solve a problem for me, in fact, for each one it solves (high ISO, multiple AF points, lighter, price), it creates new ones (no c1 support, no leaf shutters, viewfinder blackout). "The blackout time is less than it takes to wind the film and re-cock the shutter..." OK, sure. But I at least then can see, I'm continuing the conversation with my subject, not wondering what I'm missing. Again, for me, much of what I shoot is action/reaction - action/response. If I can't see the action (even if I don't get a photo of it), I can't create a response.
-Doug
-
There's no perfect camera, clearly. I shoot H5X and D5. I wanted to love the Fuji, but it just doesn't solve a problem for me, in fact, for each one it solves (high ISO, multiple AF points, lighter, price), it creates new ones (no c1 support, no leaf shutters, viewfinder blackout). "The blackout time is less than it takes to wind the film and re-cock the shutter..." OK, sure. But I at least then can see, I'm continuing the conversation with my subject, not wondering what I'm missing. Again, for me, much of what I shoot is action/reaction - action/response. If I can't see the action (even if I don't get a photo of it), I can't create a response.
-Doug
Well, the GFX is likely not a value proposition for you, then, given your requirements. No worries. Horses for courses.
-
Here is a very interesting article about the thickness of the sensor glass, which might affect mounting non-Fuji lenses on the GFX. I found it very worthwhile.
The Glass in the Path: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses
https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/the-glass-in-the-path-sensor-stacks-and-adapted-lens
-
Hi Michael,
A very good article, but it doesn't discuss the position of the cover glass, only the thickness.
Best regards
Erik
Here is a very interesting article about the thickness of the sensor glass, which might affect mounting non-Fuji lenses on the GFX. I found it very worthwhile.
The Glass in the Path: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses
https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/the-glass-in-the-path-sensor-stacks-and-adapted-lens
-
A few side by sides, showing a bit of the DR of the Fuji. I am saw similar range when I used the IQ250 and 150, but the shadow details and color retention from the Fuji are very impressive. ISO200, 120mm lens.
Image is from a 5 part pano, (images taken vertically). I prefer to shoot panos without the need for exposure bracketing as the bracketing just added to the process.
Paul Caldwell
-
Hi Paul,
Happy to hear you are happy with your GFX.
Best regards
Erik
A few side by sides, showing a bit of the DR of the Fuji. I am saw similar range when I used the IQ250 and 150, but the shadow details and color retention from the Fuji are very impressive. ISO200, 120mm lens.
Image is from a 5 part pano, (images taken vertically). I prefer to shoot panos without the need for exposure bracketing as the bracketing just added to the process.
Paul Caldwell
-
Some interesting observation on bokeh difference: leaf shutter vs focal Plane shutter..
https://photographylife.com/fuji-gfx-50s-vs-hasselblad-x1d-50c/#more-141571
Even wide open the unsharp highlights are not round with a leaf shutter
-
Some interesting observation on bokeh difference: leaf shutter vs focal Plane shutter..
https://photographylife.com/fuji-gfx-50s-vs-hasselblad-x1d-50c/#more-141571
Even wide open the unsharp highlights are not round with a leaf shutter
Thx for the link, very interesting read.
The UI and the FM of the Hasselblad seam to be a nightmare.
-
Some interesting observation on bokeh difference: leaf shutter vs focal Plane shutter..
https://photographylife.com/fuji-gfx-50s-vs-hasselblad-x1d-50c/#more-141571
Even wide open the unsharp highlights are not round with a leaf shutter
It's interesting to see the difference (or lack of) between the X1D and the X-T2 portraits, at least at small sizes.
-
Some interesting observation on bokeh difference: leaf shutter vs focal Plane shutter..
https://photographylife.com/fuji-gfx-50s-vs-hasselblad-x1d-50c/#more-141571
Even wide open the unsharp highlights are not round with a leaf shutter
With continuous lighting, I would expect the bokeh to vary with shutter speed. For slow enough shutter speeds, the bokeh should be similar to a FP shutter. For every lens and every wide-ish f-stop, here is probably some shutter speed that provides a psudo-apodization. Anybody tested for this?
Jim
-
With continuous lighting, I would expect the bokeh to vary with shutter speed. For slow enough shutter speeds, the bokeh should be similar to a FP shutter. For every lens and every wide-ish f-stop, here is probably some shutter speed that provides a psudo-apodization. Anybody tested for this?
Jim
so exposure (sensor saturation) is noticeably different then for a given fixed aperture and exposure time between shutter modes... how nice
-
so exposure (sensor saturation) is noticeably different then for a given fixed aperture and exposure time between shutter modes... how nice
No, that's not what Jim is suggesting. It is the different shape of the shutter blades and the aperture blades that are expected to change the character of the bokeh, depending on exposure time.
Cheers,
Bart
-
No, that's not what Jim is suggesting. It is the different shape of the shutter blades and the aperture blades that are expected to change the character of the bokeh, depending on exposure time.
What Bart said. In a apodized lens, the center rays are less attenuated than the peripheral ones, giving, effectively, a feathered edge to the aperture. In a leaf-shutter lens, the center rays hit the sensor for a greater length of time than the peripheral ones. At some shutter speed and aperture, the effect might be similar.
By the way, on the Sony a7RII, the bokeh of the mechanical and EFCS shutters are slightly different at some apertures and shutter speeds because the shadow of the mechanical shutter is somewhat diffuse because it lies in a different plane than the sensor surface.
Jim