FF versus MF

[Brad P]

OP

What do you mainly photograph? I maybe missed it.

Do you print? What size printer do you have or intend to get? I often take those things into consideration for my MF system.

I had a PO P45+ an used it with a Hasselblad V for landscape. Then I got a Pentax 645Z. I liked the IQ improvement, but something was missing. Then I got the XF +100MP and I am loving the image quality all while I feel I might be future proofed for some time based on my printing needs-24" for the time being. I just have to hold in the GAS. We will be inundated with temptations for upgrading from now on until we leave this earth.

IMHO, if you want to future proof yourself then go for a 100MP sensor. To my friends, they can see the improvement in the 100MP files even with jpeg images sent to them for 24-30" monitor viewing.

If you do street, then get a 24MP whatever and stick with it until its buffer is too slow for you.

Yeah you got it.   Temptations forevermore.  And good question, at least for me and maybe a few others here.  I have an HPZ3200 44 inch printer and shoot a wide range of generally still subjects, typically shooting to print to that scale.  That can be done using meticulously taken and processed (and enlarged) FF shots satisfactorily, but I've grown weary of all the time I spend in post manually dealing with imperfections (like movement between stitched frames, for just one example).  So I lust for 100MP and/or higher quality pixel level detail. 

What's holding me up from a Phase XF-100MP is its practically prohibitive cost AND that I hike my stuff around a bit.  The X1D and GFX platforms are more affordable and portable in my case.  Given Sony's MF sensor roadmap, I can imagine high quality 100MP backs for those two systems will come in a few years, and that's where I'm leaning today. 

[Stephen Girimont]

Thanks for that. I have never tried to stack with lens adjustment with a focus-by-wire lens. I had no idea it was possible. How do you know how much you've changed the focus distance for each step?

Jim

The GFX can give you a depth-of-field scale on the LCD. I haven't tried it with a macro shot, but I have used it for a simple 3-image focus stack in a near/far composition. No idea how accurate it is yet as I haven't really tried to test it, but perhaps someone has. The GFX actually has 2 different depth-of-field scales it can display, I believe, one for if you are going to print (that's a little more forgiving) and one for pixel sharpness. I've only used the print version as it gives greater depth readings and I shoot for print.

[Brad P]

To check this, I photographed two stacks of around 20 layers, one using the fly-by-wire and single-stepping it (like we usually do) and a second stack of the same fly-by-wire lens mounted on a focus rail and moved mechanically. I used the Hasselblad X1D with the 90mm f/3.5 lens.

The results showed that both methods produced a usable stack.

Michael, when you had the GFX in hand, were you able to manually do 20 layers too?   I don't stack by rail for the reasons you cite, and also because some of my subjects would require a 20' long rail. 

[Michael Erlewine]

Michael, when you had the GFX in hand, were you able to manually do 20 layers too?   I don't stack by rail for the reasons you cite, and also because some of my subjects would require a 20' long rail.

I would imagine that fly-by-wire focus is the same. When I was testing the GFX, I had other fish to fry, the main problem being the lenses I like the most (Otus, etc.) looked (IMO) worse than on the Nikoin D810 and that was not acceptable for my work. With the X1D I don't have that problem because it does not accept non-native lenses! LOL

[Brad P]

I would imagine that fly-by-wire focus is the same. When I was testing the GFX, I had other fish to fry, the main problem being the lenses I like the most (Otus, etc.) looked (IMO) worse than on the Nikoin D810 and that was not acceptable for my work. With the X1D I don't have that problem because it does not accept non-native lenses! LOL

Thanks.  LOL too.  Maybe one solution is an adaptor and a manual mechanically focused macro lens for this type of work with the GFX.   BTW you probably already know and have rejected this for hundreds of good reasons I don't know, but Kuyper's luminosity curves allows me to stretch out blacks and whites just about to my hearts content. 

[Jim Kasson]

The GFX can give you a depth-of-field scale on the LCD. I haven't tried it with a macro shot, but I have used it for a simple 3-image focus stack in a near/far composition. No idea how accurate it is yet as I haven't really tried to test it, but perhaps someone has. The GFX actually has 2 different depth-of-field scales it can display, I believe, one for if you are going to print (that's a little more forgiving) and one for pixel sharpness. I've only used the print version as it gives greater depth readings and I shoot for print.

With the 120/4 macro up close, you can make big focusing moves and see no change on the LCD/EVF scale.

[Stephen Girimont]

With the 120/4 macro up close, you can make big focusing moves and see no change on the LCD/EVF scale.

I imagine so, given the scale that's displayed and the distances you are changing focus over in a macro situation. I imagine this is something that could be resolved in a firmware update (to change the scale displayed when focusing at macro distances). I don't think the depth of field bars will ever be much help at macro scale, but seeing the focus point move could be beneficial.

[Michael Erlewine]

In his most recent posts, Lloyd Chambers is finding the same thing I found as for using high-quality non-native lenses on the GFX, particularly the Otus 55mm APO and the Otus 28mm APO. For some reason, they just don’t work well on the GFX, which is why I bought the GFX and that failure is why I returned it.

Interestingly enough, Chambers found that the Zeiss 135mm APO (an Otus as far as I am concerned) does work on the GFX. So, go figure.

[BernardLanguillier]

In his most recent posts, Lloyd Chambers is finding the same thing I found as for using high-quality non-native lenses on the GFX, particularly the Otus 55mm APO and the Otus 28mm APO. For some reason, they just don’t work well on the GFX, which is why I bought the GFX and that failure is why I returned it.

Interestingly enough, Chambers found that the Zeiss 135mm APO (an Otus as far as I am concerned) does work on the GFX. So, go figure.

I believe that the Otus may be designed with some assumptions in terms of the charactetistics of the sensors in front of which they are used (glass thickness, type of micro-lenses,...) and that these may differ between the 35mm Nikon DSLRs vs the shorter flange distance GFX?

I'd have to agree that this is probably a show stopper.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Michael Erlewine]

I believe that the Otus may be designed with some assumptions in terms of the charactetistics of the sensors in front of which they are used (glass thickness, type of micro-lenses,...) and that these may differ between the 35mm Nikon DSLRs vs the shorter flange distance GFX?

I'd have to agree that this is probably a show stopper.

Cheers,
Bernard

Well, that "showstopper" leaves me with no high-Mpx camera to use the various well-corrected lenses I have. I am using the X1D just to learn more about MF cameras, but I may sell it (down the line) since it won't allow me to use alternative lenses at all. What I need is Nikon to come through with a new camera with all the good things I could use. In the meantime, I will probably do more technical camera work. As for Sony, I am mixed. A high-MPx camera from them could be interesting, but I am not charmed with their approach to DSLRs, although I have the A7Rii, etc.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Jim Kasson is positive about Otus and Zeiss classic lenses on the GFX. So, there seems to be some contradiction.

Best regards
Erik

I believe that the Otus may be designed with some assumptions in terms of the charactetistics of the sensors in front of which they are used (glass thickness, type of micro-lenses,...) and that these may differ between the 35mm Nikon DSLRs vs the shorter flange distance GFX?

I'd have to agree that this is probably a show stopper.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Manoli]

In his most recent posts, Lloyd Chambers is finding the same thing I found as for using high-quality non-native lenses on the GFX, particularly the Otus 55mm APO and the Otus 28mm APO. For some reason, they just don’t work well on the GFX, which is why I bought the GFX and that failure is why I returned it.

Interestingly enough, Chambers found that the Zeiss 135mm APO (an Otus as far as I am concerned) does work on the GFX. So, go figure.

I'm not surprised. It's a phenomenon we saw with the first A7 cams. Rule of thumb: 50mm (35'ish wide angle, when adapted) - marginal. Telephoto, 75mm and up - works. Wide-angles, with a few exceptions - don't bother.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

That was for Leica M lenses and similar, that have large beam angles. It would not apply to retrofocus lenses, like Leica R-lenses.

Best regards
Erik

I'm not surprised. It's a phenomenon we saw with the first A7 cams. Rule of thumb: 50mm (35'ish wide angle, when adapted) - marginal. Telephoto, 75mm and up - works. Wide-angles, with a few exceptions - don't bother.

[Quentin]

The GFX is so good with lenses it does work with, there should be no issue, unless you are an avid collector of non native glass.

I mean, how many lenses do you actually regularly use or need?

[Jim Kasson]

In his most recent posts, Lloyd Chambers is finding the same thing I found as for using high-quality non-native lenses on the GFX, particularly the Otus 55mm APO and the Otus 28mm APO. For some reason, they just don’t work well on the GFX, which is why I bought the GFX and that failure is why I returned it.

I'm not finding that at all.  For example, the improvement in sharpness that comes from using the Otus 85 on the GFX as opposed to the a7RII is quite high:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/a7rii-gfx-on-axis-sharpness-w-otus-85/

I am not an optics expert, but when the GFX was first announced, I did consult with two, who said that the thickness of the sensor cover glass was the key thing for smearing; and that the exact location, while not completely immaterial, was a second-order effect. I will point out that I never saw corner smearing on the a7RII with lenses designed for mirror-box cameras, since the wide ones can't be symmetrical.

With respect to focusing, which, if you're not using rails, plays into testing for this, I can say that I have no trouble focusing the GFX except with top-notch lenses on high-contrast targets. The trick is to use peaking and magnification together. I was testing the Zeiss 35 mm f/2 ZF.2 on the GFX last night, and -- maybe the stars and moon aligned -- I have to say that I've never seen the focus point pop into view like that on any other camera except the Betterlight Super 6K with its target in focusing mode. Foliage at 50 meters, and form f/2 to f/4, the slightest movement of the focusing ring off the "lit up" distance produced a huge effect.

Jim

[Michael Erlewine]

I no longer have the GFX, so I can't experiment. I did experiment enough to determine that these lenses did not surpass (or equal) what I can do with the D810. Some may find something different.

As far as who asked how many lenses a person needs, there is no answer to that. That is an individual thing. I happen to like lenses.

[Gigi]

The GFX is so good with lenses it does work with, there should be no issue, unless you are an avid collector of non native glass.

I mean, how many lenses do you actually regularly use or need?

rough question on these forums! 

[Jim Kasson]

I no longer have the GFX, so I can't experiment. I did experiment enough to determine that these lenses did not surpass (or equal) what I can do with the D810. Some may find something different.

I should be clear here about the GFX sharpness improvements with the Otus vs the a7RII. While the numbers are strikingly different, and highly magnified screen views almost (but not quite) as compelling, I found that I had to make really big prints to see a material difference in the output. C-size was too small to see anything material.

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/gfx-vs-a7rii-visibility-of-improved-iq/

Even with 30-inch high prints, the differences were subtle, and likely to be invisible to the average viewer.

That's because the Otus lenses can resolve so much detail that the sensors on either camera cannot. With lesser lenses the greater size of the GFX sensor is an advantage, but many of us don't buy cameras like the GFX to use then with cheap lenses.

There's something to think about here. Now that we have cameras like the D810, the a7RII, the GFX, and the P1 100 MP camera, photographic technique -- DOF, camera motion, diffraction control, focus accuracy, etc -- becomes the likely limiting factor in image quality, not the gear.

Jim

[Michael Erlewine]

I should be clear here about the GFX sharpness improvements with the Otus vs the a7RII. While the numbers are strikingly different, and highly magnified screen views almost (but not quite) as compelling, I found that I had to make really big prints to see a material difference in the output. C-size was too small to see anything material.

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/gfx-vs-a7rii-visibility-of-improved-iq/

Even with 30-inch high prints, the differences were subtle, and likely to be invisible to the average viewer.

That's because the Otus lenses can resolve so much detail that the sensors on either camera cannot. With lesser lenses the greater size of the GFX sensor is an advantage, but many of us don't buy cameras like the GFX to use then with cheap lenses.

There's something to think about here. Now that we have cameras like the D810, the a7RII, the GFX, and the P1 100 MP camera, photographic technique -- DOF, camera motion, diffraction control, focus accuracy, etc -- becomes the likely limiting factor in image quality, not the gear.

Jim

Well, I have yet to print out a single photo and I have none on the walls. Zero.

One thing I am learning on these photo forums is what a wide variety of photographers we are. A professional photographer I never thought to be, because that seemed like a long row to hoe. I have been more interested in process than the resulting photos. And by “process” I mean the state of mind when taking photos, and how that works. Few seem interested in that.

I tried a camera club, once or twice, but soon found that there was nothing there that interested me and what I did was of little interest to them. Forums like these are better, on a good day.

[Jim Kasson]

Well, I have yet to print out a single photo and I have none on the walls. Zero.

One thing I am learning on these photo forums is what a wide variety of photographers we are. A professional photographer I never thought to be, because that seemed like a long row to hoe. I have been more interested in process than the resulting photos. And by “process” I mean the state of mind when taking photos, and how that works. Few seem interested in that.

I tried a camera club, once or twice, but soon found that there was nothing there that interested me and what I did was of little interest to them. Forums like these are better, on a good day.

Chacun a son gout. I find it rewarding to have my photographs in galleries and on other people walls. I also found that having exhibition catalogs published was satisfying. I even went as far as publishing a short run (1000 copies) book of the Staccato work.

I think of photography as a communications medium.

At the same time, I appreciate that the process itself can be a pleasure.  I used to particularly like teh zen-like state I would get into when doing street photography.

Jim