| X1D | 6296 | 14% advantage for the GFX |
| Nikon D850 | 5512 |
| X1D | 1915 | 19% advantage to X1D |
| D850 | 1614 |
| X1D | 89 |
| D850 | 86 |
There was a discussion thread discussing observable IQ difference between X1D and D850.
Answering that kind of question is a bit hard, because any comparison is easily getting an apples to oranges comparison. To get a valid comparison we need:
- Shoot the same subject
- In the same light
- use comparable lenses
- Develop identically
- Shoot tripod
- Be able to go back and repeat
DPReview published a good test of the Fuji GFX and include some comparisons with several 24x36 cameras.
Erik,
That is a nice and well done comparison, but one variable that is not well controlled is lens quality. Do you know what lenses were used on each camera? In the DpReview of the GFX they compared its IQ to that of several full frame dSLRs. Not surprisingly, the GFX generally came out on top but they noted the following in a footnote:
"** The performance of your lens may have more to do with ultimate resolution than body itself. "
Regards,
Bill
Erik,
You chose a good picture, the Fuji shows a nice area of realistic vegetation, the 35mm shot shows digital mush.
Look at it for a while, zoom it a bit, you will see what I mean, there's a notable difference in texture preservation.
Judging by the image alone, the Fuji is one whole class camera above the 35mm and well worth the difference in price, at least to nature shooters.
Re. the nyquist cutoff and after mtf, this will give a measure of the aliasing and false detail one can expect. As we all know false detail is an unavoidable consequence of sampling.
Edmund
On the other hand, I was shooting for 48 years, and I still don't have a a really critical 100x150 cm print hanging on any wall...
Over the past decade we have seen a huge uptick in interest among our customers for making prints of this size or larger. Factors include:
- The increased ease of printing large vs past decades
- The decreased price of printing large vs past decades
- Increased ability to capture images that have enough resolution* for printing large vs past decades
- Changing expectations of art buyers vs past decades
- New models for selling art vs past decades
- Desire to differentiate and stand out from an increasingly crowded field of photographers
Large prints don't just look impressive. They can tell a different story than a smaller print. I wrote a bit about this here (https://www.getdpi.com/wp/2016/01/what-can-you-do-with-100mp/).
Expectations of both photographers and clients (of varying types) change over time. In 1990 (http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1990-09-30/features/1990273133_1_horizontal-resolution-image-resolution-32-inch) a good 32" TV set cost 2 grand and none of my friends had something like that. Now, a 40+ inch (1 meter) TV at home is like having a microwave; not everyone has one, but it's stranger to find it absent then present. The prices came down, the ease of using them went up, technology and content arrived that better leveraged larger presentation sizes. It's not a perfect analogue of course, but it is similar.
When I started 10 years ago if a client said they wanted to "print big" they generally meant something like 30" x 20" (~75cm on long side). Now when a client says they want to "print big" they generally mean something like 40" x 60" (~150cm on long side) or even larger. I just placed an order for three pieces of my terra nudum artwork for a gallery show. They are 1 meter square and I would have gone considerably larger except this was the largest size I could get shipped via FedEx (with appropriate box/padding) and the specifics of the order made freight-shipping prohibitive. I can't wait to see them!
There was a discussion thread discussing observable IQ difference between X1D and D850.
Answering that kind of question is a bit hard, because any comparison is easily getting an apples to oranges comparison. To get a valid comparison we need:
- Shoot the same subject
- In the same light
- use comparable lenses
- Develop identically
- Shoot tripod
- Be able to go back and repeat
DPReview published a good test of the Fuji GFX and include some comparisons with several 24x36 cameras.
Below is an image, developed in Lightroom with no sharpening or noise reduction and resized to 100 cm picture height at 180 PPI and identically sharpened in Focus Magic:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/TMP/GFXvsA7rII.jpg)
Over the past decade we have seen a huge uptick in interest among our customers for making prints of this size or larger. Factors include:
- The increased ease of printing large vs past decades
- The decreased price of printing large vs past decades
- Increased ability to capture images that have enough resolution* for printing large vs past decades
- Changing expectations of art buyers vs past decades
- New models for selling art vs past decades
- Desire to differentiate and stand out from an increasingly crowded field of photographers
Large prints don't just look impressive. They can tell a different story than a smaller print. I wrote a bit about this here (https://www.getdpi.com/wp/2016/01/what-can-you-do-with-100mp/).
Expectations of both photographers and clients (of varying types) change over time. In 1990 (http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1990-09-30/features/1990273133_1_horizontal-resolution-image-resolution-32-inch) a good 32" TV set cost 2 grand and none of my friends had something like that. Now, a 40+ inch (1 meter) TV at home is like having a microwave; not everyone has one, but it's stranger to find it absent then present. The prices came down, the ease of using them went up, technology and content arrived that better leveraged larger presentation sizes. It's not a perfect analogue of course, but it is similar.
When I started 10 years ago if a client said they wanted to "print big" they generally meant something like 30" x 20" (~75cm on long side). Now when a client says they want to "print big" they generally mean something like 40" x 60" (~150cm on long side) or even larger. I just placed an order for three pieces of my terra nudum artwork for a gallery show. They are 1 meter square and I would have gone considerably larger except this was the largest size I could get shipped via FedEx (with appropriate box/padding) and the specifics of the order made freight-shipping prohibitive. I can't wait to see them!
*Of course you can print a grainy 35mm neg to 4 meters if you want. Anything can print any size, especially if you restrict viewing distance (as with a billboard ad). Here I mean "and still look good when viewed close up".
One thing that hasn't changed is the wall space that folks have.
A couple of things to consider. The way that DPR does these outside tests, atmospheric thermal turbulence is not controlled for. Neither is focus. When I do tests like these, I try to find nearly equivalent lenses, like the Otus 55 and Otus 85. Of all the issues, I think the air is probably the most significant.
I agree with Edmund about the grass.
When I tested those two lenses and cameras, I found a greater difference in the corners:
https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-50s/sony-90mm-macro-on-the-a7rii-fuji-120mm-macro-on-the-gfx-50s-corner/
Jim
US House Sizes:
(https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/59e0ecdd1f848906058b5034-750-515.png)
I suspect that the chart for the top 1% and top 10% are even steeper.
This shows a 12.5% increase in area over 20 years, which is 6% linear increase.
US House Sizes:
(https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/59e0ecdd1f848906058b5034-750-515.png)
I suspect that the chart for the top 1% and top 10% are even steeper.
Point taken, though it's a 50% increase over 40 years (22% linear) which seems noteworthy. And that's median. As I said, I expect the trend is much larger among the demographic that could afford to buy the work of a photographer selling a 1.5 meter print.
Also I think it's not unreasonable to assume that as the total space increases the "discretionary" amount of space in which you might hang large prints increases at a faster rate. I don't expect a lot of people would hang large art prints in their laundry room, garage, or children's bedroom, but would hang large art prints in their dining room; it seems likely that a home that is 50% larger has a dining room more than 50% larger (or has a dining room vs not having a dining room). I could be wrong about that; I'm definitely not a housing expert; my wife and I's apartment is 800 square feet; a large improvement from the 240 square feet apartment when I was single. Still, I hung four 4 foot by 2 foot prints in that 240 square foot apartment, which, after accounting for the window and tall bookshelf, was nearly 100% use of the walls!
My point isn't that all, or even most, prints are made 2 meters large; that is just not the case. My point is that we've seen a large uptick in interest in printing that size (or larger), and a slow redefinition of what "printing large" means. As best I can tell this interest skews more toward younger shooters (or older shooters who started photography later in life). I think people tend to sell what they show, so if someone hasn't previously sold large prints, then they won't show or promote big prints, so they are less likely to sell large prints in the future. Obviously, I have no idea if that applies to you; I'm only speaking here about my experience working with US-based P1 clients over the last decade.
this is a strange discussion.....most HUGE prints sold today are from 20-40mpix systems or film from all different sizes....so the idea that we need more mpix just isnt true.....i completely agree that a 33x44 100mpix sensor will be nice but i honestly feel that 40-50 pix is a very nice number with plenty of information to crop and still manageable enough.....i am much more interested in DR, resolution and color are pretty incredible with existing a7rIII, d850, gfx, x1d....
on a side note: a good friend just had a 50x60 gallery quality made from 8x10 negative, this is the first of an ongoing series from everything incl 6x7, 8x10 and digital (d850).....all formats look different but there is no problem with either in terms of resolution.....
also: these prints are not cheap.....i doubt there are a lot of people just popping those out for the fun of it.....
| (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/Aliasing/20150103-CF046029_vsmall.jpg) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/Aliasing/20150103-_DSC6682_vsmall.jpg) |
this is a strange discussion.....most HUGE prints sold today are from 20-40mpix systems or film from all different sizes....so the idea that we need more mpix just isnt true.....i completely agree that a 33x44 100mpix sensor will be nice but i honestly feel that 40-50 pix is a very nice number with plenty of information to crop and still manageable enough.....i am much more interested in DR, resolution and color are pretty incredible with existing a7rIII, d850, gfx, x1d....
on a side note: a good friend just had a 50x60 gallery quality made from 8x10 negative, this is the first of an ongoing series from everything incl 6x7, 8x10 and digital (d850).....all formats look different but there is no problem with either in terms of resolution.....
also: these prints are not cheap.....i doubt there are a lot of people just popping those out for the fun of it.....
Hi Erik, those artefacts (interference patterns) you’re showing only tell half of the story. One would be able to create exactly the opposite results with image content consisting of the same pixel pitch as with the 100Mpix sensor. Then the 100Mpix sensor creates all the artefacts while the 50 Mpix sensor of the X1D and GFX does not.
It’s not always about theory it’s about what works for you.
+1 except I would modify it to: "It's almost never about theory. It's about what works for you."
O learned Phase rep, pray tell us, did Phase also get some optimisations with the 50c chip?
Edmund
According to this ... DR Fuji GFX vs. P1 Q250 (http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20GFX%2050S,Phase%20One%20IQ250)
... at least they seem to have squeezed more DR out of the same sensor .. or is there a problem with real ISO vs ISO setting??
*Of course you can print a grainy 35mm neg to 4 meters if you want. Anything can print any size, especially if you restrict viewing distance (as with a billboard ad). Here I mean "and still look good when viewed close up".
I don't think so. The Phase curves are shifted to the right, ? something to do with ISO amplification. The base ISO for the Fuji is 11.9 stops at ISO 100 and the Phase One is 11.92 stops at ISO 200. No significant difference in DR. However, there is a significant difference in price. A quick check on the web indicates that the P1 is US $35,000, whereas the Fuji is $5850. IMHO, the P1 is vastly overpriced.
Regards,
Bill
I don't think so. The Phase curves are shifted to the right, ? something to do with ISO amplification. The base ISO for the Fuji is 11.9 stops at ISO 100 and the Phase One is 11.92 stops at ISO 200. No significant difference in DR. However, there is a significant difference in price. A quick check on the web indicates that the P1 is US $35,000, whereas the Fuji is $5850. IMHO, the P1 is vastly overpriced.
Regards,
Bill
According to this ... DR Fuji GFX vs. P1 Q250 (http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20GFX%2050S,Phase%20One%20IQ250)
... at least they seem to have squeezed more DR out of the same sensor .. or is there a problem with real ISO vs ISO setting??
I don't think so. The Phase curves are shifted to the right, ? something to do with ISO amplification. The base ISO for the Fuji is 11.9 stops at ISO 100 and the Phase One is 11.92 stops at ISO 200. No significant difference in DR. However, there is a significant difference in price. A quick check on the web indicates that the P1 is US $35,000, whereas the Fuji is $5850. IMHO, the P1 is vastly overpriced.
Regards,
Bill
Hi,
Being the OP, I would say this thread was intended to discuss the differences between 44x33 mm CMOS and 24x36 mm CMOS.
Not really stated, but the starting point was to compare the present generation of mirrorless DMF to best of breed 24x36 mm. It was also the idea of focusing on things observable or measurable.
The original posting indicated that:
- There was an observable difference between Sony A7rII and Fuji GFX in 40"x60", based on one of the few comparable images DP-review has published. This was expected.
- Comparing the Nikon D850 with the X1D, it was found that the X1D had a measurable advantage, like 20% linear scale. That was also expected.
- Some of the observed/measured advantage comes from the aspect ratio.
I would have expected lens quality to play a greater role than what the MTF calculations yielded. In part, that depended on that the lens used on the Nikon was quite good. The DPReview test chart has only slanted edges in the central part.
I would suggest that many posters under rate the importance of pixel size and pixel pitch. After all, it is the pixels that carry the information.
When 44x33 mm MFD goes 100MP, I would think we would see major improvement in image quality. It seems that both the X1D lenses and the GFX lenses are excellent designs. This assumption is based on the MTF data Hasselblad publishes for the lenses, Hasselblad's MTF data used to be reliable and on Jim Kasson's evaluation of Fuji lenses.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Bill,
Bill Claff's data use nominal ISO.
On older backs that DxO-mark has measured Phase One always overrated ISO by about one stop, probably in order to protect highlights.
That is probably what we see in the histogram on the Phase One DR is constant over 100 and 200 ISO.
Best regards
Erik
I would say the Fuji has a 1 to 2 generation advantage in crispness over its 35mm rivals in the vegetation images published, this may be due to Fuji's manipulation of the fill factor as much as the sensor size. So I think the Fuji is more like an 80MP 35mm camera.
It's NOT obvious Hassy or Phase are the same. We would benefit from creating a serious thread/forum to discuss image quality assessment. I think enough people here are interested.
Edmund
Hi Edmund,
I would agree with your description on the crispness of the grass. But, I would attribute it to two different factors:
Best regards
Erik
Not having used or tested the Hassy lenses for the X1D I can attest that the GFX lenses that I own are the sharpest I have seen using any of my layman tests. This includes any Otus lens that I have owned and all of my large format lenses ( Schneider Digitars ). The differences between my Digitar lenses and the GFX lenses is visible at 100% pixels but very subtle. So at 100% pixels some difference can be seen at best apertures (f5.6 for GFX, f8-10 for Digitars). Again, I want to stress these differences are visually very small. I print 40 inches long side all of the time..... would I see this difference? Never...... Hope this puts things into some perspective.
Victor