Well, if 300% zoomed in equivalent sharpness was your benchmark, you did good to send the GFX100 back.
But for me that comparison makes no sense. Because we don’t use “equivalent zoomed in at x%” images, when printing - we use the same print size (for web display the whole resolution discussion is meaningless, due to the reduced image sizes, color depth and pixel density). So, at the SAME PRINT SIZE, your GFX 100 file should be zoomed in at 200% vs 300% for the GFX 50, to make the comparison meaningful for real world photographic output - zooming in without any final image dimensions output reference is just empty pixel peeping. But even for pixel peeping, the “pixels per duck” reference should be the meaningful reference - the details per home or per flag, looking at your image. Also, part of the perceived sharpness of the 50 is simply fake detail, digital artefacts - look at the ugly aliasing on the left balcony. Again, if the question is “Which pixel is sharper ?” your approach is fair (in fact we’ve seen this with each new increase in MPs, you don’t have to ever buy and test a higher pixel density camera to see softer zoomed in pixels, that will always be the case) But if the question is “Which camera gives me more real detail per subject ?’” you might want to go back to those files and process / review them differently. Also a critical question is f-stop. To me the 100 seems dulled down from diffraction - going over f8 will simply degrade the detail and negate any resolution advantage (an f11 or f16 image on the GFX 100 will not give you anything over the 50 MP reference). What f-stop did you use ? (also was IBIS on or off ? as that can really mess up my GFX 100 images).
1. I agree completely with your comment about 300% has no relative value in light of the print. I used it as it is what Jim, who's work I have respected for many years, referenced for alias and it answered two questions at once.
2. My decision to send it back was based on far more than one factor, but that was the primary one. I evaluate the net worth of an array by what I get at 100%. I use in my work and evaluation 100% as that is the base one could "up-res" from if you had to go to a larger print than what the native data will give you.
3. Yes, a huge flaw in my eye's view of the files is the GFX 100 image is truly "flat". I shot at f4 without IBS in both examples - of course not the optimal sweet spot of the 23, but what I have found to be a good setting for evaluation of landscapes - next is f11 in my mind on GFX lenses. I was not concerned with the flag, rather the joints in the buildings being "flat" and not crisp on the detail area of the indents between exterior wall panels.
In short, I think we are in agreement, though I do not entirely agree with your comment about there being a threshold of detail that is lost in any increase of pixels. My work says you are correct IF we pack more pixels into the same size silicon, but not if we keep the size of the wells the same and increase the footprint silicon accordingly. Thus, I'll take 60MP on a substantially larger size silicon base than 100MP on the space of the GFX 100 chip. Keys are of course that the DAC, lens, etc are also improved to compensate for the extra load of capturing and processing the data gathered.
In short, all I'm asking for is sharpness at 100%, controlled aliasing pollution and Dmax at 15 stops for $10K or under.
Today, that is too much to ask for, but it will come but in a larger format than what Fuji is calling MF. I call it "MMF"/MINI Medium Format.
The axiom is no different from film at 4x5 compared to 8x10, etc.
Attached you'll find the same files at 100% and I think it is far more revealing what selling your used GFX 50S for $3k and then throwing in an extra $7K will get you. Not with my money!!
A tangent thought not relative to this thread directly, but rather a reflection of the passing of time in my life, I'm now 73:
I have a very distinct memory that goes back to when the Leaf 45+ was first sent to me to evaluate. I shot a 4x5 scene with the best optics of the time and the same scene with the P45+. Processed the sheet in my "best soup", scanned it on my Howtek drum scanner an compared it to the P45+. This moment in my mind was quite consequential, and in a negative way to "Fine Art Photography".
I purchased the final production P45+, mated it to my 500cm and my 100 T* lens and started shooting, then scanning at 8K. I have an image over my fireplace that is quite large which is one of the very first I did with that set up. It's resourced from two rows of 5 shots per row and three shots deep (-, 0, + 1 stop) for each of the 10 frames. The file is HUGE and the work to generate it was extensive BUT man is it sharp and everything but flat! I've wasted a lot of time and money by not just sticking with the setup.
I've been ranting in my personal notes about that moment after several chats with Carol at Photography West Gallery in Carmel.
Think I'll start a thread on that subject, but I expect I'll have to wear a kevlar vest once I write down my thoughts for public view! LOL!