Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Lust4Life on January 03, 2020, 10:53:22 am
-
FYI:
I have been shooting the GFX 50S since it came out primarily with their 23mm and the 32-64.
Landscapes as only topic.
Purchased the GFX 100 from Adorama just before Xmas and finally had some time this
week to do some critical testing against the 50S for landscapes.
Was looking forward to it improving my results after all of the "test reviews" I've read about it.
Ran my own tests of a landscape scene with the 100 against the 50S.
Tripod, same lens, identical SS and A on both cameras.
2 Second timer used.
All shot in RAW with the GFX 100 at 16 bits.
Shot of couple dozen identical frames on each of three different scenes.
MY conclusion: I shipped back the GFX 100 yesterday.
Reason:
1.) I saw NO improvement in Dmax, none! Also NO improvement of banding if I push the sliders too far trying to pull back skies.
2.) The GFX 100 was not as sharp at 100% as the 50S. Actually quite a difference.
Now, don't want to start a "Range War" here, just saying to be sure to run some serious real world test before you let the return period expire. That's all.
Not what I wanted, but not a big surprise either when you think about it. Jamming 102MP on the same size silicon as the 50S has got to give somewhere.
-
FYI:
I have been shooting the GFX 50S since it came out primarily with their 23mm and the 32-64.
Landscapes as only topic.
Purchased the GFX 100 from Adorama just before Xmas and finally had some time this
week to do some critical testing against the 50S for landscapes.
Was looking forward to it improving my results after all of the "test reviews" I've read about it.
Ran my own tests of a landscape scene with the 100 against the 50S.
Tripod, same lens, identical SS and A on both cameras.
2 Second timer used.
All shot in RAW with the GFX 100 at 16 bits.
Shot of couple dozen identical frames on each of three different scenes.
MY conclusion: I shipped back the GFX 100 yesterday.
Reason:
1.) I saw NO improvement in Dmax, none! Also NO improvement of banding if I push the sliders too far trying to pull back skies.
2.) The GFX 100 was not as sharp at 100% as the 50S. Actually quite a difference.
Now, don't want to start a "Range War" here, just saying to be sure to run some serious real world test before you let the return period expire. That's all.
Not what I wanted, but not a big surprise either when you think about it. Jamming 102MP on the same size silicon as the 50S has got to give somewhere.
You might take your next crack at the XT 150mp which would:
- drastically increase your Dmax/dynamic-range
- greatly increase the amount of detail captured (150mp vs 50mp; better glass)
- allow rise/fall/shift with all lenses
- mount directly to any AS compatible head without separate adapter
- provide true ETTR capture review
- natively rotate from horizontal to vertical without remounting
- elegantly mount a compendium (https://www.dtcommercialphoto.com/product/dt-dovetail-with-compendium-mount-for-the-phase-one-xt/) when desired
A landscaper's dream really.
All in a package smaller and lighter than the GFX100.
(https://phaseonext.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Size-Comparisons-XT-23HR-Vs-GFX100-23mm-1540x894.jpg) from PhaseOneXT.com (https://phaseonext.com/the-xt-is-smaller-and-lighter-than-you-think/)
We're glad to help facilitate you testing one if you'd like. Just be careful, as you're likely to fall in love. ;)
-
Hi Doug,
I have looked at it on line, and agree that the "Lust" factor is HIGH for me on that device BUT the reality is $$$$$$$$$$ delta puts it out of any contest against the GFX for me. I still have the H4D 60 that I'm thinking of picking up a 28mm and 100mm lens and bring it back to life!
Best to you,
Jack
-
Hi Doug,
I have looked at it on line, and agree that the "Lust" factor is HIGH for me on that device BUT the reality is $$$$$$$$$$ delta puts it out of any contest against the GFX for me. I still have the H4D 60 that I'm thinking of picking up a 28mm and 100mm lens and bring it back to life!
Best to you,
Jack
Upgrades from H4D 60 to XT are available :). That and selling your GFX only puts you a modest way toward an XT, but every bit helps. It could very well be the only landscape camera you need for the entirety of the 2020s.
If budget definitely can't stretch an IQ3 100mp on a 3rd party tech camera (e.g. Arca/Cambo/Alpa) is certainly not a bad option to consider, though in my (heavily biased) opinion and IQ4 XT is just in a league of its own. The frame-averaging alone is worth every penny (assuming you have that many pennies available of course).
In my (heavily biased) opinion, Hassy has not invested in the H platform over the last several years, so you shouldn't either; it's throwing good money after bad.
-
"In my (heavily biased) opinion, Hassy has not invested in the H platform over the last several years, so you shouldn't either; it's throwing good money after bad."
I agree completely - Hassy has lost the game on new gear - I can't remotely justify the X1DII on any foundation of consideration!
I built an interesting Excel spreadsheet comparing several different cameras you might find of merit - shoot me a PM if interested with your email and I'll send it to you.
Jack
-
"In my (heavily biased) opinion, Hassy has not invested in the H platform over the last several years, so you shouldn't either; it's throwing good money after bad."
I agree completely - Hassy has lost the game on new gear - I can't remotely justify the X1DII on any foundation of consideration!
I built an interesting Excel spreadsheet comparing several different cameras you might find of merit - shoot me a PM if interested with your email and I'll send it to you.
PM sent!
-
FYI:
I have been shooting the GFX 50S since it came out primarily with their 23mm and the 32-64.
Landscapes as only topic.
Purchased the GFX 100 from Adorama just before Xmas and finally had some time this
week to do some critical testing against the 50S for landscapes.
Was looking forward to it improving my results after all of the "test reviews" I've read about it.
Ran my own tests of a landscape scene with the 100 against the 50S.
Tripod, same lens, identical SS and A on both cameras.
2 Second timer used.
All shot in RAW with the GFX 100 at 16 bits.
Shot of couple dozen identical frames on each of three different scenes.
MY conclusion: I shipped back the GFX 100 yesterday.
Reason:
1.) I saw NO improvement in Dmax, none! Also NO improvement of banding if I push the sliders too far trying to pull back skies.
2.) The GFX 100 was not as sharp at 100% as the 50S. Actually quite a difference.
I don't know why you would expect an improvement in Dmax. I can't think of a single thing about the GFX 100 that would improve Dmax.
The two cameras aren't much different in sharpness:
https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/fujifilm-gfx-100-sharpness-compared-to-gfx-50s/
But the aliasing that plagues the GFX 50x is dramatically improved:
https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/fuji-gfx-100-vs-50s-sharpness-with-3d-subject/
https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/fuji-gfx-100-50r-aliasing-differences/
I've found that the more I use the GFX 100, the less tolerant I am of the GFX 50x aliasing artifacts.
Jim
-
Hi Jim,
I had hoped they "tweaked" the pipeline off the GFX 100 to give me just a wee bit more Dmax.
OK, so wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which fills up first logic failed me again!
The GFX 50S I have is not giving me any issues of merit on aliasing. I'm very critical of my
gear and could I be blessed with a back that does not have that problem?
Hmmmm.
To be totally candid, I should have stopped back in the days I was shooting a P45+ back on a Hassie 500cm with the T* 100mm lens.
I got great images off of that setup but have been caught up in new is better false theme.
-
The GFX 50S I have is not giving me any issues of merit on aliasing. I'm very critical of my
gear and could I be blessed with a back that does not have that problem?
No. The aliasing of the GFX 50S is there by design. The camera uses micro lenses that are substantially smaller than full coverage. In fact, the microlenses on the GFX 50S and GFX 100 are about the same size, even though the GFX 100 has 0.7 the pitch.
Some people like aliasing. I know that in the old big-pixel MF days, people used to enthuse about the "sparkle" their cameras gave to skin. The more I see clean images, the less I tolerate aliasied ones, but that's just me.
Jim
-
Jim,
""sparkle" their cameras gave to skin."
That's great! I got a laugh out of that visual in my mind.
Must admit, it is very very rare that I shoot anything but a landscape, thus probably the reason I've not been annoyed by "sparkle".
So if we accept the attribute of "sparkle" as just default, and accept your 100 is not displaying quite as much of it as the 50S, how do
I wrap my mind around a substantially softer image at 100% (my girlfriend even sees it at "Fill Screen") res?
Sharpness and Dmax has been the song of the "Sirens" to me for all of my life, even back to my Eikonix days!
Jack
-
Must admit, it is very very rare that I shoot anything but a landscape, thus probably the reason I've not been annoyed by "sparkle".
Aliasing shows up especially well in foliage or distant branches against the sky, both in luminance artifacts and in color errors.
In this image, it looks like LoCA:
(https://blog.kasson.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/DSF3604.jpg)
Jim
-
I haven't tried the 100 but I absolutely love the 50. I shoot landscapes, portraits and architecture. I like the feel of the camera, it fits me perfectly.
Sharon
-
Clearly seen in your sample!
At what magnification is that Jim?
Jack
-
Sad it did not work out for you. No range war intended just some feedback.
I have some issues with the GFX100, but so far it's images seem to surpass what I was getting with the 50s, Different stokes different folks I guess.
1. Sharpness, I agree 50s out of the gate images seem sharper, but in C1 with default sharpening settings, I see no issues expect on my copy of the 23mm, which always has been just a bit soft for me. What slight degree of softness I get can easily be regained in post (at least for my older eyes).
2. DMAX, I guess I expected something better, it's a new chip, with totally new design, and the same chip on the IQ4 greatly supasses the IQ3. What I see is pretty much the same DMAX from ISO50 to ISO 400 which surprised me, and about a 2.5 stop push max. Past that and noise will start to become an issue. Much past ISO 1600, and images become considerably less productive.
3. IBIS makes a difference for me, as hand holding the 250 and 250 with TC and the 100-200 produces excellent results for me.
4. Banding, I just don't see, but I never saw it on the 50s either. I realize if you push a GFX100 file enough, it will band in the shadows, plenty written about that, but within my range 1.5 to 2.5 stops of push I just don't see it.
Issues I have that bother me.
AF, is just as bad as the 50s, in that with any subject shot in low light or low contrast, you will odds are will either get a total miss or an image slightly out of focus. It's surprising to me just how fine the line is, for at times I can hit a distant ridge line where I have plenty of contrast and still miss AF. I saw with with the 50s also and as I stated I just don't any improvement. The Z7 hits all the time every time, amazing AF in low light, low contrast compared to the GFX100.
Low light images will tend to take on a red cast, so early sunrise and late evening shot are a bit tricky. This carries over to the raw, as it's not just the LCD white balance. As soon as normal light becomes available, WB is excellent. So far I have been able to easily adjust in post
Write speed, is slow and will buffer at times especially when shooting in exposure bracketing mode. Even with a Lexar 2000x card the camera will bog down at times. Not as often with the 2000x card but XQD or similar card support would have been a nice feature which I am sure will come with the next camera.
I only use C1 for my GFX100 images, as I find LR pulls much more noise by default. C1 20 seems to do an overall excellent job.
Paul C
-
Hi Paul,
In response:
1. I had hoped with C1-rev 20 I could just ratchet up the sharpness and get what I wanted, but no matter how I twerked sharpness I just could not match the 50S. Now, I did have my Lady take a look at the images and I arranged them so she would have no way to tell other than what registered in those "little gray cells".
In every test she felt the 50S was substantially sharper and better defined than the GFX 100.
2. Agree - we both "wished" but got less than we wanted.
In short, I want more than just MP's in the equation of buying a new body.
3. Oh YES, I agree completely and that was actually the first test I ran. I have serious tremors and even with that, I was able to hand hold a 1/15th on the GFX 100. That gave me real hope in the beginning thinking I could leave the tripod out on my field work. IF they put that into the 50S it would be quite a beast to try to compete against!
But tripod mounted is going to have to be a continued part of my work (I also always use the 2 second timer to combat shake).
4. I'll get banding in the skies BUT only when I really go beyond reason of what I ask a camera to do. It's like the logic many of us use on the Interstate with a speed limit of 70 MPH. I'll do 73 and almost always get by with it BUT if I were to do 80, you get what I'm saying. There is alway a margin of diminishing returns, and I think the GFX 100 is a perfect example of that.
AF.
I manual focus most everything I shoot, so I can't comment here with any authority.
Write speed
OH yes! Agree.
C1 - I must admit I detest the logic of the Library!! But that aside, it's what I generally use, but will never send them a Xmas card for it until they fix to my way of thinking their "Library"!!
My conclusion:
From my tests I just felt the GFX 100 offered me nothing more and much less than what I want.
Thus I could not justify selling off the 50S for something in the low $3k range and dumping $10K into the GFX 100.
I did do my test on the exact same 23mm, which in all of my test my sample is razor sharp - what I like!
Thus, my conclusion: The market is still wide open for a camera body at or under $10K for landscape work with greater Dmax and sharpness than the 50S is not in the market at this moment. Certainly NOT the X1DII.
Jack
-
I haven't tried the 100 but I absolutely love the 50. I shoot landscapes, portraits and architecture. I like the feel of the camera, it fits me perfectly.
Sharon
I agree, nothing better at this point in time, but I have the "virus" and I'm always looking for more bang for my bucks!
Jack
-
Clearly seen in your sample!
At what magnification is that Jim?
Jack
About 300%
-
Hi Jack,
I agree with you that if you are not seeing the improvement over the 50s it's not a good investment. it's a huge cost jump over the 50s and I guess will stay at that price for a while as nothing else is on the market that hits the same specs.
What I was looking for and so far have found is hand holdable 100MP, with moderate AF (so wish Fuji would relook at it). I rarely was able to hand hold any brackets with the IQ3100 on the XF and various lenses, and most times even 1/250 of sec suffered hand held and it was impossible to hand hold 240mm or 210mm. 100MP is where I want to be, just don't need the extra 50 from the IQ4 and Phase has left a ton on the "needing to addressed" table for the IQ4.
Fully agree also that the 50s is still a wonderful camera for field use. Saved my day in Yosemite in 2017 when I realized quickly that hiking all day with a 3100, XF and tripod was not going to work as I never shoot anything with a Phase back without a tripod. I needed to drop the tripod for those hikes the water level in Spring of 2017 was so high slowing it down was a bit of a waste.
Would love to meet up with you someday and have you try my camera, yours is 2nd one I have heard about that was shooting noticeably soft.
Still also have my fingers crossed that Fuji will come out with some form of pixel shift as that has shown on Pentax K1 to not only provide an increase in resolution but also DMAX. Would not work in all situations but would be a huge plus for the GFX100 down the road.
Paul C
-
Would love to meet up with you someday and have you try my camera, yours is 2nd one I have heard about that was shooting noticeably soft.
I've never seen raw files from a GFX 100 that looked soft. Given the microlens structure, they will be softer at a pixel level than the GFX 50S, but in my mind, that is just fixing a GFX 50S flaw. I think the small microlenses in the GFX 50S were chosen to prevent color filter array crosstalk with the FSI sensor. Since the GFX 100 sensor is BSI, that's not a problem any more.
-
"Still also have my fingers crossed that Fuji will come out with some form of pixel shift as that has shown on Pentax K1 to not only provide an increase in resolution but also DMAX. "
Paul, if you are ever up this way shout and let's get together. I have an Airstream BaseCamp X and love to camp in that critter with my Lady Qing! So give me an excuse!
As to the Dmax, I have found some interesting results using Aurora HDR 2019 version. I am shooting with careful exposure for the highlights in a scene and not spending much bandwidth on the shadows. The I take the RAW file from the 50S into Aurora as a single file and let it process. Once you get a handle on the uses of their different sliders, I am amazed at the Dmax I'm pulling out of the RAW file without loosing my highlights! Far more than LR or PS can give me and without the phony HDR look.
Takes a bit of practice, but then I've been in the world of HDR to get Dmax since I first played with Photomatrix Pro years ago - I still keep an updated version of it on my Mac Pro.
Jack
-
"Still also have my fingers crossed that Fuji will come out with some form of pixel shift as that has shown on Pentax K1 to not only provide an increase in resolution but also DMAX. "
Paul, if you are ever up this way shout and let's get together. I have an Airstream BaseCamp X and love to camp in that critter with my Lady Qing! So give me an excuse!
As to the Dmax, I have found some interesting results using Aurora HDR 2019 version. I am shooting with careful exposure for the highlights in a scene and not spending much bandwidth on the shadows. The I take the RAW file from the 50S into Aurora as a single file and let it process. Once you get a handle on the uses of their different sliders, I am amazed at the Dmax I'm pulling out of the RAW file without loosing my highlights! Far more than LR or PS can give me and without the phony HDR look.
Takes a bit of practice, but then I've been in the world of HDR to get Dmax since I first played with Photomatrix Pro years ago - I still keep an updated version of it on my Mac Pro.
Jack
You are using Dmax in a manner with which I am unfamiliar. In a print, I know it as the log base 10 of unity over the minimum reflectivity. In a transparency, it's the log base 10 of unity over the minimum transmittance.
Can you give me your definition?
Jim
-
Jim, I'm ancient in the world of digital so my age is showing! LOL!
Guess I need to update my language skills to how Dmax is expressed today.
I used to develop software on the super computers Cray/SGI platform for 12 years before I dropped out at 46 to continue my own studies.
Put together a small team of kids out of MIT and GA Tech as a SGI Power Series VAR and developer.
That took me into working in many areas of digital, initially 3D realms, but lead me into a relationship with Eikonix when it was embryo and building it's first digital camera. We expressed Dmax as the maximum spread of visual that could be distinguished from the Eikonix array.
I then worked with "Leaf" in developing drivers for the Leaf 45 scanner, and later to the Howtek HiResolve 8K drum scanner, Nikon and Hasselblad's (very short relationship with Hassie as they suffered from NIH syndrome - not invented here) first digital cameras.
We always expressed how many stops of dynamic range we could "pull out of an array" as "Dmax". It's just the number of stops of range from maximum distinguishable white to black. When we passed a Dmax of 7 (7stops) I got rid of all my film gear and went totally digital with a P45+ mounted on a 500cm and 100 T* lens on the nose. It took the P45+ back at 39MP to beat anything I could pull out of film and get a decent scan on my Howtek 8K scanner - I had my own Wing Linch processor and developed routines to really pull the film to give me what I wanted.
Have never gone back to film.
So, what term should I update my "little gray cells" to use to represent what I call Dmax?
PS: Eikonix was purchased by Kodak in an attempt to keep film alive and kill digital. (At the time of the buy out, Eikonix was headed by a very bright chap named George Helms that I respected.) It worked for a while but ..........
-
I just did icuts of the screen for each of the camera for anyone that wants to see what I experience between the 50S and the 100.
Sharpening was stopped at the point going any further only degraded the respective images.
Capture One v. 20 used for both. Both zoomed in 300% in C1 before icut was done.
Jack
-
Jim, I'm ancient in the world of digital so my age is showing! LOL!
Guess I need to update my language skills to how Dmax is expressed today.
I used to develop software on the super computers Cray/SGI platform for 12 years before I dropped out at 46 to continue my own studies.
Put together a small team of kids out of MIT and GA Tech as a SGI Power Series VAR and developer.
That took me into working in many areas of digital, initially 3D realms, but lead me into a relationship with Eikonix when it was embryo and building it's first digital camera. We expressed Dmax as the maximum spread of visual that could be distinguished from the Eikonix array.
I then worked with "Leaf" in developing drivers for the Leaf 45 scanner, and later to the Howtek HiResolve 8K drum scanner, Nikon and Hasselblad's (very short relationship with Hassie as they suffered from NIH syndrome - not invented here) first digital cameras.
We always expressed how many stops of dynamic range we could "pull out of an array" as "Dmax". It's just the number of stops of range from maximum distinguishable white to black. When we passed a Dmax of 7 (7stops) I got rid of all my film gear and went totally digital with a P45+ mounted on a 500cm and 100 T* lens on the nose. It took the P45+ back at 39MP to beat anything I could pull out of film and get a decent scan on my Howtek 8K scanner - I had my own Wing Linch processor and developed routines to really pull the film to give me what I wanted.
Have never gone back to film.
So, what term should I update my "little gray cells" to use to represent what I call Dmax?
PS: Eikonix was purchased by Kodak in an attempt to keep film alive and kill digital. (At the time of the buy out, Eikonix was headed by a very bright chap named George Helms that I respected.) It worked for a while but ..........
Well that’s a relief. I had no idea what you meant when when speaking of Dmax. My background was photographic sensitometry and Dmax meant a whole other thing. Digitally at a sensor level I suppose Dmax to me would mean a sensor receiving no exposure so all that would impact it would be noise. I simply couldn’t understand the fuss. Thanks for clearing that up. You have had an interesting career.
-
I just did icuts of the screen for each of the camera for anyone that wants to see what I experience between the 50S and the 100.
Sharpening was stopped at the point going any further only degraded the respective images.
Capture One v. 20 used for both. Both zoomed in 300% in C1 before icut was done.
Jack
Well, if 300% zoomed in equivalent sharpness was your benchmark, you did good to send the GFX100 back.
But for me that comparison makes no sense. Because we don’t use “equivalent zoomed in at x%” images, when printing - we use the same print size (for web display the whole resolution discussion is meaningless, due to the reduced image sizes, color depth and pixel density). So, at the SAME PRINT SIZE, your GFX 100 file should be zoomed in at 200% vs 300% for the GFX 50, to make the comparison meaningful for real world photographic output - zooming in without any final image dimensions output reference is just empty pixel peeping. But even for pixel peeping, the “pixels per duck” reference should be the meaningful reference - the details per home or per flag, looking at your image. Also, part of the perceived sharpness of the 50 is simply fake detail, digital artefacts - look at the ugly aliasing on the left balcony. Again, if the question is “Which pixel is sharper ?” your approach is fair (in fact we’ve seen this with each new increase in MPs, you don’t have to ever buy and test a higher pixel density camera to see softer zoomed in pixels, that will always be the case) But if the question is “Which camera gives me more real detail per subject ?’” you might want to go back to those files and process / review them differently. Also a critical question is f-stop. To me the 100 seems dulled down from diffraction - going over f8 will simply degrade the detail and negate any resolution advantage (an f11 or f16 image on the GFX 100 will not give you anything over the 50 MP reference). What f-stop did you use ? (also was IBIS on or off ? as that can really mess up my GFX 100 images).
-
Well, if 300% zoomed in equivalent sharpness was your benchmark, you did good to send the GFX100 back.
But for me that comparison makes no sense. Because we don’t use “equivalent zoomed in at x%” images, when printing - we use the same print size (for web display the whole resolution discussion is meaningless, due to the reduced image sizes, color depth and pixel density). So, at the SAME PRINT SIZE, your GFX 100 file should be zoomed in at 200% vs 300% for the GFX 50, to make the comparison meaningful for real world photographic output - zooming in without any final image dimensions output reference is just empty pixel peeping. But even for pixel peeping, the “pixels per duck” reference should be the meaningful reference - the details per home or per flag, looking at your image. Also, part of the perceived sharpness of the 50 is simply fake detail, digital artefacts - look at the ugly aliasing on the left balcony. Again, if the question is “Which pixel is sharper ?” your approach is fair (in fact we’ve seen this with each new increase in MPs, you don’t have to ever buy and test a higher pixel density camera to see softer zoomed in pixels, that will always be the case) But if the question is “Which camera gives me more real detail per subject ?’” you might want to go back to those files and process / review them differently. Also a critical question is f-stop. To me the 100 seems dulled down from diffraction - going over f8 will simply degrade the detail and negate any resolution advantage (an f11 or f16 image on the GFX 100 will not give you anything over the 50 MP reference). What f-stop did you use ? (also was IBIS on or off ? as that can really mess up my GFX 100 images).
1. I agree completely with your comment about 300% has no relative value in light of the print. I used it as it is what Jim, who's work I have respected for many years, referenced for alias and it answered two questions at once.
2. My decision to send it back was based on far more than one factor, but that was the primary one. I evaluate the net worth of an array by what I get at 100%. I use in my work and evaluation 100% as that is the base one could "up-res" from if you had to go to a larger print than what the native data will give you.
3. Yes, a huge flaw in my eye's view of the files is the GFX 100 image is truly "flat". I shot at f4 without IBS in both examples - of course not the optimal sweet spot of the 23, but what I have found to be a good setting for evaluation of landscapes - next is f11 in my mind on GFX lenses. I was not concerned with the flag, rather the joints in the buildings being "flat" and not crisp on the detail area of the indents between exterior wall panels.
In short, I think we are in agreement, though I do not entirely agree with your comment about there being a threshold of detail that is lost in any increase of pixels. My work says you are correct IF we pack more pixels into the same size silicon, but not if we keep the size of the wells the same and increase the footprint silicon accordingly. Thus, I'll take 60MP on a substantially larger size silicon base than 100MP on the space of the GFX 100 chip. Keys are of course that the DAC, lens, etc are also improved to compensate for the extra load of capturing and processing the data gathered.
In short, all I'm asking for is sharpness at 100%, controlled aliasing pollution and Dmax at 15 stops for $10K or under.
Today, that is too much to ask for, but it will come but in a larger format than what Fuji is calling MF. I call it "MMF"/MINI Medium Format.
The axiom is no different from film at 4x5 compared to 8x10, etc.
Attached you'll find the same files at 100% and I think it is far more revealing what selling your used GFX 50S for $3k and then throwing in an extra $7K will get you. Not with my money!!
A tangent thought not relative to this thread directly, but rather a reflection of the passing of time in my life, I'm now 73:
I have a very distinct memory that goes back to when the Leaf 45+ was first sent to me to evaluate. I shot a 4x5 scene with the best optics of the time and the same scene with the P45+. Processed the sheet in my "best soup", scanned it on my Howtek drum scanner an compared it to the P45+. This moment in my mind was quite consequential, and in a negative way to "Fine Art Photography".
I purchased the final production P45+, mated it to my 500cm and my 100 T* lens and started shooting, then scanning at 8K. I have an image over my fireplace that is quite large which is one of the very first I did with that set up. It's resourced from two rows of 5 shots per row and three shots deep (-, 0, + 1 stop) for each of the 10 frames. The file is HUGE and the work to generate it was extensive BUT man is it sharp and everything but flat! I've wasted a lot of time and money by not just sticking with the setup.
I've been ranting in my personal notes about that moment after several chats with Carol at Photography West Gallery in Carmel.
Think I'll start a thread on that subject, but I expect I'll have to wear a kevlar vest once I write down my thoughts for public view! LOL!
-
... “Well, if 300% zoomed in equivalent sharpness was your benchmark, you did good to send the GFX100 back.
But for me that comparison makes no sense. Because we don’t use “equivalent zoomed in at x%” images, when printing - we use the same print size. . . “
Same here. I’ve always been confused by this approach. Admittedly, I’m not a technical person. When I compare A to B I’ll take identical images in terms of angle of view, f/stop and other parameters. Then, I’ll make identical prints - say 20x30” or so. Put them up side by side on my 8’ magnetic wall, illuminated by Solux 4700k light, and compare the results. Final output is all that matters to me.
In my case, compared in this manner, the GFX 100 blows the 50s in the dirt - though neither camera is a slouch in image quality.
Rand
-
Attached you'll find the same files at 100% and I think it is far more revealing...
Please update - you've posted the GFX50 file twice.
-
So, what term should I update my "little gray cells" to use to represent what I call Dmax?
Photographic Dynamic Range? It's usually expressed in Log base 2 not base 10, though.
https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/isolessness-comparisons-across-resolutions/
Jim
-
By the way, from the raw files that I've looked at, the pixel-level sharpness of the IQ4 150 and the GFX 100 are virtually identical. That makes the IQ4 150 sqrt(150/100) - 1 = 22% sharper at the picture level.
Jim
-
Please update - you've posted the GFX50 file twice.
Opps, Sorry about that Folks!
Corrected that error,
Jack
-
By the way, from the raw files that I've looked at, the pixel-level sharpness of the IQ4 150 and the GFX 100 are virtually identical. That makes the IQ4 150 sqrt(150/100) - 1 = 22% sharper at the picture level.
Jim
Jim, I wish the price point was also level between the IQ and the GFX!! :-)
-
Jim, I wish the price point was also level between the IQ and the GFX!! :-)
You didn't like the pixel-level sharpness of the GFX 100, so you wouldn't like the pixel-level sharpness of the IQ4 150. I don't think pixel-level sharpness is an appropriate metric, but chacun a son gout.
Jim
-
We always expressed how many stops of dynamic range we could "pull out of an array" as "Dmax". It's just the number of stops of range from maximum distinguishable white to black.
...
So, what term should I update my "little gray cells" to use to represent what I call Dmax?
You already said it: Dynamic Range (DR)
Dmax is a single point on that range, as is Dmin. DR = Dmax - Dmin
-
Back when I had hair on top of this Beast, we used the term not as an absolute, but a spread - a range; thus Dmax of 10 stops.
But what did we know - just building one of the first cameras! LOL!
So much has been done since that time!
I wonder if RIT has one of the original Eikonix cameras in their museum?
I used to have one of the original arrays - I guess I should use the modern term of Sensor - but it was lost in a move.
Dynamic Range makes more sense - I'll have to work hard and re-program the gray cells!
-
You already said it: Dynamic Range (DR)
Dmax is a single point on that range, as is Dmin. DR = Dmax - Dmin
Actually, the dynamic range of a system starts with a definition of the minimal acceptable SNR. The signal level that produced that SNR defines the digital equivalent of Dmax. The concept of Dmin has no utility in sensor evaluation, since full scale is the reference white always.
Jim
-
Back when I had hair on top of this Beast, we used the term not as an absolute, but a spread - a range; thus Dmax of 10 stops.
But what did we know - just building one of the first cameras! LOL!
Even with film sensitometry, Dmax was not a range, but the maximum density achievable.
Congratulations on being involved with building one of the first cameras. You must be about 200 years old.
Jim
-
Actually, the dynamic range of a system starts with a definition of the minimal acceptable SNR. The signal level that produced that SNR defines the digital equivalent of Dmax. The concept of Dmin has no utility in sensor evaluation, since full scale is the reference white always.
Jim
So maybe I'm not just "over the hill"?
We used it to define similar to the Zone system values - how many stops of "white" with definable image detail to how many "blacks" with definable image detail. Just shadow detail to white detail. We did not count absolute black and white.
-
Even with film sensitometry, Dmax was not a range, but the maximum density achievable.
Congratulations on being involved with building one of the first cameras. You must be about 200 years old.
Jim
OK Jim - YOU just crossed the line of tolerable behavior!
Just because I look 200 years old does not mean I am!!
:-)
-
So maybe I'm not just "over the hill"?
We used it to define similar to the Zone system values - how many stops of "white" with definable image detail to how many "blacks" with definable image detail. Just shadow detail to white detail. We did not count absolute black and white.
We would determine dynamic range of film by measuring how many stops of exposure we got on the straight line portion of the curve when the film was processed for a gamma of 0,62 for black and white film. This was so long ago I may have some figures wrong but that was pretty much the methodology. Dmax was never of huge interest when looking at film exposed with a sensitometer. Speed point, base fog, gamma were critical. Dynamic range was obviously important. I’m leaving stuff out of course.
It’s interesting to me the search for ever more DR. We have gone from Ciba prints with about 3 stops max to 15 stops or thereabouts now. My biggest issue is finding a way to map all that in a plausible manner to what ever the output might be, print or screen.
Sorry for the diversion on this thread. I’m finding it fascinating even though I no longer use MFDB.
-
We would determine dynamic range of film by measuring how many stops of exposure we got on the straight line portion of the curve when the film was processed for a gamma of 0,62 for black and white film. This was so long ago I may have some figures wrong but that was pretty much the methodology. Dmax was never of huge interest when looking at film exposed with a sensitometer. Speed point, base fog, gamma were critical. Dynamic range was obviously important. I’m leaving stuff out of course.
It’s interesting to me the search for ever more DR. We have gone from Ciba prints with about 3 stops max to 15 stops or thereabouts now. My biggest issue is finding a way to map all that in a plausible manner to what ever the output might be, print or screen.
Sorry for the diversion on this thread. I’m finding it fascinating even though I no longer use MFDB.
Appreciate the comments - apparently you are also close to my 200 year old mark!
Curious, why did you depart from "TRUE" MF - again, I do not consider the GFX series to be MF.
-
We would determine dynamic range of film by measuring how many stops of exposure we got on the straight line portion of the curve when the film was processed for a gamma of 0,62 for black and white film. This was so long ago I may have some figures wrong but that was pretty much the methodology. Dmax was never of huge interest when looking at film exposed with a sensitometer. Speed point, base fog, gamma were critical. Dynamic range was obviously important. I’m leaving stuff out of course.
Dmax was important in 'chromes, as it determined the projected black levels. Some films, like Velvia, had better Dmax than others.
You are correct about Dmax rarely being important in B&W work if you wanted to stay close to the linear region. However, it could crop up in special situations, such as trying to make a silver print from a neg exposed for platinum printing, or vice versa.
Jim
-
Dmax was important in 'chromes, as it determined the projected black levels. Some films, like Velvia, had better Dmax than others.
You are correct about Dmax rarely being important in B&W work if you wanted to stay close to the linear region. However, it could crop up in special situations, such as trying to make a silver print from a neg exposed for platinum printing, or vice versa.
Jim
Yes you are quite right. Dmax is very important for any final output medium which obviously chromes were. Dmax of paper was important for the same reason. The process I was describing was to test a piece of film to determine how to process it and what the ASA would be and it’s general characteristics like the shoulder roll off and how the toe handled low exposure levels. Checking a piece of film that had been shot in camera would tell different things like was the film correctly exposed and what was the dynamic range of the scene. You could also determine with a high degree of accuracy what grade of paper to use when making a print. In that case the Dmax, not to be confused with the max possible Dmax of the film, would be useful to read and that value would be looked for using a densitometer.
-
Appreciate the comments - apparently you are also close to my 200 year old mark!
Curious, why did you depart from "TRUE" MF - again, I do not consider the GFX series to be MF.
I turned 59 a week or so ago. I shot a lot on large format with film. Linhoff and Sinar mostly. I never liked MF. I also shot a lot with SLR.
I used two Kodak backs, the DCS 465 and the Proback a 16MP square sensor. I also used a Leaf Valeo and a 30 MP leaf and 80 MP Leaf Aptus. I recently swapped the Cambo and 4 Schneider ApoDigitar lenses I used with the backs for a Sony A9 system. I also have a Sony A7r3.
I am a commercial photographer. It’s the career I ended up in after my first career working in photo labs went tits up in 1995 thanks to digital. As a commercial photographer I don’t chase the ultimate quality at all costs. I chase quality that will keep me working. The Leaf Aptus delivered that quality, it was pretty good actually. By the time it was ready to be replaced I felt that the Sony system delivered quality that my clients required. A combination of the smaller cameras getting better and hugely versatile and the very high res requirements of commercial work declining. Actually I think the Sony A7r3 with good glass beats the quality I got from the Leaf Aptus 12r. I’m not knocking MF at all. It’s a commercial thing and in my market that’s the reality.
Personally I shoot a lot of private work. Photography is still my love and my passion. I shoot a lot of landscape. How it works is I buy what I need for commercial work and some of that stuff gets used for my hobby stuff. At the moment I am very happy with my system. It does what I need. I like good quality images but I prefer good content. They don’t always overlap.
A bit wordy I realize but that’s mostly how I ended moving away from MF. How I got into it originally was because it was all that provided the quality I felt I needed back in those days. No longer true for me.
-
Thanks for sharing Martin!!
-
I must admit, I had hoped someone would convince me that my sample of the GFX 100 was flawed and I should have Adorama send me another sample.
In the past, I have received new lenses that were not up to par, but never a camera body, but there is always a first time.
Let me ask the consenses of folks here, from the image samples I put up, are they basically the same as what YOU are seeing from YOUR GFX 100, not as sharp as the 50S?
Jack
PS: I just got a message back from Hassie in Europa and the Dynamic Range of the H4D60, which I own but have no lenses for, is 12 stops. Thus about the same as the 50S or 100. So the issue to define becomes sharpness.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by 'not as sharp'. Based on your samples, the GFX100 has clearly captured a lot more detail than the GFX50.
-
I must admit, I had hoped someone would convince me that my sample of the GFX 100 was flawed and I should have Adorama send me another sample.
In the past, I have received new lenses that were not up to par, but never a camera body, but there is always a first time.
Let me ask the consenses of folks here, from the image samples I put up, are they basically the same as what YOU are seeing from YOUR GFX 100, not as sharp as the 50S?
Jack
PS: I just got a message back from Hassie in Europa and the Dynamic Range of the H4D60, which I own but have no lenses for, is 12 stops. Thus about the same as the 50S or 100. So the issue to define becomes sharpness.
I already answered your "consensus" question: On a physical level, the GFX 50S and GFX 100 are about as sharp. However, the GFX 100 has greater resolution and thus less aliasing. In addition, it is more amenable to deconvolution sharpening. The net of all that is that, for the same sized print, the GFX 100 provides a superior image. I think the unusually small microlenses of the GFX 50S have lead you astray.
12 stops measured how? The DR of the CDF H4D60 is far inferior to that of the GFX 50S or 100.
Jim
-
This is a very fascinating thread as I have also had the returning of my GFX 100 almost mimicking Jack's reasons. I have the 50s and compared files and also thought that the '100' had a softer look and was more difficult to work with then the 50s files. I've printed 50s files to 40 inches with ease using all of the latest Topaz AI apps. I also have a 4150 and have been with Phase since the P20 days.
Although I don't have the disciplined training of the OP and other contributors to this thread I do have my eyes and that is how I guided myself the last 50 years of printing which I thoroughly enjoy.
My reason for purchasing the '100' was to finally leave the Phase upgrade cycle as I had a 3100 which with its 100MP was enough for my printing needs which are mostly in the 40 to 48 inch range. But the '100' was disappointing from the beginning. The files didn't even remotely look like what came out of my 3100 and when compared to my 50s were lacking in sharpness. Then there was the issue of size/bulk which was a tremendous negative. And.... then there was the issue of using the '100' on my Actus which was really a hindering experience compared to the 50s.
I had also hoped that the live view would be a little sharper than the 50s but it wasn't which was another negative. So, after returning the '100' I upgraded to the 4150 which I like but is not the reason for my post.
I also ultimately purchased a Sony 7RM4 which has transformed my photographic shooting. I was encouraged to do this by following Chris Barrett, a Chicago based architectural photographer, who left Phase years ago and transitioned to Sony using an Arca Swiss MF2 and various MF lenses in the beginning. That was years ago and this is now.....
As much as I appreciate the 4150 I am also using the same generation sensor with my Sony. I can easily attach the sony to my Actus and shoot with all of my MF lenses from 60mm to 180mm. I can shift with ease due to the size of the sensor and still stay easily within the sweet spot of the lenses. With shifting and stitching of only 3 files I can easily match the resolution of my 4150 and have all of the wonderful electronic capabilities of the 7RM4.
I may be limited to 14 stops of DR but that has never had a negative effect on any of my printing. And.... not to forget, the live view on the Sony with either the EVF or LCD is tack sharp for focusing needs.
Just wanted to add this to the mix....
Regards
Victor
-
Jim,
I didn't argue with Hasselblad, just asked for the technical answer, and I used the right term too in my question!
I'm can still learn!
"Thank you for contacting Hasselblad.
Please refer to the following information to your question:
1. the Dynamic range of the H4D-60 will be 12 stops.
2. the best wide lens for landscape will be the HCD28mm lens, it will cover the full array of the 60.
Best regards,
The Hasselblad Support Team"
-
Hi Victor,
Thanks for your input on this thread! It's mimicking my reasons for return the 100 and tends to remove the thought of ordering another one to confirm my initial findings.
Jack
-
Jim,
I didn't argue with Hasselblad, just asked for the technical answer, and I used the right term too in my question!
I'm can still learn!
"Thank you for contacting Hasselblad.
Please refer to the following information to your question:
1. the Dynamic range of the H4D-60 will be 12 stops.
2. the best wide lens for landscape will be the HCD28mm lens, it will cover the full array of the 60.
Best regards,
The Hasselblad Support Team"
There are lots of ways to measure dynamic range. There are two main variables: what the threshold SNR is set to, and whether (and how) the normalization takes place. Without that information, a number like 12 stops is worthless.
Jim
-
I also ultimately purchased a Sony 7RM4 which has transformed my photographic shooting.
On a physical level, the a7RIV, GFX 100, and IQ4 150 sharpness is the same. They all use the same 3.76 um pixel architecture. The microlenses appear to be very similar. The ISOs where the conversion gain changes are different.
https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/iq4-150-gfx-100-a7riv-different-slices-off-the-same-sausage/
Jim
-
Interesting article Jim. You certainly had a stable of lenses to work with!
Your last sentence in the comments section is what is haunting me about keeping my H4D 60 with it's dramatically larger sensor than the GFX of either flavor:
"Of course, at same print size, the IQ4 150 MP shots will be sharper, because the sensor is larger."
Jack
-
Well I do love my GFX100, I get mich better results than with my 50s especially with the IBIS! Sharpness between it, the iq4150 and the Sony is actually the same.... no wonder it’s basically the same sensor design.
You have to get perfect technique to get it all out and it’s even for me sometimes difficult. In the end everyone should use what works for them, but yes I can see a big difference between some 50s and 100 files printed at 100x150.
Not so happy when it come to lots of other things on the GFX... or iq4... image quality isn’t the problem.
-
Interesting article Jim. You certainly had a stable of lenses to work with!
Your last sentence in the comments section is what is haunting me about keeping my H4D 60 with it's dramatically larger sensor than the GFX of either flavor:
"Of course, at same print size, the IQ4 150 MP shots will be sharper, because the sensor is larger."
Jack
That applies in my sentence above because the pixel pitch of all three sensors under discussion is the same. That's not the case with the H4D 60. The H4D pitch is 6 um, which is substantially larger than the 3.76 um of the other sensors. So you can't draw that conclusion.
Jim
-
Well I do love my GFX100, I get mich better results than with my 50s especially with the IBIS! Sharpness between it, the iq4150 and the Sony is actually the same.... no wonder it’s basically the same sensor design.
That is only true at the physical level. For same-sized prints, the IQ4 150 is sharper than the GFX 100 which is sharper than the a7rIV.
Jim
-
That is only true at the physical level. For same-sized prints, the IQ4 150 is sharper than the GFX 100 which is sharper than the a7rIV.
Jim
Descending image sharpness is directly proportional to the respective cameras price is what one could conclude.
Only logical to me.
-
Descending image sharpness is directly proportional to the respective cameras price is what one could conclude.
Only logical to me.
The sharpness is monotonic with camera price, but it is far from directly proportional; the relationship is highly nonlinear. For example, the jump from the GFX 100 to the IQ4 150 yields a 22% increase in sharpness at the sensor level.
Jim
-
The sharpness is monotonic with camera price, but it is far from directly proportional; the relationship is highly nonlinear. For example, the jump from the GFX 100 to the IQ4 150 yields a 22% increase in sharpness at the sensor level.
Jim
I'll give you that if you give me the percentage of price increase between the two.
By directly, I am say it goes up.
-
I'll give you that if you give me the percentage of price increase between the two.
About 300%.
-
By directly, I am say it goes up.
The words "directly proportional" mean something stronger than that:
https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/directly-inversely-proportional.html
Jim
-
About 300%.
Jim,
I'll give you the last word on that - and let you ignore my point.
What I find interesting about the thread is that NO ONE, including yourself, have produced a direct set of images at 100% between their GFX 50S and 100 to challenge my image.
Jack
-
Jim,
I'll give you the last work on that - and let you ignore my point.
What I find interesting about the thread is that NO ONE, including yourself, have produced a direct set of images at 100% between their GFX 50S and 100 to challenge my image.
Jack
I’m curious about your “finished product.” Is it screen images at 100%, or prints, or something else? Honest question, I’m trying to understand your perspective on the value of pixel peeping as opposed to final objective(s) / uses of your photos.
Rand
-
I’m curious about your “finished product.” Is it screen images at 100%, or prints, or something else? Honest question, I’m trying to understand your perspective on the value of pixel peeping as opposed to final objective(s) / uses of your photos.
Rand
I started this thread to just express to others thinking of buying a depreciating asset, any digital camera, but in the case the GFX 100, that I personally was not impressed with the GFX 100 and I presented samples of exactly why I returned it.
For twice as much money as the GFX 50S, in my experience, the GFX 100 is not worth the double in cost. But again, as I said in the beginning, I shoot landscapes, not people or animals in motion, models, etc. For my work, it's not a good fit.
Just that simple, give a heads up to others and present the evidence in a visual manner. To each his or her own.
Jack
-
Jim,
I'll give you the last word on that - and let you ignore my point.
What I find interesting about the thread is that NO ONE, including yourself, have produced a direct set of images at 100% between their GFX 50S and 100 to challenge my image.
Jack
I did link to images with the same field of view with the same focal length lens, which is I believe what is the long pole in the tent.
-
I did link to images with the same field of view with the same focal length lens, which is I believe what is the long pole in the tent.
Jim, your contribution is appreciated, as indicated previously in my previous posts.
-
Jim, your contribution is appreciated, as indicated previously in my previous posts.
But you keep asking for comparisons at 100%. I can't understand why you want to compare the cameras that way, as opposed to same print size/FOV. Even without the microlens differences, making the pitch finer will always reduce per-pixel sharpness with a real lens. Did you want to make the prints from a GFX 100 40% larger than those from a GFX 50S?
Jim
-
But you keep asking for comparisons at 100%. I can't understand why you want to compare the cameras that way, as opposed to same print size/FOV. Even without the microlens differences, making the pitch finer will always reduce per-pixel sharpness with a real lens. Did you want to make the prints from a GFX 100 40% larger than those from a GFX 50S?
Jim
I can't answer for Jack but I know why I always want to compare different sensors at 100% as well as at the same print size.
When I buy a new/upgraded camera body with more MP I want to know if I can print a bigger print at the same print rez at the same observed quality. So for example if I'm printing 20x30's with a 40mp sensor body and buy a 60mp sensor body, will the new camera give me a 24 x 36 that will look as good up close if I'm looking at the print section by section?
It doesn't mean I don't want to know if it will also make a better 20x30, but for sure I compare at 100 native. I've done that since the 11mp Canon 1Ds days.
-
You said it exactly as I would with one exception, I've been evaluating an array that way since I worked with Nikon on their first digital camera, I believe it was the D1 at about 2.8MP.
Just my way, and I'm sticking to it as it has served me well.
Jack
-
I have not used the gfx100 but in my experience with many different digital capture devices I would say that if someone is looking for a definite step up from the 50 mpix sensors, the 150 phase system might be only way to go...
there are visible differences between all systems, personal preferences for color and post but overall a perfect file from a 40+ 35 mm system will rival a perfect file from a 50 mf system....
in print things might get a little fuzzy but there are so many factors to consider....
all this without taking into consideration what can actually make or break a great photo....the moment, light, expression, a bird in flight in the perfect spot....
I went through serious testing with a friend of mine who sells very large fine art prints and for the biggest ones he uses 8x10 film....we shot everything from gfx50 to x1d to a7rIII to d850 to kamiya 6x7 to 4x5 to 8x10.....all digital files we looked at did not give the same satisfying feel and look of 8x10 film but that has little to do with actual detail of sharpness....
we also agreed that the150phase system would probably be the one to end up being the best....
but neither one of us can justify that cost....he shoots those huge landscapes, but 8x10 film actually provides a better story when selling the art....
I do shoot quite a bit of architecture now but funny enough those images (if at all) ever end up printed larger then 8x10...
I almost automatically pre ordered the a7rIV , probably will end up with it eventually but larger files are not a necessity at all....
I have been shooting digital forever and it becomes more and more clear to me that for 99% of all applications a 40-50mpix sensor is plenty....speed never hurts but DR is king....at this point kam almost afraid that the next step up in DR will only come with a much larger pixel count...not because we want it but because marketing demands it....
that said, that phase 150 thing looks amazing but the price is just so off the charts....
-
Yes, the price is off the charts and the depreciation rate is steep.
To take that much out of my retirement funds, I'd have to die at least 3 years earlier to justify it!!
Jack
-
I have not used the gfx100 but in my experience with many different digital capture devices I would say that if someone is looking for a definite step up from the 50 mpix sensors, the 150 phase system might be only way to go...
there are visible differences between all systems, personal preferences for color and post but overall a perfect file from a 40+ 35 mm system will rival a perfect file from a 50 mf system....
in print things might get a little fuzzy but there are so many factors to consider....
all this without taking into consideration what can actually make or break a great photo....the moment, light, expression, a bird in flight in the perfect spot....
I went through serious testing with a friend of mine who sells very large fine art prints and for the biggest ones he uses 8x10 film....we shot everything from gfx50 to x1d to a7rIII to d850 to kamiya 6x7 to 4x5 to 8x10.....all digital files we looked at did not give the same satisfying feel and look of 8x10 film but that has little to do with actual detail of sharpness....
we also agreed that the150phase system would probably be the one to end up being the best....
but neither one of us can justify that cost....he shoots those huge landscapes, but 8x10 film actually provides a better story when selling the art....
I do shoot quite a bit of architecture now but funny enough those images (if at all) ever end up printed larger then 8x10...
I almost automatically pre ordered the a7rIV , probably will end up with it eventually but larger files are not a necessity at all....
I have been shooting digital forever and it becomes more and more clear to me that for 99% of all applications a 40-50mpix sensor is plenty....speed never hurts but DR is king....at this point kam almost afraid that the next step up in DR will only come with a much larger pixel count...not because we want it but because marketing demands it....
that said, that phase 150 thing looks amazing but the price is just so off the charts....
Yes ... I sold my 8x10 gear about 5 years ago I think and although I have a few very specially chromes I have no regrets. For me it was just not possible to get the kind of images I can with high quality 35mm FF bodies and lenses. I can hike further (MUCH further), carry a greater assortment of lenses including a range not economically possible with 8x10 and capture light as it quickly comes and fades. I am a much better photographer since I quit large format and moved to digital (although I still have my 4x5 gear and a good amount of stock in the freezer that might see the light some day).
I made the step up to the A7R4 but kept my pair of A7R3's and do not plan to get a 2nd R4 and get rid of the R3's.
-
Mike,
I had the a7RIII and found I did not care for it compared to the H4D 50WiFi I had sold.
Yes, it was SOO much lighter and easier to manage but I just missed the "H" look.
I still have a H4D60 that I put up for sale but I'm taking it down today.
Just bought a nice HC 28mm to mount on the H4D60 and shoot it against the GFX 50S.
Will be interesting to see which one gives me what I want "at 100%" zoom!!!
LOL!
I'm betting on the H myself, but I'll see.
How do you contrast your III with the 4?
I'd love to see the same scene shot with both and the identical lens on them.
Jack
-
Yes, the price is off the charts and the depreciation rate is steep.
To take that much out of my retirement funds, I'd have to die at least 3 years earlier to justify it!!
Jack
That is the amount of healthy years you get extra when you don't smoke... so smoking solves that problem too. ;)
-
I have been lurking on this forum for a while and just rejoined after a hiatus. What resonates with me in this discussion is the difference between per pixel sharpness and the sharpness of the image at a given output size. I went from the Sony A7RIII to the Sony A7RIV and found that with some lenses and especially in some portions of the image, that the per pixel sharpness was less than with the RIII. The noise levels at 100% view were also a bit jarring compared to the RIII. However, once one normalized for output size, the RIV was always (or nearly always--slight exception for higher ISO noise) superior. This led me to infer, perhaps erroneously, that the advantages gained by having smaller and smaller pixels on a given sized sensor were slowing down. Going on full frame from 21 to 36 to 42 all showed similar improvements even at at 1:1. Going to 60 MP seemed to me to be less clearly better when viewed at 100% and the advantages were only always clear when normalized for the same output size. I then figured (again, perhaps erroneously) that the best way to get a better image for large prints was to go to a larger sensor and this led me to buy the GFX 100 (the phase systems being more $$ than I can currently justify). Now I read this thread where folks are complaining that at 1:1, the GFX 100 seems less sharp than the GFX 50 and I find this not surprising at all given the same pixel pitch that exists between the GFX 100 and the A7RIV. What this tells me is that we are reaching a point of diminishing returns with current sensor technology. Jim Kasson has convincingly demonstrated that there is less moire and more resolution with the larger sensor. It just may be that the change from 50 to 100 megapixels may be a smaller difference than going from 25 megapixels to 50 (moire excepted). The degree of benefits of the additional resolution will also vary by the lens used. I bet an image taken with the 110/2 on the GFX 100 compared to the GFX 50S will show more benefit than the same comparison using the 100-200, for example.
All in all, when evaluating the diminishing returns, we each have to make the decision of what price we are willing to pay for ever diminishing advantages for the money spent. The GFX 100 produces a better image than my Sony A7RIV (with comparable lenses) or, I suppose, the GFX 50, but at the price of more money, larger size/weight, and (compared to full frame) a more limited selection of glass. Still, Phase one represents another level of advantage--but even a smaller improvement for a much higher price than going from full frame to GFX. Some will find this worth it, but even fewer than will find the GFX 100 worth it.
-
Same here. I’ve always been confused by this approach. Admittedly, I’m not a technical person. When I compare A to B I’ll take identical images in terms of angle of view, f/stop and other parameters. Then, I’ll make identical prints - say 20x30” or so. Put them up side by side on my 8’ magnetic wall, illuminated by Solux 4700k light, and compare the results. Final output is all that matters to me.
In my case, compared in this manner, the GFX 100 blows the 50s in the dirt - though neither camera is a slouch in image quality.
Rand
You really need to have optimized work flows for the two cameras to compare them with final prints. One might require a different oprimized workflow than the other. Are you certain you oprimized both images to their best?
-
My simple closing thought, but it relates to what I said in the beginning of this thread - landscapes:
Here is a "Disney" fantasy that in my mind supports the logic of evaluating a lens or a camera at 100% zoom - the raw pixels:
Given: You have been honing your skills for years, you have your own web site and marketing engine, and one day you are out shooting and get the image the corporate world wants to hang on their boardroom wall! It must be clear, well balance and sharp as a tack as it has tree leaves, etc, in details in the distance they must have.
They say print me as large of an image as possible but they insist that it will be a sharp, crisp, balanced and detailed print rather than one that is just large, soft, mushy, etc..
Thus, both a lens evaluation and a camera evaluation at 100% does have a value as far as I'm concerned.
I'm less concerned with all of the rhetoric and more concerned on the actual quality of the pixels I have to start with to generate a print.
As I said a few pages back, probably my favorite image that I have ever shot is called "Glenn at High Shoals" taken in the northern part of GA.
At the time, my camera and lens were the best I was aware of at 100% pixel viewing, in my opinion (LOL): Hassie 500cm, 100mm T* lens and Leaf P45+.
My logic then, as it still is, was/is to take a short tele lens and a camera that both produce extremely sharp pixels and shoot multi rows of a scene, in this case two rows of 5 shots (3 deep each of the 10 frames, 0, 1+, 1-) to produce a file of huge size when balance and stitched.
I've printed this no where near as large as it can go as every inch of the digital file is tack sharp, but I have a big one over my fireplace and I enjoy it every day. I can get lost in it!!
As far as I'm concerned, enough said, and I'm sticking to my way of evaluating what I will accept from my gear.
Now, to finally get out to find and shoot that image "Disney" wants and quit wasting time!
Good shooting to ALL!
-
Here is a "Disney" fantasy that in my mind supports the logic of evaluating a lens or a camera at 100% zoom - the raw pixels:
When you look at 100% zoom, you are not looking at the raw pixels.
I'm not sure you are clear on the difference between pixels in sampling and pixels in output.
Alvy Ray Smith wrote a classic paper on the subject:
http://alvyray.com/Memos/CG/Microsoft/6_pixel.pdf
If you already know all that, I apologize.
Jim
-
While I appreciate all the testing and research you pixel peepers do, I have to just shrug and go shoot. ;D
Sharon
-
You really need to have optimized work flows for the two cameras to compare them with final prints. One might require a different oprimized workflow than the other. Are you certain you oprimized both images to their best?
You’re absolutely right. And my answer to your question is yes.
Rand
-
While I appreciate all the testing and research you pixel peepers do, I have to just shrug and go shoot. ;D
Sharon
Good call ;D Have fun!
-
As a very satisfied H6D-100c user I like to say that the biggest advantage of 100 MP in contrast to 50 MP is not the possibility of larger prints, but an important increase of oversampling regarding the demosaicing process with less artifacts. The GF and HC/HCD medium format lenses from Fuji by the way are very good, so this is not an issue regarding 100 MP.
-
As a very satisfied H6D-100c user I like to say that the biggest advantage of 100 MP in contrast to 50 MP is not the possibility of larger prints, but an important increase of oversampling regarding the demosaicing process with less artifacts. The GF and HC/HCD medium format lenses from Fuji by the way are very good, so this is not an issue regarding 100 MP.
I agree with what you're saying, except that I wouldn't call what's going on more oversampling. In fact, where artifacts show up it's because of undersampling. Increasing the sampling frequency by 40% reduces -- but does not eliminate -- the undersampling. Another way to eliminate it is to stop waaay down, but that has negative consequences as well.
I define oversampling as sampling at a higher frequency than the Nyquist frequency. I define undersampling as sampling at a lower frequency than the Nyquist frequency.
Jim
-
Hi Jim,
I would define oversampling applying a sample frequency (pixel pitch) at more than twice of the sampled analogue bandwidth (the light from the lens projected on the sensor).
I would define undersampling applying a sample frequency at less than twice of the sampled analogue bandwidth.
The by you mentioned Nyquist frequency (Fs/2) is part of the digital domain, not the analogue domain.
I’m sure you already knew this, right ;)
Regards,
Jaap.
-
While I appreciate all the testing and research you pixel peepers do, I have to just shrug and go shoot. ;D
Sharon
Sharon, as in all things in life, there must be a balance.
I have images that I have taken where the light was perfect, the scene moved me spiritually and the camera took the shot.
Upon examination, the shot sucked but the visual at the time the shutter was clicked was magical.
I try to balance the "tool" I am using with what I consider to be just a wee bit more than adequate for the moment in time and price.
As I said before, the 500cm and Leaf 45+ was quite adequate and produced one of my very favorite image.
But being the Beast that I am, I had to just "stick my toes in the water" to see if there 100 would give me what I want in the manner I JUDGE the "tool" I want to use.
I am now going to define IF the GFX 50S, which I have already defined the 100 does not do it for ME, surpass the Hasselblad H4D 60 that I have on my desk. I just bought a HC 28mm with less than 2K clicks on it and deliver is this afternoon.
Not a difficult task to guess where I will be at this afternoon - back shooting the pond that I tested the 50S against the 100!
In short, do you think if I was a watercolor painter I would be comfortable using brushes I got at Sherman Williams paint store, or would I sample what it at Blick?
I'm still sampling ....... and just having fun doing that. Please don't take this thread too seriously, I'm not.
Just a learning and sharing tool in my mind.
Jack
PS: Yes Jim, I know of Alvy and his work, but thanks for the reminder that he is "still out there!". :-)
-
Hi Jim,
I would define oversampling applying a sample frequency (pixel pitch) at more than twice of the sampled analogue bandwidth (the light from the lens projected on the sensor).
I would define undersampling applying a sample frequency at less than twice of the sampled analogue bandwidth.
The by you mentioned Nyquist frequency (Fs/2) is part of the digital domain, not the analogue domain.
I’m sure you already knew this, right ;)
I agree with your definitions of over and undersampling, which are the same as mine. The Nyquist frequency is a particular sampling frequency. Sampling frequencies are completely valid in the analog world (I prefer to reserve the word "domain" for something else). For example, if the highest spatial frequency in the input (analog) image is 0.2 cycles/um, then the Nyquist frequency is 0.4 cycles/um.
Jim
-
I agree with what you're saying, except that I wouldn't call what's going on more oversampling. In fact, where artifacts show up it's because of undersampling. Increasing the sampling frequency by 40% reduces -- but does not eliminate -- the undersampling. Another way to eliminate it is to stop waaay down, but that has negative consequences as well.
I define oversampling as sampling at a higher frequency than the Nyquist frequency. I define undersampling as sampling at a lower frequency than the Nyquist frequency.
Jim
I'am sorry I am not so a high sophisticated expert like you Jim, but I understand what you like to point out. My experience is that when I get with 100 MP an technical advantage in that case of better scanning with more details in the image I also must accept a disadvantage of less f-stop with less DOF. Thats life.
George
-
I'am sorry I am not so a high sophisticated expert like you Jim, but I understand what you like to point out. My experience is that when I get with 100 MP an technical advantage in that case of better scanning with more details in the image I also must accept a disadvantage of less f-stop with less DOF. Thats life.
George
Makes me smile when I think back to the 60s, and using 4x5 film, and stopping waaaay down...
Ironically, that was before I hung out my shingle, after which it was only 135 and 120 films, and the most I was inclined to stop down was to about f8. That was because of the nature of my work, and today's super 135 format digital cameras would have made larger formats not so important. I guess I could have lived my life at a pretty sweet f5.6 or f6.3 but that wouldn't have solved the problem of the 135 format being too tall for almost any of the vertical shots I had to make. A nice 36mm x 36mm format would have replaced both the formats I found myself using with a single camera system.
Perhaps, for young photographers, that may happen one day.
-
FYI:
I have been shooting the GFX 50S since it came out primarily with their 23mm and the 32-64.
Landscapes as only topic.
Purchased the GFX 100 from Adorama just before Xmas and finally had some time this
week to do some critical testing against the 50S for landscapes.
Was looking forward to it improving my results after all of the "test reviews" I've read about it.
Ran my own tests of a landscape scene with the 100 against the 50S.
Tripod, same lens, identical SS and A on both cameras.
2 Second timer used.
All shot in RAW with the GFX 100 at 16 bits.
Shot of couple dozen identical frames on each of three different scenes.
MY conclusion: I shipped back the GFX 100 yesterday.
Reason:
1.) I saw NO improvement in Dmax, none! Also NO improvement of banding if I push the sliders too far trying to pull back skies.
2.) The GFX 100 was not as sharp at 100% as the 50S. Actually quite a difference.
Now, don't want to start a "Range War" here, just saying to be sure to run some serious real world test before you let the return period expire. That's all.
Not what I wanted, but not a big surprise either when you think about it. Jamming 102MP on the same size silicon as the 50S has got to give somewhere.
Hi,
Two observations and a half...
- The first one is that if you view a 100 MP image at 100% magnification and a 50 MP image at 100% magnification the 100 MP image is viewed at 41% higher magnification.
- The GFX 50S/R has undersize microlenses. So, the pixel aperture is approximately the same size on both the 50S and the GFX 100. So sharpness, which is decided by pixel aperture may be the same.
- I don't really expected that DR would be higher on the GFX 100, except when dual gain conversion kicks in. Developement in DR is pretty slow.
- To that comes diffraction. Stopping down beyond say f/11 diffraction may be the main limit on sharpness.
Best regards
Erik
-
Jim, I'm ancient in the world of digital so my age is showing! LOL!
Guess I need to update my language skills to how Dmax is expressed today.
I used to develop software on the super computers Cray/SGI platform for 12 years before I dropped out at 46 to continue my own studies.
Put together a small team of kids out of MIT and GA Tech as a SGI Power Series VAR and developer.
That took me into working in many areas of digital, initially 3D realms, but lead me into a relationship with Eikonix when it was embryo and building it's first digital camera. We expressed Dmax as the maximum spread of visual that could be distinguished from the Eikonix array.
I then worked with "Leaf" in developing drivers for the Leaf 45 scanner, and later to the Howtek HiResolve 8K drum scanner, Nikon and Hasselblad's (very short relationship with Hassie as they suffered from NIH syndrome - not invented here) first digital cameras.
We always expressed how many stops of dynamic range we could "pull out of an array" as "Dmax". It's just the number of stops of range from maximum distinguishable white to black. When we passed a Dmax of 7 (7stops) I got rid of all my film gear and went totally digital with a P45+ mounted on a 500cm and 100 T* lens on the nose. It took the P45+ back at 39MP to beat anything I could pull out of film and get a decent scan on my Howtek 8K scanner - I had my own Wing Linch processor and developed routines to really pull the film to give me what I wanted.
Have never gone back to film.
So, what term should I update my "little gray cells" to use to represent what I call Dmax?
PS: Eikonix was purchased by Kodak in an attempt to keep film alive and kill digital. (At the time of the buy out, Eikonix was headed by a very bright chap named George Helms that I respected.) It worked for a while but ..........
Hi,
I don't think DMAX is correct for sensors. DMAX is essentially maximum absortption. So Velvia that has a DMAX around 4 absorbs about 99.99 of the light. A photographic paper with D-MAx of 2.3 absorbs 99.5 % of the light.
With sensors we have Full Well Capacity (FWC), that is how many electron charges a pixel can hold. We also have a readout noise. Essentially the standard of deviation of the output of the sensor after a dark exposure.
FWC divided by readout noise gives the dynamic range, DR. DR is a measure how dark an image still holds some detail.
These posting provides some hands on demos: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58984278
Best regards
Erik
-
Erik,
Good to see you are still vertical and haunting the threads here!
Yes, Dmax as I used it in my post is not valid today, as I mentioned earlier in a reply to Jim, just a habit of mine.
In the realm of digital, my little gray cells go back to 1980 to 82 or so, and Dmax is what we called the "maximum density range" we could pull out of an array (now called a sensor, as you just used). We didn't know what we were talking about as we had no foundation of a historical language in a digital imaging sense.
One area of the cameras hoped for market was archival of fine art in digital format at the museum level. I spent some time on that sector, it went no where. The push back was strong as the insight of that market had no foundation to what it could do and was very conservative.
But it was a fun time and experience. As I remember, the camera was EXTREMELY sensitive to any fluctuations in the electrical source you plugged it into which present major problems in getting consistent results! But that was eventually overcome.
As I sit here with the GFX 50S and the H4D 60 on the corner of my desk, this thread has brought back many memories of fun times experimenting with the Eikonix.
PS: I was never able to find a buyer in my market for it, most thought it was a gimmick and could not see the future. But Nikon became aggressive in producing their first unit and the rest is history.
PPS: For anyone wondering just WHO started the Mega Pixel Race, this site has an interesting video of the "Inventor":
https://www.diyphotography.net/worlds-first-digital-camera-introduced-man-invented/
And this site:
http://www.cameramuseum.ch/en/N5902/.html
And this is were we are NOW:
https://youtu.be/b8dsssSi4Aw
(For the purist, this thread had drifted a long way from my decision to keep my GFX 50S and send back the GFX 100. I'm partly responsible for the "drift" off topic - sorry about that! I'm sticking to my decision of dumping the GFX 100 BUT I admit I have go wonder IF I had a poor sample....... doubt it.)
-
I just did icuts of the screen for each of the camera for anyone that wants to see what I experience between the 50S and the 100.
Sharpening was stopped at the point going any further only degraded the respective images.
Capture One v. 20 used for both. Both zoomed in 300% in C1 before icut was done.
Jack
Hi Jack,
I took your GFX 100 image, downsized to 71% in Photoshop and copy pasted parts of the GFX 100 image into the GFX 50 image. See attachement.
My first guess was that there may be something wrong with your GFX 100. Now, I don't think so.
Best regards
Erik
-
The pasted in pieces are head and shoulders above the background image. I’m surprised at how big a difference I see
-
Erik,
I agree when you go in only 70% with the GFX 100 and yet 100% with the GFX 50S.
Why those particular ratios did you choose to use to evaluate the respective cameras?
Based on the 100 pitch being .7 compared to the 50S per Jim's comment back on page one?
-
Hi Jack,
100MP / 50MP -> 2
sqrt(2) -> 1.41
100% / 1.41 -> 71%
So, downscaling a 100 MP image to 50 MP needs rescaling to 71%. That will deliver approximately the same feature size as the 100% sized 50 MP image.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
I agree when you go in only 70% with the GFX 100 and yet 100% with the GFX 50S.
Why those particular ratios did you choose to use to evaluate the respective cameras?
Based on the 100 pitch being .7 compared to the 50S per Jim's comment back on page one?
-
So the GFX100 is the clear winner here. This whole thread wasn't making sense to me, and finally in seeing this I'm left scratching my head?
-
So the GFX100 is the clear winner here. This whole thread wasn't making sense to me, and finally in seeing this I'm left scratching my head?
It's explained on the first page of this thread. Sharpness isn't much difference, but aliasing sure is.
Jim
-
As I said countless times before the GFX100 is absolutely amazing I would never ever consider going back to my 50s.