Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Jim Kasson on August 16, 2019, 02:15:37 pm
-
Since I started using the GFX 100, I've had a gnawing feeling growing about the GFX 50S and GFX 50R's small microlenses. I've collected some of my thinking here:
https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-50s/on-microlens-size-in-the-gfx-100-and-gfx-50r-s/
It now appears that the GFX 50x microlenses are even smaller than I'd originally thought, and there are downsides to that.
Has anyone else noticed that many GFX 50x photos on the web appear to be oversharpened, in spite of the fact that GFX 50x users are in general more photographically sophisticated than FF photographers.
Jim
-
I agree Jim, with Fuji's excellent glass once you start noticing the aliasing off the GFX 50x you can't stop yourself from seeing it in many images captured with good technique.
-
Since I started using the GFX 100, I've had a gnawing feeling growing about the GFX 50S and GFX 50R's small microlenses. I've collected some of my thinking here:
https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-50s/on-microlens-size-in-the-gfx-100-and-gfx-50r-s/
It now appears that the GFX 50x microlenses are even smaller than I'd originally thought, and there are downsides to that.
Has anyone else noticed that many GFX 50x photos on the web appear to be oversharpened, in spite of the fact that GFX 50x users are in general more photographically sophisticated than FF photographers.
Jim
Hi Jim,
I think that I have seen a lot of oversharpening, but he, who is without sin may throw the first stone...
On the other hand, I always felt the GFX was a system asking for a better sensor!
Best regards
Erik
-
Since I started using the GFX 100, I've had a gnawing feeling growing about the GFX 50S and GFX 50R's small microlenses. I've collected some of my thinking here:
https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-50s/on-microlens-size-in-the-gfx-100-and-gfx-50r-s/
It now appears that the GFX 50x microlenses are even smaller than I'd originally thought, and there are downsides to that.
Has anyone else noticed that many GFX 50x photos on the web appear to be oversharpened, in spite of the fact that GFX 50x users are in general more photographically sophisticated than FF photographers.
Jim
Wow! That's some assumption about FF users.
And the more I think about it, of larger sensor users too. What were you thinking?
Rob
-
Wow! That's some assumption about FF users.
And the more I think about it, of larger sensor users too. What were you thinking?
Most of the MF users who I see posting pictures are working pros, mostly commercial photographers. Maybe that's a function of where I hang out. I see fewer working pros in the FF areas that I frequent. I think that in general, working pros are more consistent and more skilled that run of the mill amateurs. That doesn't mean that all working pros have great skills. It certainly doesn't mean that all amateurs don't. I do see people who are not pros posting MF pictures, and those images seem to, on the whole, show about the same spread of skills that amateurs posting FF images show. I do see GFX 50x images that appear to be made with great lighting, expensive makeup, expensive-looking models, that appear oversharpened, but I don't have access to the full-res files, so I could be wrong there; maybe they are just amped up for the web.
Here's another thing that I think, but don't know for a fact, is true. The percentage of IQ4 users who are working pros is higher than the percentage of GFX 50S users.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of FF and MF photographers are full-time pros, but I don't have access to that information.
Jim
-
Jim, having had further thoughts about this, I think that it really comes back down to the old one about horses for courses.
As a once working-lifetime " working pro" it's clear to me that format is not key to care and attention to detail. Format, then with film, as today with the digital choices, is surely tailored to the concept of best tool: which tool (format) serves the job the best. I had a set of both various Nikons as I did Hasselblads. The choice of which to use was always informed by the end product and how to get there the best way all round. Sometimes, it didn't even require thought: instinct provided the answer.
In fact, using the small cameras demanded even more care in all departments, from framing to processing, which should not be read to imply a slackening off of care using larger film.
Rob
-
Jim, having had further thoughts about this, I think that it really comes back down to the old one about horses for courses.
As a once working-lifetime "working pro" it's clear to me that format is not key to care and attention to detail. Format, then with film, as today with the digital choices, is surely tailored to the concept of best tool: which tool (format) serves the job the best. I had a set of both various Nikons as I did Hasselblads. The choice of which to use was always informed by the end product and how to get there the best way all round. Sometimes, it didn't even require thought: instinct provided the answer.
In fact, using the small cameras demanded even more care in all departments, from framing to processing, which should not be read to imply a slackening off of care using larger film.
Rob
-
Jim, having had further thoughts about this, I think that it really comes back down to the old one about horses for courses.
As a once working-lifetime " working pro" it's clear to me that format is not key to care and attention to detail. Format, then with film, as today with the digital choices, is surely tailored to the concept of best tool: which tool (format) serves the job the best. I had a set of both various Nikons as I did Hasselblads. The choice of which to use was always informed by the end product and how to get there the best way all round. Sometimes, it didn't even require thought: instinct provided the answer.
In fact, using the small cameras demanded even more care in all departments, from framing to processing, which should not be read to imply a slackening off of care using larger film.
Rob
I don't disagree with any of that. My speculation was about user population. But it was just a speculation, and anecdotally founded at that, so it's not worth much.
Jim
-
I don't really know what you mean by microlens, but I'm not a gearhead. I don't do any sharpening in lightroom on the 50s. If it needs any sharpening, I do it in Photoshop. (I'm trying to teach myself Capture One.) I find the photos need very little sharpening with this camera. So far we have printed up to 40x30 and the prints have been amazing.
Too much on the internet is oversharpened/contrasted/saturated. It's easy to be seduced by sliders.
Sharon
-
Wow! That's some assumption about FF users.
And the more I think about it, of larger sensor users too. What were you thinking?
Rob
Jim used the words 'in general'. No need to find offence where none is intended.
-
I made the switch to the GFX 50s in February/March this year - and I've found it has about the same tendency to produce moirée as my previous PhaseOne P65+ back did. So I think this is not due to any microlens "issue" and depends on the resolution and fabric/texture and your working distance.
If you increase the resolution there may be a point where it's high enough to resolve things that might have otherwise ended up creating moiree - and vice versa.
-
... It's easy to be seduced by sliders.
Sharon
our addicted ;)
-
Here's another thing that I think, but don't know for a fact, is true. The percentage of IQ4 users who are working pros is higher than the percentage of GFX 50S users.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of FF and MF photographers are full-time pros, but I don't have access to that information.
Surly Phase One does know their market and same for Hasselblad and in a way they are telling you what percentage of their buyers are deriving most of their income from commercial photography. Just look at the ad's both companies put out - mostly they contain well heeled art photographers rather than commercial photographers shooting jobs.