GFX100

[Kirk_C]

And then there's HSS, which works well with the GFX and Godox strobes.

Even better with a strobe that doesn't horribly shift color like a Godox does when shooting anything that requires short duration and fast recycle times.

Two 4 k packs and a few smaller lights firing would almost eliminate the need for a fan to blow the models hair back.

Ah the 80's, the good old days. My standard set up was a couple of Norman P4000D packs and bi-tube heads. The pop scared more than one model the first time they went off. I did need a fan and an open window though to clear the Ozone those bi-tube heads made every time they fired.

Seriously any doubts about using the GFX100 with studio lights, or for that matter on-camera flash are moot.

I shot some studio work for a long time client on a GFX-50S at 400 iso and it looked better that what I was delivering from an H4D just a couple of years ago at base ISO. Sharper, better DR and no increase in grain or noise.

[Conner999]

Agreed. Don't really need leaf shutters indoors 99.9% of the time, but when shooting outside, it's a godsend.

Just ride the SS to adjust the ambient knowing your flash output is fine with no fussing w/ND filters and upping flash power to compensate as you mentally calculate how much battery juice you'll suck-up doing so when working quickly. 

The ability to carry smaller, lower-power strobes (assuming have fast enough duration) whose batteries last longer is also nice. We've switched to the 400ws Eli Quadra LiOs (DIY'd to fit Profoto mounts) with Action heads as primary packs for the H5D with a couple of 1200ws Profoto 7B2s big brothers in reserve as they'll both cover a 1/800 sync at all power settings.

That said, we're also going to be adding a GFX-50S (the 100 will be a few years yet) as a 2nd MF body and 1-2 Godox units for their HSS ability on the Fuji. In addition to the weather sealing and higher-iso ability, the GFX's flexibility to use HC lenses via the adapter was a big selling point. Over time we'll rationalize our HC lenses to a mix of HC, GF and adapted manual glass to get a best-fit for our work on both MF bodies.

You may not be aware of this but:
- studio shooters don’t need leaf shutter lenses, the flash is so much brighter than the studio ambiance that the synchro speed of plane shutters is mostly irrelevant
- the people who need quick synch speed are those shooting on location with strobes
- it’s possible to adapt H lenses on the GFX and to use their leaf shutters, so for H users like me all it takes is not selling 2 or 3 H lenses for having a very usable strobe shooting solution... (for me the 50mm II, 100mm f2.2 and 210mm f4 most probably that are anyway my preferred ones)

Cheers,
Bernard

[Jim Kasson]

Even better with a strobe that doesn't horribly shift color like a Godox does when shooting anything that requires short duration and fast recycle times.

Are you talking about he AD600PRO TTL? This was a discussion about HSS, wasn't it? If you want low color shift across a band of durations, the Einstein is good.

[BobShaw]

... This was a discussion about HSS, wasn't it? If you want low color shift across a band of durations, the Einstein is good.

Or just don't use HSS.
The other thing about HSS is that it divides the power up for multiple flashes which sort of defeats the purpose if you are trying to overpower the sun. A 1/2000 flash sync speed gives you a 4 stop advantage over 1/125S without any loss of power.

[DP]

The ability to go to 400 iso effectively turns a 500w mono head into a 4000w head if you get my drift.

one person who believes that "ISO" is a part of exposure ... or may be just OOC JPG shooter of course

[Martin Kristiansen]

one person who believes that "ISO" is a part of exposure ... or may be just OOC JPG shooter of course

Are you deliberately trying to belittle me or are you really not understanding what I am saying. Come let me explain. A real world example.

Two 4000 WS packs and heads where needed for a particular set up on a Leaf back set to 50 ISO. The ability two go to 100 ISO would have allowed me to move to 2000 WS packs Nd heads. To go to 200 ISO I could have ditched the packs and used two 1000WS mono heads. 400ISO and was on two much cheaper 500 WS monoheads. A real world example by the way. Over years this actually happened.

Now I must be very careful in case you think I’m confused about about focal length and exposure. Over the same period the 33 MP back running a 180 mm lens was replaced with a FF mirrorless at 42MP. Perhaps you can guess where I’m going? Yes, I am using a much shorter lens so can open up a stop and keep the effective DOF, meaning yet another saving on power. Two 500 WS heads at half power or perhaps I can drop ISO to 200. I’m not even going to go into the ability of modern cameras to hold focus and so allow even shallower depth of field and the implications of that but let’s just say I turned out to have little ability to keep a moving model in focus at f8 with a 150mm lens, my hit rate was around 50%.

I have owned 5 digital backs and none of them had the OOC ability to shoot jpg by the way.

[Jim Kasson]

The other thing about HSS is that it divides the power up for multiple flashes which sort of defeats the purpose f you are trying to overpower the sun. A 1/2000 flash sync speed gives you a 4 stop advantage over 1/125S without any loss of power.

I mentioned that when I first brought it up, and explained why it is often not a problem.

[JaapD]

one person who believes that "ISO" is a part of exposure ... or may be just OOC JPG shooter of course

Not funny! Of course "ISO" is part of the exposure, otherwise you shouldn’t dial in the ISO value on your (handheld) exposure meter.

Jaap.

[BernardLanguillier]

Not funny! Of course "ISO" is part of the exposure, otherwise you shouldn’t dial in the ISO value on your (handheld) exposure meter.

Perhaps the topic was ISO less sensors?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Martin Kristiansen]

Not funny! Of course "ISO" is part of the exposure, otherwise you shouldn’t dial in the ISO value on your (handheld) exposure meter.

Jaap.

Depends how you define exposure I suppose. How much light strikes the sensor is I think the most accurate and that is determined primarily by shutter speed and aperture in conjunction with ambient light levels. ISO tends to get mixed into it for practical reasons such as what I was trying to explain and what most people immediately understood when I spoke about high power studio lighting being needed for sensors lacking higher ISO capability.

Anyway. The HSS thing is a whole other debate and can obviously be used in different ways. I don’t quite understand the requirement people seem to place on flash equipment being able to overpower the sun. I use flash outdoors mostly to fill and if you are filling a subject moving rapidly you need a high shutter speed and so HSS to stop the motion and not to tame the ambient light. Gets complicated to explain in detail.

[DP]

...

You know well it seems that dialing more nominal "ISO" by itself will not let more light onto your sensor, but in most cases with modern gear you can decrease a readout related noise -> this is the the real benefit of a higher nominal ISO if you can't increase exposure time and/or use wider aperture and/or dial in more output on your strobes.

As for the strobes - you control the output so nothing prevents you from dialing the same output for different nominal ISOs (for as long as you do not come close to clipping in raw) - so you might benefit with a proper camera by reducing noise in shadows if you can't saturate your sensors from strobe output, that's it...

> Two 4000 WS packs and heads where needed for a particular set up on a Leaf back set to 50 ISO. The ability two go to 100 ISO would have allowed me to move to 2000 WS packs Nd heads

nope - you get "twice" less light on sensor and based on the camera you might simply reduce a little readout noise (better S/N in shadows)... going to ISO100 does not double the light, that's it ... you are shooting raw - why do you kid yourself ?

[DP]

ISO tends to get mixed into it for practical reasons

there is no practical reason to write absurd statements that somehow you can the same sensor exposure by reducing the strobe output twice and increasing a nominal ISO by a stop

[TonyVentourisPhotography]

there is no practical reason to write absurd statements that somehow you can the same sensor exposure by reducing the strobe output twice and increasing a nominal ISO by a stop

It’s not the “same” exposure or the same amount of light.  I know what Martin is saying, as I deal with this on a daily basis as well.  If I take my phase back, I need to take large strobes.  When I shoot my Olympus I can get away with speedlights at the same f-stop but higher iso. (Small shutter speed adjustment maybe) This makes certain lesser value shoots a lot more efficient and quicker in terms of setup and execution.  I end up with the “same” final looking picture.  I honestly don’t care if their is slightly more noise, or what the sensor is doing is different.  My picture is like look at the end of the day.  My clients don’t care about the sensor.  I know I’m not getting more light out of the flashes...it is technically less light.... all I care about is my end result.  And having a sensor that can give me a clean result while allowing me to use smaller lights is a huge bonus in many situations.  Sometimes that is the difference between me shooting alone, or me needing two assistants with me.  When you run a business, that financial difference over a lot of shoots day in and out can add up.

[Martin Kristiansen]

Quite right Tony. My 42MP ff camera produces a file as clean as my old Aptus 7 and needs about three stops less light from the strobes to achieve that and at one stop bigger aperture to rep,I ate the depth of field with a shorter lens. I need much less strobe power.

The above is for means of explanation pedants. I am not knocking MFDB’s and I am not proposing everyone switches to my obviously superior camera platform. If you don’t understand or believe this explanation please feel free to continue to carry a brace of 4K packs when going on location shoots. Actual working photographers taking actual photos for actual clients paying actual real money will most likely understand it as it has had a huge impact on the business.

[TonyVentourisPhotography]

Exactly... m4/3 means shooting at f2.8 and having depth of field of f/5.6 or similar...iso 200 or 400 and a 1/250 flash sync...it’s like a dream come true for the mileage I get from my lights, the depth of field I get in the image, and for the size of the system.  And less retouch since fine detail is not nearly as rendered as my phase back.  So many people don’t get why I switched to Olympus for my commercial work....

Then again, here are times where high megapixels or a back are necessary.  But having some or all of the advantages I get from a modern MF mirrorless is looking more appealing every day. 

[DP]

It’s not the “same” exposure or the same amount of light.  I know what Martin is saying, as I deal with this on a daily basis as well.  If I take my phase back, I need to take large strobes.  When I shoot my Olympus I can get away with speedlights at the same f-stop but higher iso.

then use the proper words - better sensor tech sometimes might allow you to have ~acceptable/same/better S/N (again mostly in shadows) even for many times smaller sensor area (m43 vs MF - that "phase back" is clearly not recent CMOS based one, but something old CCD based), which allows you to get by with less light output by strobes (smaller strobes/speedlites) ... there is no need for some mythical "practical" reasons to mutter anything implying that somehow different ISOs make different "exposure" equal (when you perfectly well know that it is not).

[DP]

Exactly... m4/3 means shooting at f2.8 and having depth of field of f/5.6 or similar...iso 200 or 400 and a 1/250 flash sync...

exactly no need to bring ISO here. .. it is a different sensor tech in different cameras that allows you to do this... not ISO...

[TonyVentourisPhotography]

That is also true.  Nothing is stopping me from shooting my ccd back at 400 iso.... I just think the noise and colors look horrible and not up to my standards.  So I won’t.  But if I shot at that iso I would obtain the same results in terms of lights.  It’s just as you say as well...the sensor tech is different on the new stuff.

[Martin Kristiansen]

That is also true.  Nothing is stopping me from shooting my ccd back at 400 iso.... I just think the noise and colors look horrible and not up to my standards.  So I won’t.  But if I shot at that iso I would obtain the same results in terms of lights.  It’s just as you say as well...the sensor tech is different on the new stuff.

Yep. Very different sensor tech. The result is where I used to have a 4K pack I now have a 500w head. Sorry if those are the wrong words. (Doos)

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Jim,

Good point, but when I am shooting macro I often run into the limits.

Best regards
Erik

And then there's HSS, which works well with the GFX and Godox strobes. You do throw away a flock of photons, but you're usually going for the short shutter speeds because you want to open the lens up, and efficiency is not the long pole in the tent.

Jim