Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S  (Read 3952 times)

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
    • The Last Word
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #60 on: January 04, 2020, 06:35:27 pm »

I'll give  you  that if you give me the percentage of price increase between the two.

About 300%.

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
    • The Last Word
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #61 on: January 04, 2020, 06:38:15 pm »

By directly, I am say it goes up.

The words "directly proportional" mean something stronger than that:

https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/directly-inversely-proportional.html

Jim

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #62 on: January 04, 2020, 07:03:05 pm »

About 300%.

Jim,

I'll give you the last word on that - and let you ignore my point.

What I find interesting about the thread is that NO ONE, including yourself, have produced a direct set of images at 100% between their GFX 50S and 100 to challenge my image.

Jack
« Last Edit: January 04, 2020, 08:40:33 pm by Lust4Life »
Logged
Jack

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1606
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #63 on: January 04, 2020, 08:26:00 pm »

Jim,

I'll give you the last work on that - and let you ignore my point.

What I find interesting about the thread is that NO ONE, including yourself, have produced a direct set of images at 100% between their GFX 50S and 100 to challenge my image.

Jack

Iím curious about your ďfinished product.Ē  Is it screen images at 100%, or prints, or something else?  Honest question, Iím trying to understand your perspective on the value of pixel peeping as opposed to final objective(s) / uses of your photos.

Rand
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #64 on: January 04, 2020, 08:46:10 pm »

Iím curious about your ďfinished product.Ē  Is it screen images at 100%, or prints, or something else?  Honest question, Iím trying to understand your perspective on the value of pixel peeping as opposed to final objective(s) / uses of your photos.

Rand

I started this thread to just express to others thinking of buying a depreciating asset, any digital camera, but in the case the GFX 100, that I personally was not impressed with the GFX 100 and I presented samples of exactly why I returned it. 

For twice as much money as the GFX 50S, in my experience, the GFX 100 is not worth the double in cost.  But again, as I said in the beginning, I shoot landscapes, not people or animals in motion, models, etc.  For my work, it's not a good fit.

Just that simple, give a heads up to others and present the evidence in a visual manner.  To each his or her own.

Jack
Logged
Jack

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
    • The Last Word
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #65 on: January 04, 2020, 09:21:30 pm »

Jim,

I'll give you the last word on that - and let you ignore my point.

What I find interesting about the thread is that NO ONE, including yourself, have produced a direct set of images at 100% between their GFX 50S and 100 to challenge my image.

Jack

I did link to images with the same field of view with the same focal length lens, which is I believe what is the long pole in the tent.

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #66 on: January 05, 2020, 05:36:28 am »

I did link to images with the same field of view with the same focal length lens, which is I believe what is the long pole in the tent.

Jim, your contribution is appreciated, as indicated previously in my previous posts.
Logged
Jack

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
    • The Last Word
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #67 on: January 05, 2020, 09:58:38 am »

Jim, your contribution is appreciated, as indicated previously in my previous posts.

But you keep asking for comparisons at 100%. I can't understand why you want to compare the cameras that way, as opposed to same print size/FOV. Even without the microlens differences, making the pitch finer will always reduce per-pixel sharpness with a real lens. Did you want to make the prints from a GFX 100 40% larger than those from a GFX 50S?

Jim

mcbroomf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 970
    • Mike Broomfield
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #68 on: January 05, 2020, 02:02:27 pm »

But you keep asking for comparisons at 100%. I can't understand why you want to compare the cameras that way, as opposed to same print size/FOV. Even without the microlens differences, making the pitch finer will always reduce per-pixel sharpness with a real lens. Did you want to make the prints from a GFX 100 40% larger than those from a GFX 50S?

Jim

I can't answer for Jack but I know why I always want to compare different sensors at 100% as well as at the same print size.

When I buy a new/upgraded camera body with more MP I want to know if I can print a bigger print at the same print rez at the same observed quality.  So for example if I'm printing 20x30's with a 40mp sensor body and buy a 60mp sensor body, will the new camera give me a 24 x 36 that will look as good up close if I'm looking at the print section by section?

It doesn't mean I don't want to know if it will also make a better 20x30, but for sure I compare at 100 native.  I've done that since the 11mp Canon 1Ds days.
Logged

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #69 on: January 05, 2020, 02:18:30 pm »

You said it exactly as I would with one exception, I've been evaluating an array that way since I worked with Nikon on their first digital camera, I believe it was the D1 at about 2.8MP.

Just my way, and I'm sticking to it as it has served me well.

Jack
Logged
Jack

pschefz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 520
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #70 on: January 05, 2020, 02:56:46 pm »

I have not used the gfx100 but in my experience with many different digital capture devices I would say that if someone is looking for a definite step up from the 50 mpix sensors, the 150 phase system might be only way to go...
there are visible differences between all systems, personal preferences for color and post but overall a perfect file from a 40+ 35 mm system will rival a perfect file from a 50 mf system....
in print things might get a little fuzzy but there are so many factors to consider....
all this without taking into consideration what can actually make or break a great photo....the moment, light, expression, a bird in flight in the perfect spot....
I went through serious testing with a friend of mine who sells very large fine art prints and for the biggest ones he uses 8x10 film....we shot everything from gfx50 to x1d to a7rIII to d850 to kamiya 6x7 to 4x5 to 8x10.....all digital files we looked at did not give the same satisfying feel and look of 8x10 film but that has little to do with actual detail of sharpness....
we also agreed that the150phase system would probably be the one to end up being the best....
but neither one of us can justify that cost....he shoots those huge landscapes, but 8x10 film actually provides a better story when selling the art....
I do shoot quite a bit of architecture now but funny enough those images (if at all)  ever end up printed larger then 8x10...
I almost automatically pre ordered the a7rIV , probably will end up with it eventually but larger files are not a necessity at all....
I have been shooting digital forever and it becomes more and more clear to me that for 99% of all applications a 40-50mpix sensor is plenty....speed never hurts but DR is king....at this point kam almost afraid that the next step up in DR will only come with a much larger pixel count...not because we want it but because marketing demands it....
that said, that phase 150 thing looks amazing but the price is just so off the charts....
Logged
schefz.com
artloch.com

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #71 on: January 05, 2020, 03:22:49 pm »

Yes, the price is off the charts and the depreciation rate is steep.

To take that much out of my retirement funds, I'd have to die at least 3 years earlier to justify it!!

Jack
Logged
Jack

mcbroomf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 970
    • Mike Broomfield
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #72 on: January 05, 2020, 04:31:29 pm »

I have not used the gfx100 but in my experience with many different digital capture devices I would say that if someone is looking for a definite step up from the 50 mpix sensors, the 150 phase system might be only way to go...
there are visible differences between all systems, personal preferences for color and post but overall a perfect file from a 40+ 35 mm system will rival a perfect file from a 50 mf system....
in print things might get a little fuzzy but there are so many factors to consider....
all this without taking into consideration what can actually make or break a great photo....the moment, light, expression, a bird in flight in the perfect spot....
I went through serious testing with a friend of mine who sells very large fine art prints and for the biggest ones he uses 8x10 film....we shot everything from gfx50 to x1d to a7rIII to d850 to kamiya 6x7 to 4x5 to 8x10.....all digital files we looked at did not give the same satisfying feel and look of 8x10 film but that has little to do with actual detail of sharpness....
we also agreed that the150phase system would probably be the one to end up being the best....
but neither one of us can justify that cost....he shoots those huge landscapes, but 8x10 film actually provides a better story when selling the art....
I do shoot quite a bit of architecture now but funny enough those images (if at all)  ever end up printed larger then 8x10...
I almost automatically pre ordered the a7rIV , probably will end up with it eventually but larger files are not a necessity at all....
I have been shooting digital forever and it becomes more and more clear to me that for 99% of all applications a 40-50mpix sensor is plenty....speed never hurts but DR is king....at this point kam almost afraid that the next step up in DR will only come with a much larger pixel count...not because we want it but because marketing demands it....
that said, that phase 150 thing looks amazing but the price is just so off the charts....

Yes ...  I sold my 8x10 gear about 5 years ago I think and although I have a few very specially chromes I have no regrets.  For me it was just not possible to get the kind of images I can with high quality 35mm FF bodies and lenses.  I can hike further (MUCH further), carry a greater assortment of lenses including a range not economically possible with 8x10 and capture light as it quickly comes and fades.  I am a much better photographer since I quit large format and moved to digital (although I still have my 4x5 gear and a good amount of stock in the freezer that might see the light some day).

I made the step up to the A7R4 but kept my pair of A7R3's and do not plan to get a 2nd R4 and get rid of the R3's.
Logged

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #73 on: January 05, 2020, 04:38:57 pm »

Mike,

I had the a7RIII and found I did not care for it compared to the H4D 50WiFi I had sold.

Yes, it was SOO much lighter and easier to manage but I just missed the "H" look.

I still have a H4D60 that I put up for sale but I'm taking it down today.
Just bought a nice HC 28mm to mount on the H4D60 and shoot it against the GFX 50S.

Will be interesting to see which one gives me what I want "at 100%" zoom!!! 
LOL!

I'm betting on the H myself, but I'll see.

How do you contrast your III with the 4?
I'd love to see the same scene shot with both and the identical lens on them.

Jack
Logged
Jack

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2800
    • Pieter Kers
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #74 on: January 05, 2020, 04:42:41 pm »

Yes, the price is off the charts and the depreciation rate is steep.

To take that much out of my retirement funds, I'd have to die at least 3 years earlier to justify it!!

Jack
That is the amount of healthy years you get extra when you don't smoke...  so smoking solves that problem too. ;)
Logged

StephenOzcomert

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #75 on: January 05, 2020, 05:32:52 pm »

I have been lurking on this forum for a while and just rejoined after a hiatus.  What resonates with me in this discussion is the difference between per pixel sharpness and the sharpness of the image at a given output size.  I went from the Sony A7RIII to the Sony A7RIV and found that with some lenses and especially in some portions of the image, that the per pixel sharpness was less than with the RIII.  The noise levels at 100% view were also a bit jarring compared to the RIII.  However, once one normalized for output size, the RIV was always (or nearly always--slight exception for higher ISO noise) superior.  This led me to infer, perhaps erroneously, that the advantages gained by having smaller and smaller pixels on a given sized sensor were slowing down.  Going on full frame from 21 to 36 to 42 all showed similar improvements even at at 1:1.  Going to 60 MP seemed to me to be less clearly better when viewed at 100% and the advantages were only always clear when normalized for the same output size.  I then figured (again, perhaps erroneously) that the best way to get a better image for large prints was to go to a larger sensor and this led me to buy the GFX 100 (the phase systems being more $$ than I can currently justify).  Now I read this thread where folks are complaining that at 1:1, the GFX 100 seems less sharp than the GFX 50 and I find this not surprising at all given the same pixel pitch that exists between the GFX 100 and the A7RIV.  What this tells me is that we are reaching a point of diminishing returns with current sensor technology.  Jim Kasson has convincingly demonstrated that there is less moire and more resolution with the larger sensor.  It just may be that the change from 50 to 100 megapixels may be a smaller difference than going from 25 megapixels to 50 (moire excepted).  The degree of  benefits of the additional resolution will also vary by the lens used.  I bet an image taken with the 110/2 on the GFX 100 compared to the GFX 50S will show more benefit than the same comparison using the 100-200, for example. 

All in all, when evaluating the diminishing returns, we each have to make the decision of what price we are willing to pay for ever diminishing advantages for the money spent.  The GFX 100 produces a better image than my Sony A7RIV (with comparable lenses) or, I suppose, the GFX 50, but at the price of more money, larger size/weight, and (compared to full frame) a more limited selection of glass.  Still, Phase one represents another level of advantage--but even a smaller improvement for a much higher price than going from full frame to GFX.  Some will find this worth it, but even fewer than will find the GFX 100 worth it.   
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1041
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #76 on: January 05, 2020, 08:18:19 pm »

Same here.  Iíve always been confused by this approach.  Admittedly, Iím not a technical person.  When I compare A to B Iíll take identical images in terms of angle of view, f/stop and other parameters.  Then, Iíll make identical prints - say 20x30Ē or so.  Put them up side by side on my 8í magnetic wall, illuminated by Solux 4700k light, and compare the results.   Final output is all that matters to me. 

In my case, compared in this manner, the GFX 100 blows the 50s in the dirt - though neither camera is a slouch in image quality.

Rand

You really need to have optimized work flows for the two cameras to compare them with final prints. One might require a different oprimized workflow than the other. Are you certain you oprimized both images to their best?
Logged

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #77 on: January 06, 2020, 06:19:05 am »

My simple closing thought, but it relates to what I said in the beginning of this thread - landscapes:

Here is a "Disney" fantasy that in my mind supports the logic of evaluating a lens or a camera at 100% zoom - the raw pixels:

Given:  You have been honing your skills for years, you have your own web site and marketing engine, and one day you are out shooting and get the image the corporate world wants to hang on their boardroom wall!  It must be clear, well balance and sharp as a tack as it has tree leaves, etc, in details in the distance they must have.

They say print me as large of an image as possible but they insist that it will be a sharp, crisp, balanced and detailed print rather than one that is just large, soft, mushy, etc..

Thus, both a lens evaluation and a camera evaluation at 100% does have a value as far as I'm concerned.

I'm less concerned with all of the rhetoric and more concerned on the actual quality of the pixels I have to start with to generate a print.

As I said a few pages back, probably my favorite image that I have ever shot is called "Glenn at High Shoals" taken in the northern part of GA.
At the time, my camera and lens were the best I was aware of at 100% pixel viewing, in my opinion (LOL):  Hassie 500cm, 100mm T* lens and Leaf P45+.

My logic then, as it still is, was/is to take a short tele lens and a camera that both produce extremely sharp pixels and shoot multi rows of a scene, in this case two rows of 5 shots (3 deep each of the 10 frames, 0, 1+, 1-) to produce a file of huge size when balance and stitched.

I've printed this no where near as large as it can go as every inch of the digital file is tack sharp, but I have a big one over my fireplace and I enjoy it every day.  I can get lost in it!!

As far as I'm concerned, enough said, and I'm sticking to my way of evaluating what I will accept from my gear.

Now, to finally get out to find and shoot that image "Disney" wants and quit wasting time!

Good shooting to ALL!

Logged
Jack

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
    • The Last Word
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #78 on: January 06, 2020, 10:25:30 am »

Here is a "Disney" fantasy that in my mind supports the logic of evaluating a lens or a camera at 100% zoom - the raw pixels:

When you look at 100% zoom, you are not looking at the raw pixels. 

I'm not sure you are clear on the difference between pixels in sampling and pixels in output.

Alvy Ray Smith wrote a classic paper on the subject:

http://alvyray.com/Memos/CG/Microsoft/6_pixel.pdf

If you already know all that, I apologize.

Jim

SharonVL

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 63
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #79 on: January 06, 2020, 02:54:28 pm »

While I appreciate all the testing and research you pixel peepers do, I have to just shrug and go shoot.  ;D

Sharon
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up