Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Down

Author Topic: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S  (Read 5033 times)

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 719
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com
GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« on: January 03, 2020, 10:53:22 am »

FYI:
I have been shooting the GFX 50S since it came out primarily with their 23mm and the 32-64.
Landscapes as only topic.

Purchased the GFX 100 from Adorama just before Xmas and finally had some time this
week to do some critical testing against the 50S for landscapes.

Was looking forward to it improving my results after all of the "test reviews" I've read about it.

Ran my own tests of a landscape scene with the 100 against the 50S.
Tripod, same lens, identical SS and A on both cameras.
2 Second timer used.
All shot in RAW with the GFX 100 at 16 bits.

Shot of couple dozen identical frames on each of three different scenes.

MY conclusion:  I shipped back the GFX 100 yesterday.

Reason: 
1.)  I saw NO improvement in Dmax, none!  Also NO improvement of banding if I push the sliders too far trying to pull back skies.
2.)  The GFX 100 was not as sharp at 100% as the 50S.  Actually quite a difference.

Now, don't want to start a "Range War" here, just saying to be sure to run some serious real world test before you let the return period expire.  That's all. 

Not what I wanted, but not a big surprise either when you think about it.  Jamming 102MP on the same size silicon as the 50S has got to give somewhere.

Logged
Jack

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4172
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2020, 11:27:45 am »

FYI:
I have been shooting the GFX 50S since it came out primarily with their 23mm and the 32-64.
Landscapes as only topic.

Purchased the GFX 100 from Adorama just before Xmas and finally had some time this
week to do some critical testing against the 50S for landscapes.

Was looking forward to it improving my results after all of the "test reviews" I've read about it.

Ran my own tests of a landscape scene with the 100 against the 50S.
Tripod, same lens, identical SS and A on both cameras.
2 Second timer used.
All shot in RAW with the GFX 100 at 16 bits.

Shot of couple dozen identical frames on each of three different scenes.

MY conclusion:  I shipped back the GFX 100 yesterday.

Reason: 
1.)  I saw NO improvement in Dmax, none!  Also NO improvement of banding if I push the sliders too far trying to pull back skies.
2.)  The GFX 100 was not as sharp at 100% as the 50S.  Actually quite a difference.

Now, don't want to start a "Range War" here, just saying to be sure to run some serious real world test before you let the return period expire.  That's all. 

Not what I wanted, but not a big surprise either when you think about it.  Jamming 102MP on the same size silicon as the 50S has got to give somewhere.

You might take your next crack at the XT 150mp which would:
- drastically increase your Dmax/dynamic-range
- greatly increase the amount of detail captured (150mp vs 50mp; better glass)
- allow rise/fall/shift with all lenses
- mount directly to any AS compatible head without separate adapter
- provide true ETTR capture review
- natively rotate from horizontal to vertical without remounting
- elegantly mount a compendium when desired

A landscaper's dream really.

All in a package smaller and lighter than the GFX100.

from PhaseOneXT.com

We're glad to help facilitate you testing one if you'd like. Just be careful, as you're likely to fall in love.  ;)
« Last Edit: January 03, 2020, 11:32:56 am by Doug Peterson »
Logged

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 719
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2020, 11:32:35 am »

Hi Doug,

I have looked at it on line, and agree that the "Lust" factor is HIGH for me on that device BUT the reality is $$$$$$$$$$ delta puts it out of any contest against the GFX for me.  I still have the H4D 60 that I'm thinking of picking up a 28mm and 100mm lens and bring it back to life!

Best to you,
Jack
Logged
Jack

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4172
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2020, 11:34:23 am »

Hi Doug,

I have looked at it on line, and agree that the "Lust" factor is HIGH for me on that device BUT the reality is $$$$$$$$$$ delta puts it out of any contest against the GFX for me.  I still have the H4D 60 that I'm thinking of picking up a 28mm and 100mm lens and bring it back to life!

Best to you,
Jack

Upgrades from H4D 60 to XT are available :). That and selling your GFX only puts you a modest way toward an XT, but every bit helps. It could very well be the only landscape camera you need for the entirety of the 2020s.

If budget definitely can't stretch an IQ3 100mp on a 3rd party tech camera (e.g. Arca/Cambo/Alpa) is certainly not a bad option to consider, though in my (heavily biased) opinion and IQ4 XT is just in a league of its own. The frame-averaging alone is worth every penny (assuming you have that many pennies available of course).

In my (heavily biased) opinion, Hassy has not invested in the H platform over the last several years, so you shouldn't either; it's throwing good money after bad.

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 719
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2020, 11:42:32 am »

"In my (heavily biased) opinion, Hassy has not invested in the H platform over the last several years, so you shouldn't either; it's throwing good money after bad."

I agree completely - Hassy has lost the game on new gear - I can't remotely justify the X1DII on any foundation of consideration!

I built an interesting Excel spreadsheet comparing several different cameras you might find of merit - shoot me a PM if interested with your email and I'll send it to you.

Jack
Logged
Jack

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4172
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2020, 11:55:27 am »

"In my (heavily biased) opinion, Hassy has not invested in the H platform over the last several years, so you shouldn't either; it's throwing good money after bad."

I agree completely - Hassy has lost the game on new gear - I can't remotely justify the X1DII on any foundation of consideration!

I built an interesting Excel spreadsheet comparing several different cameras you might find of merit - shoot me a PM if interested with your email and I'll send it to you.

PM sent!

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #6 on: January 03, 2020, 12:07:07 pm »

FYI:
I have been shooting the GFX 50S since it came out primarily with their 23mm and the 32-64.
Landscapes as only topic.

Purchased the GFX 100 from Adorama just before Xmas and finally had some time this
week to do some critical testing against the 50S for landscapes.

Was looking forward to it improving my results after all of the "test reviews" I've read about it.

Ran my own tests of a landscape scene with the 100 against the 50S.
Tripod, same lens, identical SS and A on both cameras.
2 Second timer used.
All shot in RAW with the GFX 100 at 16 bits.

Shot of couple dozen identical frames on each of three different scenes.

MY conclusion:  I shipped back the GFX 100 yesterday.

Reason: 
1.)  I saw NO improvement in Dmax, none!  Also NO improvement of banding if I push the sliders too far trying to pull back skies.
2.)  The GFX 100 was not as sharp at 100% as the 50S.  Actually quite a difference.



I don't know why you would expect an improvement in Dmax. I can't think of a single thing about the GFX 100 that would improve Dmax.

The two cameras aren't much different in sharpness:

https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/fujifilm-gfx-100-sharpness-compared-to-gfx-50s/

But the aliasing that plagues the GFX 50x is dramatically improved:

https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/fuji-gfx-100-vs-50s-sharpness-with-3d-subject/

https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/fuji-gfx-100-50r-aliasing-differences/

I've found that the more I use the GFX 100, the less tolerant I am of the GFX 50x aliasing artifacts.

Jim

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 719
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #7 on: January 03, 2020, 12:13:46 pm »

Hi Jim,

I had hoped they "tweaked" the pipeline off the GFX 100 to give me just a wee bit more Dmax.
OK, so wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which fills up first logic failed me again!

The GFX 50S I have is not giving me any issues of merit on aliasing.  I'm very critical of my
gear and could I be blessed with a back that does not have that problem?

Hmmmm.

To be totally candid, I should have stopped back in the days I was shooting a P45+ back on a Hassie 500cm with the T* 100mm lens.
I got great images off of that setup but have been caught up in new is better false theme.
Logged
Jack

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2020, 12:22:29 pm »


The GFX 50S I have is not giving me any issues of merit on aliasing.  I'm very critical of my
gear and could I be blessed with a back that does not have that problem?

No. The aliasing of the GFX 50S is there by design. The camera uses micro lenses that are substantially smaller than full coverage. In fact, the microlenses on the GFX 50S and GFX 100 are about the same size, even though the GFX 100 has 0.7 the pitch.

Some people like aliasing. I know that in the old big-pixel MF days, people used to enthuse about the "sparkle" their cameras gave to skin. The more I see clean images, the less I tolerate aliasied ones, but that's just me.

Jim

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 719
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2020, 12:56:33 pm »

Jim,

""sparkle" their cameras gave to skin."
That's great!  I got a laugh out of that visual in my mind.

Must admit, it is very very rare that I shoot anything but a landscape, thus probably the reason I've not been annoyed by "sparkle".

So if we accept the attribute of "sparkle" as just default, and accept your 100 is not displaying quite as much of it as the 50S, how do
I wrap my mind around a substantially softer image at 100% (my girlfriend even sees it at "Fill Screen") res?

Sharpness and Dmax has been the song of the "Sirens" to me for all of my life, even back to my Eikonix days!

Jack
Logged
Jack

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2020, 01:16:53 pm »

Must admit, it is very very rare that I shoot anything but a landscape, thus probably the reason I've not been annoyed by "sparkle".

Aliasing shows up especially well in foliage or distant branches against the sky, both in luminance artifacts and in color errors.

In this image, it looks like LoCA:



Jim

SharonVL

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2020, 03:06:01 pm »

I haven't tried the 100 but I absolutely love the 50. I shoot landscapes, portraits and architecture. I like the feel of the camera, it fits me perfectly.

Sharon
Logged

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 719
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2020, 03:23:34 pm »

Clearly seen in your sample!

At what magnification is that Jim?

Jack
Logged
Jack

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3980
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2020, 03:29:34 pm »

Sad it did not work out for you.  No range war intended just some feedback.

I have some issues with the GFX100, but so far it's images seem to surpass what I was getting with the 50s, Different stokes different folks I guess.

1.  Sharpness, I agree 50s out of the gate images seem sharper, but in C1 with default sharpening settings, I see no issues expect on my copy of the 23mm, which always has been just a bit soft for me.  What slight degree of softness I get can easily be regained in post (at least for my older eyes).

2.   DMAX, I guess I expected something better, it's a new chip, with totally new design, and the same chip on the IQ4 greatly supasses the IQ3.  What I see is pretty much the same DMAX from ISO50 to ISO 400 which surprised me, and about a 2.5 stop push max.  Past that and noise will start to become an issue.   Much past ISO 1600, and images become considerably less productive.

3.  IBIS makes a difference for me, as hand holding the 250 and 250 with TC and the 100-200 produces excellent results for me.

4.  Banding, I just don't see, but I never saw it on the 50s either.  I realize if you push a GFX100 file enough, it will band in the shadows, plenty written about that, but within my range 1.5 to 2.5 stops of push I just don't see it.


Issues I have that bother me.

AF, is just as bad as the 50s, in that with any subject shot in low light or low contrast, you will odds are will either get a total miss or an image slightly out of focus.  It's surprising to me just how fine the line is, for at times I can hit a distant ridge line where I have plenty of contrast and still miss AF.  I saw with with the 50s also and as I stated I just don't any improvement.  The Z7 hits all the time every time, amazing AF in low light, low contrast compared to the GFX100.

Low light images will tend to take on a red cast, so early sunrise and late evening shot are a bit tricky.  This carries over to the raw, as it's not just the LCD white balance.  As soon as normal light becomes available, WB is excellent.  So far I have been able to easily adjust in post

Write speed, is slow and will buffer at times especially when shooting in exposure bracketing mode.  Even with a Lexar 2000x card the camera will bog down at times.  Not as often with the 2000x card but XQD or similar card support would have been a nice feature which I am sure will come with the next camera.

I only use C1 for my GFX100 images, as I find LR pulls much more noise by default.  C1 20 seems to do an overall excellent job.

Paul C



Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 719
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #14 on: January 03, 2020, 03:56:59 pm »

Hi Paul,

In response:

1.  I had hoped with C1-rev 20 I could just ratchet up the sharpness and get what I wanted, but no matter how I twerked sharpness I just could not match the 50S.  Now, I did have my Lady take a look at the images and I arranged them so she would have no way to tell other than what registered in those "little gray cells".

In every test she felt the 50S was substantially sharper and better defined than the GFX 100.

2.  Agree - we both "wished" but got less than we wanted.
In short, I want more than just MP's in the equation of buying a new body.

3.  Oh YES, I agree completely and that was actually the first test I ran.  I have serious tremors and even with that, I was able to hand hold a 1/15th on the GFX 100.  That gave me real hope in the beginning thinking I could leave the tripod out on my field work.  IF they put that into the 50S it would be quite a beast to try to compete against! 

But tripod mounted is going to have to be a continued part of my work (I also always use the 2 second timer to combat shake).

4.  I'll get banding in the skies BUT only when I really go beyond reason of what I ask a camera to do.  It's like the logic many of us use on the Interstate with a speed limit of 70 MPH.  I'll do 73 and almost always get by with it BUT if I were to do 80, you get what I'm saying.  There is alway a margin of diminishing returns, and I think the GFX 100 is a perfect example of that.

AF.
I manual focus most everything I shoot, so I can't comment here with any authority.

Write speed
OH yes!  Agree.

C1 - I must admit I detest the logic of the Library!!  But that aside, it's what I generally use, but will never send them a Xmas card for it until they fix to my way of thinking their "Library"!!

My conclusion:
From my tests I just felt the GFX 100 offered me nothing more and much less than what I want. 
Thus I could not justify selling off the 50S for something in the low $3k range and dumping $10K into the GFX 100.

I did do my test on the exact same 23mm, which in all of my test my sample is razor sharp - what I like!

Thus, my conclusion:  The market is still wide open for a camera body at or under $10K for landscape work with greater Dmax and sharpness than the 50S is not in the market at this moment.  Certainly NOT the X1DII.

Jack
Logged
Jack

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 719
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2020, 03:59:20 pm »

I haven't tried the 100 but I absolutely love the 50. I shoot landscapes, portraits and architecture. I like the feel of the camera, it fits me perfectly.

Sharon

I agree, nothing better at this point in time, but I have the "virus" and I'm always looking for more bang for my bucks!

Jack
Logged
Jack

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2020, 04:05:51 pm »

Clearly seen in your sample!

At what magnification is that Jim?

Jack

About 300%

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3980
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #17 on: January 03, 2020, 04:36:52 pm »

Hi Jack,

I agree with you that if you are not seeing the improvement over the 50s it's not a good investment.  it's a huge cost jump over the 50s and I guess will stay at that price for a while as nothing else is on the market that hits the same specs.

What I was looking for and so far have found is hand holdable 100MP, with moderate AF (so wish Fuji would relook at it).  I rarely was able to hand hold any brackets with the IQ3100 on the XF and various lenses, and most times even 1/250 of sec suffered hand held and it was impossible to hand hold 240mm or 210mm.  100MP is where I want to be, just don't need the extra 50 from the IQ4 and Phase has left a ton on the "needing to addressed" table for the IQ4. 

Fully agree also that the 50s is still a wonderful camera for field use.  Saved my day in Yosemite in 2017 when I realized quickly that hiking all day with a 3100, XF and tripod was not going to work as I never shoot anything with a Phase back without a tripod.  I needed to drop the tripod for those hikes the water level in Spring of 2017 was so high slowing it down was a bit of a waste.

Would love to meet up with you someday and have you try my camera, yours is 2nd one I have heard about that was shooting noticeably soft. 

Still also have my fingers crossed that Fuji will come out with some form of pixel shift as that has shown on Pentax K1 to not only provide an increase in resolution but also DMAX.  Would not work in all situations but would be a huge plus for the GFX100 down the road.

Paul C
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #18 on: January 03, 2020, 04:41:45 pm »


Would love to meet up with you someday and have you try my camera, yours is 2nd one I have heard about that was shooting noticeably soft.

I've never seen raw files from a GFX 100 that looked soft. Given the microlens structure, they will be softer at a pixel level than the GFX 50S, but in my mind, that is just fixing a GFX 50S flaw. I think the small microlenses in the GFX 50S were chosen to prevent color filter array crosstalk with the FSI sensor. Since the GFX 100 sensor is BSI, that's not a problem any more.

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 719
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #19 on: January 03, 2020, 05:07:35 pm »

"Still also have my fingers crossed that Fuji will come out with some form of pixel shift as that has shown on Pentax K1 to not only provide an increase in resolution but also DMAX. "

Paul, if you are ever up this way shout and let's get together.  I have an Airstream BaseCamp X and love to camp in that critter with my Lady Qing!  So give me an excuse!

As to the Dmax, I have found some interesting results using Aurora HDR 2019 version.  I am shooting with careful exposure for the highlights in a scene and not spending much bandwidth on the shadows.  The I take the RAW file from the 50S into Aurora as a single file and let it process.  Once you get a handle on the uses of their different sliders, I am amazed at the Dmax I'm pulling out of the RAW file without loosing my highlights!  Far more than LR or PS can give me and without the phony HDR look.

Takes a bit of practice, but then I've been in the world of HDR to get Dmax since I first played with Photomatrix Pro years ago - I still keep an updated version of it on my Mac Pro.

Jack
Logged
Jack
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Up