Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Down

Author Topic: FF versus MF  (Read 24175 times)

Brad P

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 258
Re: FF versus MF
« Reply #20 on: April 22, 2017, 04:55:41 am »

After putting my camera down for three weeks to research the state of play in high-end FF to through high end MF digital platforms, I've reached a point of diminishing returns.

The most important conclusion I come to is that a mirrorless revolution seems only beginning to unfold. As that continues, mirrorless platforms seem likely over the next 5 years to revalue all our gear like nothing since film.  Possibly even more so because lenses will be changing to accommodate new focal points.  If you see this too, you must see that it has now touched medium format.

Fuji and Hasselblad are formidable old MF names.  Version 1 of each mirrorless implementation so far seems like version 1. Each is without acclaimed lenses.  And that invites others. Zeiss Otus engineers hopefully are planning for mirrorless MF opportunities.

A state of profound transition for all of us who care about equipment.  A time to be careful buying new stuff.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 06:42:40 pm by Brad P »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: FF versus MF
« Reply #21 on: April 22, 2017, 09:25:15 am »

Hi,

My friend Jim Kasson is blown away with the GFX. He has found a lot of issues with focusing on the GFX but he still feels that the GFX blows away the A7rII, even when that A7rII has the Otus 55 mounted.

I am pretty sure the lenses for the new GFX/X1D format are great! Sony has also presented a roadmap for the MFD sensors and 100 MP 44x33 mm will be with us next year.

But, seriously, although larger formats always have at least some benefits, smaller formats can be good enough. That really applies to anything.

Best regards
Erik

After putting my camera down for three weeks to research the state of play in high-end FF to through high end MF digital platforms, I've reached a point of diminishing returns.

The most important conclusion I come to is that a mirrorless revolution seems only beginning to unfold. As that continues, mirrorless platforms seem likely over the next 5 years to revalue all our gear like nothing since film.  Possibly even more so because lenses will be changing to accommodate new focal points.  If you see this too, you must see that it has now touched medium format.

Fuji and Hasselblad are formidable old MF names.  Version 1 of each mirrorless implementation so far seems like version 1. Each is without acclaimed lenses.  And that invites others. Zeiss Otus engineers hopefully are planning for mirrorless opportunities, including MF ones.

A state of profound transition for all of us who care about equipment.  A time to be carefull buying new stuff.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

cgarnerhome

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 242
    • cgarnerphoto
Re: FF versus MF
« Reply #22 on: April 22, 2017, 11:31:51 am »

I completely agree with Erik these smaller formats can be good enough and I would add are good enough!  The truth is the XF100 is all the camera I ever need but it won't stop me from upgrading to a Phase with a 150mp sensor.  I can't seem to help myself!!!  GAS is a very powerful disease with not many treatment options!
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 12:46:24 pm by cgarnerhome »
Logged

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1187
Re: FF versus MF
« Reply #23 on: April 22, 2017, 11:48:17 am »

Hi,

My friend Jim Kasson is blown away with the GFX. He has found a lot of issues with focusing on the GFX but he still feels that the GFX blows away the A7rII, even when that A7rII has the Otus 55 mounted.

I am pretty sure the lenses for the new GFX/X1D format are great! Sony has also presented a roadmap for the MFD sensors and 100 MP 44x33 mm will be with us next year.

But, seriously, although larger formats always have at least some benefits, smaller formats can be good enough. That really applies to anything.

Best regards
Erik

Any time I here the words "blows away" these days my bullshit alarm goes off.
Logged

Brad P

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 258
Re: FF versus MF
« Reply #24 on: April 22, 2017, 02:10:03 pm »

My friend Jim Kasson is blown away with the GFX. He has found a lot of issues with focusing on the GFX but he still feels that the GFX blows away the A7rII, even when that A7rII has the Otus 55 mounted.

Yes, and even today as I wake up he's already posted more proof that's the case.  See http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/gfx-vs-a7rii-visibility-of-improved-iq/ and his other blogs there. 

Being tied up for the moment in Sony FF myself, I've read every one of his GFX blogs.  I've had a B&H shopping cart filled up with $16K of GFX goodies, more importantly obtained my wife's permission (at the cost of putting an old Swiss watch on eBay), but couldn't hit the checkout button.

What stopped me was the thought that a Sony A9R, very likely to be released around year end, might reverse those results (let's call that a 50% chance).  Then what if Canon, Nikon, or Sony/Zeiss during the next year entered the mirrorless MF market (let's call one of those outcomes a 50% chance).  I already had buyers remorse once the cart was full. 
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: FF versus MF
« Reply #25 on: April 22, 2017, 02:51:04 pm »

Hi,

In what way does the A9 relate to the GFX? One is a sport's shooters camera with moderate resolution and high capture rate while the other is ahigh resolution camera with slow capture rate. They serve different needs. The best Sony to compare to the GFX is the A7rII.

Best regards
Erik

Yes, and even today as I wake up he's already posted more proof that's the case.  See http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/gfx-vs-a7rii-visibility-of-improved-iq/ and his other blogs there. 

Being tied up for the moment in Sony FF myself, I've read every one of his GFX blogs.  I've had a B&H shopping cart filled up with $16K of GFX goodies, more importantly obtained my wife's permission (at the cost of putting an old Swiss watch on eBay), but couldn't hit the checkout button.

What stopped me was the thought that a Sony A9R, very likely to be released around year end, might reverse those results (let's call that a 50% chance).  Then what if Canon, Nikon, or Sony/Zeiss during the next year entered the mirrorless MF market (let's call one of those outcomes a 50% chance).  I already had buyers remorse once the cart was full.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Brad P

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 258
Re: FF versus MF
« Reply #26 on: April 22, 2017, 03:03:47 pm »

In what way does the A9 relate to the GFX? One is a sport's shooters camera with moderate resolution and high capture rate while the other is ahigh resolution camera with slow capture rate. They serve different needs. The best Sony to compare to the GFX is the A7rII.

Sorry, I should have emphasized my "R" more than I did.  As with the A7 and A7ii, an "R" model typically comes out with something around 3 times the resolution.  I am assuming the A9"R" might be 60-75MP.  I'm sure that assumption comes with a lump of salt, but I have it in mind at a 50% likelihood anyway.  It may be better than that percentage actually...
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 03:10:44 pm by Brad P »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: FF versus MF
« Reply #27 on: April 22, 2017, 03:26:14 pm »

Hi,

There are some solid rumours about a 70+ MP full frame from Sony. That could be A9r or Sony A7rIII, may be even both.

Best regards
Erik


Sorry, I should have emphasized my "R" more than I did.  As with the A7 and A7ii, an "R" model typically comes out with something around 3 times the resolution.  I am assuming the A9"R" might be 60-75MP.  I'm sure that assumption comes with a lump of salt, but I have it in mind at a 50% likelihood anyway.  It may be better than that percentage actually...
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: FF versus MF
« Reply #28 on: April 22, 2017, 04:02:54 pm »

Hi,

My friend Jim Kasson is blown away with the GFX.

Erik, I think "blown away" would be overstating my impressions. The test that involved printing images taken with Otus lenses on both the a7RII and the GFX showed that, even with 30inch-high prints, the improvements are subtle.

I will say that I am hugely impressed (blown away wouldn't be far off) with the 120/4 Fuji macro lens. Even the 63 is pretty darned impressive for its price (but it does have those focusing issues -- I hope that Fuji sorts them out in a FW release).

Jim

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: FF versus MF
« Reply #29 on: April 22, 2017, 04:14:47 pm »

Hi Jim,

Sorry for overstating! But, I think I have used your own words from another posting on another forum.

Thanks putting things in perspective.

Best regards
Erik



Erik, I think "blown away" would be overstating my impressions. The test that involved printing images taken with Otus lenses on both the a7RII and the GFX showed that, even with 30inch-high prints, the improvements are subtle.

I will say that I am hugely impressed (blown away wouldn't be far off) with the 120/4 Fuji macro lens. Even the 63 is pretty darned impressive for its price (but it does have those focusing issues -- I hope that Fuji sorts them out in a FW release).

Jim
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: FF versus MF
« Reply #30 on: April 22, 2017, 04:40:18 pm »

Sorry for overstating! But, I think I have used your own words from another posting on another forum.

I hope that I didn't use those words about the camera in general. If you can find it, please let me know. Just talking about the body, I find it an impressive offering, but it's not in the category of the a7RII for me. Now that was a breakthrough.

Always appreciate your comments, Erik.

Jim

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: FF versus MF
« Reply #31 on: April 22, 2017, 05:06:04 pm »

Erik, I think "blown away" would be overstating my impressions. The test that involved printing images taken with Otus lenses on both the a7RII and the GFX showed that, even with 30inch-high prints, the improvements are subtle.

So, does that jstify the important extra cost now and in anticipatin of the availabilty of an a9r in less than 6 months?

Cheers,
Bernard

Joe Towner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
Re: FF versus MF
« Reply #32 on: April 22, 2017, 05:12:08 pm »

I'm torn to think if Sony will upend itself on the 50mp products.  Why would Sony sell a 50mp 24x36 sensor when it makes a killing on the 50mp 33x44 sensor?  If anything, I would expect the next gen 33x44 to launch & be active in all forms before 50mp comes to 24x36.

The 42mp 24x36 is a nice compromise, they're not lagging the 50mp Canon in any way other than dots, and they have a lot of other things they could put into a body that would draw more attention & sales.
Logged
t: @PNWMF

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: FF versus MF
« Reply #33 on: April 22, 2017, 05:31:38 pm »

I'm torn to think if Sony will upend itself on the 50mp products.  Why would Sony sell a 50mp 24x36 sensor when it makes a killing on the 50mp 33x44 sensor?  If anything, I would expect the next gen 33x44 to launch & be active in all forms before 50mp comes to 24x36.

The 42mp 24x36 is a nice compromise, they're not lagging the 50mp Canon in any way other than dots, and they have a lot of other things they could put into a body that would draw more attention & sales.

They make a lot more profit selling cameras than just sensors.

And many buyers of cameras featuring the 33x44 sensor are attracted to it due to the mythical qualities of MF.

Having a 50+ 35mm sensors will not have a significant negative impact on the sales of those small MF sensors. Besides this is already old story for Sony semi-conductors, they already sold a majority of those 33x44mm, including those to be used in the majority of the X1D and GFX bodies that will sell. They are now focused on the second versions of those cameras with the 100mp 33x44mm chip.

So all in all, I am 100% sure that a higher res a9r is coming with anywhere btw 50 and 70mp.

Another way to look at it is that the availability of an excellent 20mp 1 inch sensor in the RX100 series has never been seen by Sony as risking to endanger the sales of their best selling 24mp APS-C sensor, has it?

If the rumors of them cutting out Nikon from best in class sensors are true, they also have no choice but to move forward in resolutuion because Nikon won't be standing still at 36mp. Canon will also keep moving to. The current 50mp they are trying to push in the 5DRs is old tech even by Canon standard, but they can't admit that, so the 5DRs II will have to be at least 70mp and should be coming in 2018.

Sony has no choice really.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 05:45:28 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: FF versus MF
« Reply #34 on: April 22, 2017, 06:18:39 pm »

So, does that justify the important extra cost now and in anticipation of the availability of an a9r in less than 6 months?

I think the key thing is what Fuji does with the lens line. If there are more lenses like the 120/4, then the answer for many may be 'yes". I don't think I have a FF macro that can keep up with it even within the FF image circle. I thought the Sony 90/2.8 macro was pretty amazing before I tried the 120/4, but it's not even close. So what if the new 110 and the 23 (plus the 45 and 250) turn out to be in the same category as the 120/4? That will be hard to resist.

I'm assuming the focusing issues are going to be fixed.

But just for the body and FF lenses that you could use on the a7x, the answer is probably for most people (but not for all) "no". Even with the same (good) lenses, there appears to be around a 25% improvement in system resolution. But you have to print big in order to be able to use that.

Jim

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: FF versus MF
« Reply #35 on: April 22, 2017, 06:22:00 pm »

I guess I am lucky to own a copy of the Vogtlander 125mm f2.5 APO. ;) although I have not tested the Fuji 120mm so it could be even better.

Would you say that the Fuji is equally good at all focusing distances?

Cheers,
Bernard

Brad P

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 258
Re: FF versus MF
« Reply #36 on: April 22, 2017, 06:27:35 pm »

I'm torn to think if Sony will upend itself on the 50mp products.  Why would Sony sell a 50mp 24x36 sensor when it makes a killing on the 50mp 33x44 sensor?  If anything, I would expect the next gen 33x44 to launch & be active in all forms before 50mp comes to 24x36.

The 42mp 24x36 is a nice compromise, they're not lagging the 50mp Canon in any way other than dots, and they have a lot of other things they could put into a body that would draw more attention & sales.

I felt similarly for the longest time (until a few days ago).  Why would Sony Corporate allow its Sony Sensor division to be cannibalized by its Sony Camera division producing higher res cameras than Sony Sensor supplies the market?  Other camera manufacturers could easily be threatened by that, my old line of thinking went, and those other manufacturers would be incented to turn to other sensor manufacturers, damaging what actually is a huge Sony Sensor business.

But Lloyd Chambers pointed out a few days ago that this thinking is belied by Sony's sales numbers.  Sony Camera is producing great products and pretty aggressively taking market share. Thinking about that fact, Sony's strategy now appears to me to be to allow other manufacturers to access Sony Sensor's new sensor technology pretty immediately as its developed. (There was a recent interview published where two Sony Sensor managers basically said as much.)  Sony Camera sees new technology developed by Sony Sensor and fits that in its own products real time.  Separately, it's obvious too that Sony Sensor will strategically partner with other camera manufacturers on new sensor designs (learning along the way), even if it does not implement those sensors itself (e.g. Phase One, Hasselblad, and others).  Anyway, as Sony Camera's market share grows with this interesting synergistic approach, Sony gets the profits from that growth in both camera and embedded sensor sales.

So I'm now a believer in Sony Camera again (for the moment anyway).  And I'm thinking about just hanging out with an A7RII until the A9R comes out, look at MF offerings then, maybe go into the A9R to bide more time until a compelling mirrorless MF platform has become established, most importantly with clearly compelling next generation lenses.  We know those are the most costly and long lasting bits of any platform.  The most interesting outcome in my new imaginary world might be a Sony/Zeiss medium format mirrorless entry.  We can all dream. 
Logged

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: FF versus MF
« Reply #37 on: April 22, 2017, 06:38:46 pm »

I guess I am lucky to own a copy of the Vogtlander 125mm f2.5 APO. ;) although I have not tested the Fuji 120mm so it could be even better.

Would you say that the Fuji is equally good at all focusing distances?

Cheers,
Bernard

I have owned four CV-125 APOs, three for Nikon mount and one for Pentax mount. I still have two. To me, the CV-125 is be the best all-around macro lens, but not the sharpest or best corrected. It does not hold up well against the Zeiss Otus series, IMO. Of course, the Otus series are not macro lenses, but some of them (Otus 55mm) will take the K-1 extension (5.8mm), which is the shortest extension I know of for the Nikon mount. I would expect the X1D and GFX macros to be better than the CV-125, but may lack the "style" and warmth of the Voigtlander. The CV-125 is, I believe, for the FF format, not for MF.

And I shot the CV-125 for many years and for a great number of images, hundreds of thousands. I revere it, but seldom use it. The future for me depends on the quality (acuity, correction, resolution, etc.) of lenses that the various companies produce.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 06:49:17 pm by Michael Erlewine »
Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: FF versus MF
« Reply #38 on: April 22, 2017, 07:59:04 pm »

I guess I am lucky to own a copy of the Vogtlander 125mm f2.5 APO. ;) although I have not tested the Fuji 120mm so it could be even better.

Haven't tested it up close yet. I'll let you know.

What's the first ratio you'd like me to try?

BTW, the CO 60/4 works great on the GFX:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/coastal-604-uv-vis-ir-on-fuji-gfx-50s/

Jim

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: FF versus MF
« Reply #39 on: April 23, 2017, 10:45:47 am »

Hi Jim,

Sorry for overstating! But, I think I have used your own words from another posting on another forum.

Thanks putting things in perspective.

Best regards
Erik

[Erik sent me a DPR post, in which in answer to a question from him, I did indeed pronounce my self "blown away" by the GFX.]

At this point, I would like to publicly apologize to Erik for doubting the accuracy of his recollections.

I would also like to apologize to the world for getting so carried away. It was during my honeymoon period with the GFX, when just about all I had found was wonderfulness.

Jim

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Up