Aah, that is interesting, Rand. Over 6 years, I have now been using DP Merrils for landscape photography. Mostly in wooded areas, and always on a tripod. I think the image quality is very satisfying, very good across the whole frame corner to corner. In particular considering the small form factor. When the scene has a lot of detail (e.g. foliage), I would not want print much larger than 20x30, though. Another limitation (a major one) I see in their small dynamic range. Highlights clip very easily.
So I have also been entertaining the idea to upgrade to a GFX. Better resolution, better dynamic range. More focal length options.
May I ask you about your experience? Did your 50s completely replace your Merrils? Does the smaller depth-of-focus create new problems in practice? If you are using the 32-64mm zoom: does it hold up well for landscape?
Thanks
Frank
Hi Frank,
Your experience with the Merrills very much reflects my own. Within their narrow range, they are stellar.
The GFX is orders of magnitude more versatile, of course. The enormous dynamic range will stun you, especially in comparison to the Merrills (or most cameras for that matter).
Since I shot medium format film cameras for years, the return to a more limited apparent depth of field at any given aperture wasn’t a shock - but it does require being more careful and deliberate in order to assure that you’re getting the depth you need. It is a little more difficult to judge what kind of DOF you’re getting with either the LCD or the EVF. But with some testing / comparing it doesn’t take long to adjust. And if you’re shooting wide, eg. the 23mm or on the wide end of the 32-64, a phone-app DOF calculator will get you to the hyperfocal distance quickly and adequate DOF becomes a non-issue for the most part.
The GFX 50s requires, IMO, deliberate handling, whereas with the Merrills being so small / portable one can be a bit more casual as long as there’s good light or a tripod.
I’ve pre ordered the GFX 100 and may or may not keep the 50s depending on how things test out... but I’m not sure I will ever sell the Merrills. For those of us who have had the privilege of shooting and printing from them (and who are willing to put up with the terrible Sigma software to get to a tiff, LOL) I think there is an “X” factor that no other camera has - including the GFX, believe it or not. And up to about 20x30” the prints are superb.
I shot a still life with the DP3 and posted it to PhotoNet a year or two ago, it was the “Photo of the Week” selection and I had many folk asking me what kind of 4x5 film and camera I used. I thought that was really funny.
Obviously, if I had to choose between the GFX and the Merrills, there’s absolutely NO CONTEST. Fuji has done something special in their own right, and the amazing versatility (you can raise shadows a good 4 stops with no problem at all if you’re the least bit proficient) is something the Sigmas could only dream about. But the Merrills can be dragged about in the car, with a reasonably small tripod and set up and shot fairly quickly and are fun to use, too, and appeal to the iconoclast in me!
As you say, also, even owning all three Merrills limits focal length selection, and the Fuji lenses are truly stellar. I have the 23, 45, 32-64, 110, 120 and 250mm w/ 1.4 extender and have only begun to explore the visual possibilities. The 45mm 2.8 is, perhaps, the sharpest lens I’ve ever owned - from corner to corner right from 2.8 on.
I don’t think you’d be the least bit disappointed in the GFX. At the risk of sounding a Merrill “fan boy,” a “perfect” Merrill shot, up to about a 17x22” print will give the GFX a run for its money within that “sweet spot” of plenty of light, limited scene referenced DR, and base ISO. But the consistency of stunningly superb results with the GFX in all kinds of challenging conditions is just a different game altogether and provides vastly greater opportunities for fine image making.
Best,
Rand
