Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9   Go Down

Author Topic: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?  (Read 25535 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Old lenses, putting things in perspective
« Reply #40 on: November 11, 2017, 01:05:36 am »

Hi,

Another part of that discussion is that there is something called good enough.

This is a 1:1 crop from an image on the P45+ using the Planar 100/3.5, probably at f/11.


This is same compostion but shot on the A7rII with the Sony 90/2.8G macro.


I would call those both very good. But neither would come even close to the corresponding GFX lens.

Now, take this image, it was shot with the Hasselblad 40/4 CF, probably at f/11.


Now check out 2/3 to border crop at actual pixels:


I would not call it acceptable performance viewed on screen.

Let's compare it to the Canon 16-35/4L at 24 mm and at f/8:


Much better!

But, what would happen if we made a large print? I cropped both images half size and printed on A2, det would correspond to about 84x119 cm or 33"x47". The crop was corresponding to the central part and including the image shown below.

So, what looked the prints like? Looking close, say 50 cm the Sony A7rII image was vastly superior, but backing off to arm's length distance the two images were very similar. At longer distance you don't see the very fine detail, and the Distagon actually handles coarser detail pretty well.

Sharpening is another component of the equation. Fine detail contrast is always lost in transition from subject to print and sharpening is always needed to compensate for it.

A way to see it, you can sharpen so that 100% contrast will be maintained up to half of sensor resolution, or so. On the samples shown, FocusMagic would do a very job on that at 2 pixel radius and perhaps 75% strength. With a better lens and a better sensor, less sharpening is needed. That reduces the risk of artifacts and keeps noise levels low. It is always better to start with a very sharp image.

We may also need to keep on mind that absolute sharpness is only possible in a single plane of focus. If we shoot architecture, at a distance, the subject will be flat and field curvature will not be acceptable and the same applies to landscape at infinity.

Shooting anything else, it may not be possible to maintain good focus across the field at non diffraction limited apertures (anything smaller than f/8, for decent lenses). A lens that has field curvature would still yield great sharpness in the point of focus. So, you can have a portrait with correct focus on the eyes and the rest is going to be out of focus anyway.

Field curvature may even help. The field is often bending towards the camera at the edges. That means foreground may come into focus. Many images have foreground at the bottom but often lack detail in the corners at the top.

The image below is extreme corner crop from the Distagon 40/4, same image as shown before:


It is quite OK and it is actually better than the Canon 16-35/4L at 24 mm at the same crop:



It is here the Canon 16-35/4L is loosing a lot of sharpness.

The images are here:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/index2.html

The raw images are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/P45+_vs_A7rII/


Best regards
Erik

I am sure a lot of the dream of old and superior lenses are just unrealistic. I am sure the new Fuji-lenses are very good and would save us a lot of problems.  But still.. too many old and legendary lenses are too good to sell.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

uaiomex

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1209
    • http://www.eduardocervantes.com
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #41 on: November 11, 2017, 12:15:14 pm »

Excellent thread!
Thanks folks.
Eduardo
Logged

Bo_Dez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #42 on: November 12, 2017, 05:46:25 pm »

Sharpness is one thing. The Fuji lenses are very sharp.

The Fuji GFX sensor lens combo creates, from what I see so far, tonality and colour that is a bit on the dull side. That's not to say that it is bad - it's just missing the rendering sparkle that I look for and it leaves me feeling a little cold.

Logged

pschefz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 549
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #43 on: November 12, 2017, 08:27:46 pm »

Sharpness is one thing. The Fuji lenses are very sharp.

The Fuji GFX sensor lens combo creates, from what I see so far, tonality and colour that is a bit on the dull side. That's not to say that it is bad - it's just missing the rendering sparkle that I look for and it leaves me feeling a little cold.
just wondering: can you point us to some files or camera/lens combo that does provide the sparkle?
this is the first time i have heard fuji color to be on the dull side?
Logged
schefz.com
artloch.com

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #44 on: November 13, 2017, 01:22:58 am »

Hi,

Tonality and colour is essentially entirely coming from colour profiles.

The enclosed file shows three images, shot with P45+, Sony Alpha 900 and Sony A7rII. DCP profiles were made from a ColorChecker passport that was part of the setup. WB on second lightest gray patch and Lab adjusted for L around 51 on 4-th gray patch.

P45+ image processed with two different tonal curves, one corresponding to ACR and the other one to Capture One's "film curve".

Three very different sensors, 2007 generation CCD, 2008 generation CMOS and 2015 generation CMOS.


Best regards
Erik

Sharpness is one thing. The Fuji lenses are very sharp.

The Fuji GFX sensor lens combo creates, from what I see so far, tonality and colour that is a bit on the dull side. That's not to say that it is bad - it's just missing the rendering sparkle that I look for and it leaves me feeling a little cold.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2017, 01:43:17 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Bo_Dez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #45 on: November 15, 2017, 11:58:14 am »

Hi,

Tonality and colour is essentially entirely coming from colour profiles.

The enclosed file shows three images, shot with P45+, Sony Alpha 900 and Sony A7rII. DCP profiles were made from a ColorChecker passport that was part of the setup. WB on second lightest gray patch and Lab adjusted for L around 51 on 4-th gray patch.

P45+ image processed with two different tonal curves, one corresponding to ACR and the other one to Capture One's "film curve".

Three very different sensors, 2007 generation CCD, 2008 generation CMOS and 2015 generation CMOS.


Best regards
Erik

No, that's really not true. A profile will augment the image envelope of a lens/senor combination to make to it more uniform but it does not change the physical properties of the lens/sensor envelope. Profiling can only go so far in neutralising everything to a standard. Take one body with two different lenses and they can and do give entirely different results for that reason.

Lens transmission, design and glass quality is a key contributor to colour and tone. Independently, but also in conjunction with sensor stack design. Some lenses are much better than others with things like shadow tonality, in particular - there is only so much a profile can do to fudge that.

Take the Leica S for example, it punches far above what it's pixel count might suggest because the lenses are so good and the sensor has been so well designed to work with them. Same goes for Leica M lenses, put them on a Sony A7r and they aren't as good because the sensor is not designed to cater for them. No amount profiling will change that.

Lens microcontrast in itself can not be fudged by profile yet it contributes significantly to tone.
Logged

pschefz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 549
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #46 on: November 15, 2017, 05:58:06 pm »

No, that's really not true. A profile will augment the image envelope of a lens/senor combination to make to it more uniform but it does not change the physical properties of the lens/sensor envelope. Profiling can only go so far in neutralising everything to a standard. Take one body with two different lenses and they can and do give entirely different results for that reason.

Lens transmission, design and glass quality is a key contributor to colour and tone. Independently, but also in conjunction with sensor stack design. Some lenses are much better than others with things like shadow tonality, in particular - there is only so much a profile can do to fudge that.

Take the Leica S for example, it punches far above what it's pixel count might suggest because the lenses are so good and the sensor has been so well designed to work with them. Same goes for Leica M lenses, put them on a Sony A7r and they aren't as good because the sensor is not designed to cater for them. No amount profiling will change that.

Lens microcontrast in itself can not be fudged by profile yet it contributes significantly to tone.
i am reading a little bit of a contradiction in this.....
i agree that sensors can be optimized for certain lenses and that lenses can have profiles or corrections for certain sensor combos to make them look better....
if a lens does not look good on a sensor it is not the shortcoming of the sensor since in reality a great lens should really not need much digital correction to look good.....
if a leica m lens does not look as good on a 40mpix sony sensor it just cant stand up to that level of detail and resolving power....not the other way around....

i also thought we were talking about profiles as in the way a raw converter interprets a file and what is done to it from that point on....
lens profiles are just digital helpers to correct optical flaws....

i haven't seen anything from the leica S that punches above its weight....not files, not functionality....i am actually not really sure what its "weight class" is? DMF? pentax and now GFX and X1D runs circles around it in any way possible.....including lenses....at a much lower price...even the X1D.....
a good example of a good lens/sensor combo is the Q IMO....or the Rx1RII....obviously easier to really fine tune the sensor for the lens with a fixed lens body....but you can see even there that the margins are small and there is only so much that can (and should) be done digitally.....

i guess the iPhone is a great example how much processing can go into a raw file to make up for a limited lens....which in that case is obviously because of the physical limitations....
Logged
schefz.com
artloch.com

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Magic differences will not show in controlled experiments
« Reply #47 on: November 17, 2017, 01:30:47 am »

Hi,

What I would suggest is that the differences you mention are disappearing in controlled experiments. Shoot the same scene, shoot identically and you will get very similar results.

Sharp lenses on low resolution sensor will create artificial detail, also known as aliases. You get that as soon as the resolution of the lens exceeds the resolution of the sensor. That would be visible in controlled experiments.

The images below was shot with three different cameras, P45+ (2007 CCD), Sony Alpha 900 (2008 CMOS), Sony A7rII (2105 CMOS).  Exposure and WB was matched against a ColorChecker and colour profiles were generated from the same ColorChecker:



Original image: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Divstuff/3Images_s.jpg

The P45+ was processed with two different tone curves, the one that ACR uses and also with Capture One tone curve (approximated).

The three image cover CCD, CMOS, 1.1X crop MFD sensor, 24x36 mm and Hasselblad era Zeiss lenses and a modern Sony zoom lens. There may be visible differences, but for me they are more similar than different.

In the image below we have a sharp lens combined with a relatively low resolution sensor (P45+ / 39MP, 6.8 micron pitch):


You can see that the sensor produces a hatch pattern that is not very credible.

The next image is taken with a good lens on a higher resolution sensor (Sony Alpha 77, 24 MP, 3.8 micron pitch):


The sensor matches the resolution of the lens and causes insignificant hatching artifacts.

Why we don't see it so much in real world pictures? Main cause might be that we often don't have fine regular detail that is obviously distorted. Another reason may be that utilising the full sharpness of a good lens needs very careful work. Stopping down to f/16 eliminates almost all artefacts on the P45+, but that is because diffraction limits the resolution of the lens to what the sensor can resolve. Halving the pixel size on the P45+ would allow to shoot without aliasing artefacts at f/8. That sensor would have 154 MP.

The example here is a bit boring, of course, but it is pretty much a schoolbook example of the aliasing issues.

The samples here are not intended to prove anything, just as an illustration of colour profiles and aliasing artefacts.

Best regards
Erik


No, that's really not true. A profile will augment the image envelope of a lens/senor combination to make to it more uniform but it does not change the physical properties of the lens/sensor envelope. Profiling can only go so far in neutralising everything to a standard. Take one body with two different lenses and they can and do give entirely different results for that reason.

Lens transmission, design and glass quality is a key contributor to colour and tone. Independently, but also in conjunction with sensor stack design. Some lenses are much better than others with things like shadow tonality, in particular - there is only so much a profile can do to fudge that.

Take the Leica S for example, it punches far above what it's pixel count might suggest because the lenses are so good and the sensor has been so well designed to work with them. Same goes for Leica M lenses, put them on a Sony A7r and they aren't as good because the sensor is not designed to cater for them. No amount profiling will change that.

Lens microcontrast in itself can not be fudged by profile yet it contributes significantly to tone.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2017, 03:41:26 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Bo_Dez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #48 on: November 17, 2017, 05:37:52 pm »

i am reading a little bit of a contradiction in this.....
i agree that sensors can be optimized for certain lenses and that lenses can have profiles or corrections for certain sensor combos to make them look better....
if a lens does not look good on a sensor it is not the shortcoming of the sensor since in reality a great lens should really not need much digital correction to look good.....
if a leica m lens does not look as good on a 40mpix sony sensor it just cant stand up to that level of detail and resolving power....not the other way around....

i also thought we were talking about profiles as in the way a raw converter interprets a file and what is done to it from that point on....
lens profiles are just digital helpers to correct optical flaws....

i haven't seen anything from the leica S that punches above its weight....not files, not functionality....i am actually not really sure what its "weight class" is? DMF? pentax and now GFX and X1D runs circles around it in any way possible.....including lenses....at a much lower price...even the X1D.....
a good example of a good lens/sensor combo is the Q IMO....or the Rx1RII....obviously easier to really fine tune the sensor for the lens with a fixed lens body....but you can see even there that the margins are small and there is only so much that can (and should) be done digitally.....

i guess the iPhone is a great example how much processing can go into a raw file to make up for a limited lens....which in that case is obviously because of the physical limitations....

No it's the sensor design, the M lenses have exceptional resolution (The APO-Summicron out performs the 55 Otus) and will otherwise work well on the Sony bodies with the Kolari Modification. The M lenses have a very steep ray angle and the thicker filter of the Sony causes problems. Also Leica developed their sensors with specially designed micro lenses to accommodate the lens design.

The S Lens and Sensor combo is very very good.
Logged

Bo_Dez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
Re: Magic differences will not show in controlled experiments
« Reply #49 on: November 17, 2017, 05:44:28 pm »

Hi,

What I would suggest is that the differences you mention are disappearing in controlled experiments. Shoot the same scene, shoot identically and you will get very similar results.

Sharp lenses on low resolution sensor will create artificial detail, also known as aliases. You get that as soon as the resolution of the lens exceeds the resolution of the sensor. That would be visible in controlled experiments.

The images below was shot with three different cameras, P45+ (2007 CCD), Sony Alpha 900 (2008 CMOS), Sony A7rII (2105 CMOS).  Exposure and WB was matched against a ColorChecker and colour profiles were generated from the same ColorChecker:



Original image: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Divstuff/3Images_s.jpg

The P45+ was processed with two different tone curves, the one that ACR uses and also with Capture One tone curve (approximated).

The three image cover CCD, CMOS, 1.1X crop MFD sensor, 24x36 mm and Hasselblad era Zeiss lenses and a modern Sony zoom lens. There may be visible differences, but for me they are more similar than different.

In the image below we have a sharp lens combined with a relatively low resolution sensor (P45+ / 39MP, 6.8 micron pitch):


You can see that the sensor produces a hatch pattern that is not very credible.

The next image is taken with a good lens on a higher resolution sensor (Sony Alpha 77, 24 MP, 3.8 micron pitch):


The sensor matches the resolution of the lens and causes insignificant hatching artifacts.

Why we don't see it so much in real world pictures? Main cause might be that we often don't have fine regular detail that is obviously distorted. Another reason may be that utilising the full sharpness of a good lens needs very careful work. Stopping down to f/16 eliminates almost all artefacts on the P45+, but that is because diffraction limits the resolution of the lens to what the sensor can resolve. Halving the pixel size on the P45+ would allow to shoot without aliasing artefacts at f/8. That sensor would have 154 MP.

The example here is a bit boring, of course, but it is pretty much a schoolbook example of the aliasing issues.

The samples here are not intended to prove anything, just as an illustration of colour profiles and aliasing artefacts.

Best regards
Erik

No, the physical attributes of lens design characteristics don't just magically disappear in controlled environments. Shadow detail, micro contrast and contrast at focal point compared with contrast in out of focus areas and the degree to which drops off are inherent in the DNA of the lens design and no amount of profiling will ever change that.
Logged

pschefz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 549
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #50 on: November 17, 2017, 06:35:53 pm »

No it's the sensor design, the M lenses have exceptional resolution (The APO-Summicron out performs the 55 Otus) and will otherwise work well on the Sony bodies with the Kolari Modification. The M lenses have a very steep ray angle and the thicker filter of the Sony causes problems. Also Leica developed their sensors with specially designed micro lenses to accommodate the lens design.

The S Lens and Sensor combo is very very good.
i am not sure where you are going with this....i have compared M lenses with voigtlander (and other) glass on digital M bodies and some of the M glass did not look so good in comparison....
i have seen absolutely nothing coming from leica (no matter which body/lens combination) that makes it to the top compared to the direct competition....the lenses aren't the problem, the sensors are, no matter how much you fine tune and tweak one for the other.....
not even taking price into consideration, the S was not very good with CCD and is barely much better with CMOS....no matter how good the lenses are, they cant make up for the sensor.....
i mean both X1D and GFX are in a different class.....and i think those are the cameras we are talking about here?
Logged
schefz.com
artloch.com

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: Magic differences will not show in controlled experiments
« Reply #51 on: November 17, 2017, 11:03:35 pm »

Hi,

The examples shown are with regard to tonality and colour, that is what DCP profiles are about.

Shadow detail is little affected by lens design, although some lenses have better control of flare than others. You were talking about tonality.

Jim Kasson has tested a lot of gear and sold all his M-lenses after getting the GFX. He found that the GFX lenses were a good match for the Otuses but offered sharper images due to the size of the sensor.

Jim also found that some of the APO-telephotos for the R-Leica work well with the GFX.

Best regards
Erik


No, the physical attributes of lens design characteristics don't just magically disappear in controlled environments. Shadow detail, micro contrast and contrast at focal point compared with contrast in out of focus areas and the degree to which drops off are inherent in the DNA of the lens design and no amount of profiling will ever change that.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Bo_Dez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #52 on: November 18, 2017, 12:56:26 pm »

i am not sure where you are going with this....i have compared M lenses with voigtlander (and other) glass on digital M bodies and some of the M glass did not look so good in comparison....
i have seen absolutely nothing coming from leica (no matter which body/lens combination) that makes it to the top compared to the direct competition....the lenses aren't the problem, the sensors are, no matter how much you fine tune and tweak one for the other.....
not even taking price into consideration, the S was not very good with CCD and is barely much better with CMOS....no matter how good the lenses are, they cant make up for the sensor.....
i mean both X1D and GFX are in a different class.....and i think those are the cameras we are talking about here?

Which lenses did you test against which Voigtlander? I have never found that to be true and in my testing with 35mm Summilux ASPH FLE, 50mm APO-Summicron, 50mm Noctilux ASPH, 75mm APO-Summicron, 90mm APO-Summicron, 135mm APO-Telyt there is no Voigtlander and Zeiss nearest equivalent that comes close and only the newest Zeiss ZM 35mm Distagon equals the Summilux. The Zeiss 50mm Planar is also very good. The 21mm Ultron is one of the only Voigtlanders that I would say is equal to the Leica, being the 21mm Summilux. But again, while it is as sharp, the colour and tonality is not as nice. The lens transmission is not up to the standard of the Leica.

I agree that the X1D and GFX are now marginally better than the S. Which is why I said the S punches above it's weight being 37MP instead of 50. The incoming S3 or 008 will take things to a new level so best to compare then. But he difference in all three of these cameras ***in print*** will be insignificant.

I spoke of the S as a reference point of a good sensor/lens combination and I maintain that the Fuji's rendering is relatively cold and dull compared with the X1D, The Phase One IQ50 and also, the S.
Logged

Bo_Dez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
Re: Magic differences will not show in controlled experiments
« Reply #53 on: November 18, 2017, 12:59:46 pm »

Hi,

The examples shown are with regard to tonality and colour, that is what DCP profiles are about.

Shadow detail is little affected by lens design, although some lenses have better control of flare than others. You were talking about tonality.

Jim Kasson has tested a lot of gear and sold all his M-lenses after getting the GFX. He found that the GFX lenses were a good match for the Otuses but offered sharper images due to the size of the sensor.

Jim also found that some of the APO-telephotos for the R-Leica work well with the GFX.

Best regards
Erik

No - shadow detail, tonality, contrast, colour, the difference in contrast between out of focus and in focus areas are all affected by lens design. A very well designed lens like the Leica 50mm APO-Summicron will have greater contrast in the focal plane and then drop off quickly in the out of focus areas.
Logged

pschefz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 549
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #54 on: November 18, 2017, 05:05:19 pm »

Which lenses did you test against which Voigtlander? I have never found that to be true and in my testing with 35mm Summilux ASPH FLE, 50mm APO-Summicron, 50mm Noctilux ASPH, 75mm APO-Summicron, 90mm APO-Summicron, 135mm APO-Telyt there is no Voigtlander and Zeiss nearest equivalent that comes close and only the newest Zeiss ZM 35mm Distagon equals the Summilux. The Zeiss 50mm Planar is also very good. The 21mm Ultron is one of the only Voigtlanders that I would say is equal to the Leica, being the 21mm Summilux. But again, while it is as sharp, the colour and tonality is not as nice. The lens transmission is not up to the standard of the Leica.

I agree that the X1D and GFX are now marginally better than the S. Which is why I said the S punches above it's weight being 37MP instead of 50. The incoming S3 or 008 will take things to a new level so best to compare then. But he difference in all three of these cameras ***in print*** will be insignificant.

I spoke of the S as a reference point of a good sensor/lens combination and I maintain that the Fuji's rendering is relatively cold and dull compared with the X1D, The Phase One IQ50 and also, the S.

we are obviously so far apart in our taste or what each of us consider better that it is pointless to clog up this thread.....i have owned leica film cameras, always maintained that there is something special about them....starting with m8 and m9 and the ability to use m lenses on all kinds of bodies this opinion has changed dramatically.....my last (worst) experience was the SL with 50 m summicron....
i am happy and glad that leica is still in business but at this point they are not competing with the rest of the market and probably aren’t really trying to either.....nothing wrong to appealing to a more emotional response and their products do look and feel nice....the problem i see is that while a historic m might be a collectors item....a m8,m9,S or SL never will....
time to get that new thambar m.....i am positive the color and rendering is beyond words or reason....
Logged
schefz.com
artloch.com

Rdmax

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #55 on: November 26, 2017, 09:16:01 pm »

Why even consider the S, especially for the asking price? I don't know what niche it fills in this age of medium format
Logged

bicubic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #56 on: March 09, 2018, 10:58:27 pm »


Has any of you used Phase, Hasselblad or Contax 645 lenses on the Fuji with adapters?

I'm using the fringer electronic adapter on a Contax 645 45-90mm f4.5 with my GFX. The adapter arrived this week.

I'm not totally comfortable with the logic behind the coding options with this fringer adapter (like loosing the smallest aperture to a 'manual' focus option even though the lens has a manual 'slip' override) but the resulting image is certainly a little sharper and has slightly more contrast from the Contax (zoom) than the FujiFilm G 63mm (prime). No question. This supports other claims I've read about the Contax 45-90mm.

However, the characteristic of the Contax lens is VERY similar to the Fuji. Clean and very revealing... but a little so what. In saying this, I'm comparing the Contax lens to a Hasselblad XPAN 45mm f4, a Mamiya 45mm f/2.8 and the Fuji G 63mm f/2.8—all four have been on the GFX. I'm finding internal white balance is shifting with each piece of glass—fascinating and annoying. I'm now just setting temp in K. I've 'seen' more potential in the Contax lens versus the Fuji (which I will probably sell).

The older XPAN 45mm lens is charming in both film and digital AND tiny when compared to the Contax.

The other huge issue is the Bayer sensor—the Toyota Camry of digital sensors. It seems to swallow the character of lenses when compared to the smaller Fuji X-Trans sensor (from studio tests).

My gut is telling me that between the Contax lens and bayer sensor I'm going to have to work for everything. Unlike the 45mm XPAN lens on film which could be spooky-at-a-distance beautiful (while also delivering it's fair share of tilted horizons). At this stage the cost for the Contax and adapter is a little less than the Fuji G zoom. Add the gym subscription needed to carry this lens on the GFX and it's even odds.

The new Fuji G series glass just isn't rocking my world (but then I'm not a fan of Toyota Camry's either).

 :o
Logged

henrikfoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 899
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #57 on: March 10, 2018, 04:17:39 am »

I would like to tell my story:
I finally bought the gfx50s.
I first thought I would use all my old lenses.
I bought adapter for: Hasselblad V, Mamiya 645, Contax 645 af, Nikon, Canon, M42, Contax y.
Many of the lenses I have tried works very very good on the gfx50s.

Only one «problem»:  I have the original Fujilenses: 23mm, 110mm and 120mm macro.
All these lenses are so extremely good. I would say that these lenses are some of the very
best lenses I have ever used! And the af system is all over the sensor almost as good as
modern Sonys etc.

After buying the gfx50s I have not used my Phase one system. Now itˋs just Fuji for me.
C1 is now Lightroom.😄

Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #58 on: March 10, 2018, 04:24:03 pm »

Hi,

Lightroom is a great tool, learn to use it and you will be happy! All tools have upsides and downsides. Lightroom has great tone mapping capabilities. It may be that C1 is much faster. I would not know, have been with LR since 2006 and I handle over 100 000 images. Switching tools would be a tremendous task.

Dabbling around with a couple dozen of images will not give enough experience to judge a workflow. I have dabbled with a few hundred images in C1. Once upon the time it installed itself as default application for raw files and I hated it. Now times it doesn't do that, and I can live with it.

The great advantage that Ligthroom may have over C1 is handling scenery with large luminescence range. Here Lightroom has algorithms to handle HDR using local adaption, while C1 just deliver muddy highlight compression.

Anyway, Phase One choose not to support competing systems. That is a marketing choice.


Nice to hear you enjoy your GFX. Seems to be a great tool.

Best regards
Erik

I would like to tell my story:
I finally bought the gfx50s.
I first thought I would use all my old lenses.
I bought adapter for: Hasselblad V, Mamiya 645, Contax 645 af, Nikon, Canon, M42, Contax y.
Many of the lenses I have tried works very very good on the gfx50s.

Only one «problem»:  I have the original Fujilenses: 23mm, 110mm and 120mm macro.
All these lenses are so extremely good. I would say that these lenses are some of the very
best lenses I have ever used! And the af system is all over the sensor almost as good as
modern Sonys etc.

After buying the gfx50s I have not used my Phase one system. Now itˋs just Fuji for me.
C1 is now Lightroom.😄
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #59 on: March 10, 2018, 05:34:45 pm »

I would like to tell my story:
I finally bought the gfx50s.
I first thought I would use all my old lenses.
I bought adapter for: Hasselblad V, Mamiya 645, Contax 645 af, Nikon, Canon, M42, Contax y.
Many of the lenses I have tried works very very good on the gfx50s.

Only one «problem»:  I have the original Fujilenses: 23mm, 110mm and 120mm macro.
All these lenses are so extremely good. I would say that these lenses are some of the very
best lenses I have ever used! And the af system is all over the sensor almost as good as
modern Sonys etc.

After buying the gfx50s I have not used my Phase one system. Now itˋs just Fuji for me.
C1 is now Lightroom.😄
Fuji is very well known in motion industry for very high-end glasses,
Some of which were so expensive that makes sense on rental.
They know a thing or 2 when it comes to build top quality lenses.
Now they focussed the business in cost/effective cine lenses though,
But Fuji experience in high-end optics/cost is optimum.
No surprise you found them good.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2018, 05:53:55 pm by fredjeang2 »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9   Go Up