Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S  (Read 5048 times)

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 719
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #40 on: January 04, 2020, 01:12:12 pm »

We would determine dynamic range of film by measuring how many stops of exposure we got on the straight line portion of the curve when the film was processed for a gamma of 0,62 for black and white film. This was so long ago I may have some figures wrong but that was pretty much the methodology. Dmax was never of huge interest when looking at film exposed with a sensitometer. Speed point, base fog, gamma were critical. Dynamic range was obviously important. Iím leaving stuff out of course.

Itís interesting to me the search for ever more DR. We have gone from Ciba prints with about 3 stops max to 15 stops or thereabouts now. My biggest issue is finding a way to map all that in a plausible manner to what ever the output might be, print or screen. 

Sorry for the diversion on this thread. Iím finding it fascinating even though I no longer use MFDB.

Appreciate the comments - apparently you are also close to my 200 year old mark!

Curious, why did you depart from "TRUE" MF - again, I do not consider the GFX series to be MF.
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 #41 on: January 04, 2020, 01:17:20 pm »

We would determine dynamic range of film by measuring how many stops of exposure we got on the straight line portion of the curve when the film was processed for a gamma of 0,62 for black and white film. This was so long ago I may have some figures wrong but that was pretty much the methodology. Dmax was never of huge interest when looking at film exposed with a sensitometer. Speed point, base fog, gamma were critical. Dynamic range was obviously important. Iím leaving stuff out of course.


Dmax was important in 'chromes, as it determined the projected black levels. Some films, like Velvia, had better Dmax than others.

You are correct about Dmax rarely being important in B&W work if you wanted to stay close to the linear region. However, it could crop up in special situations, such as trying to make a silver print from a neg exposed for platinum printing, or vice versa.

Jim

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1465
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #42 on: January 04, 2020, 01:39:10 pm »

Dmax was important in 'chromes, as it determined the projected black levels. Some films, like Velvia, had better Dmax than others.

You are correct about Dmax rarely being important in B&W work if you wanted to stay close to the linear region. However, it could crop up in special situations, such as trying to make a silver print from a neg exposed for platinum printing, or vice versa.

Jim

Yes you are quite right. Dmax is very important for any final output medium which obviously chromes were. Dmax of paper was important for the same reason. The process I was describing was to test a piece of film to determine how to process it and what the ASA would be and itís general characteristics like the shoulder roll off and how the toe handled low exposure levels.  Checking a piece of film that had been shot in camera would tell different things like was the film correctly exposed and what was the dynamic range of the scene. You could also determine with a high degree of accuracy what grade of paper to use when making a print. In that case the Dmax, not to be confused with the max possible Dmax of the film, would be useful to read and that value would be looked for using a densitometer.
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1465
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #43 on: January 04, 2020, 02:05:24 pm »

Appreciate the comments - apparently you are also close to my 200 year old mark!

Curious, why did you depart from "TRUE" MF - again, I do not consider the GFX series to be MF.

I turned 59 a week or so ago. I shot a lot on large format with film. Linhoff and Sinar mostly. I never liked MF. I also shot a lot with SLR.

I used two Kodak backs, the DCS 465 and the Proback a 16MP square sensor. I also used a Leaf Valeo and a 30 MP leaf and 80 MP Leaf Aptus. I recently swapped the Cambo and 4 Schneider ApoDigitar lenses I used with the backs for a Sony A9 system. I also have a Sony A7r3.

I am a commercial photographer. Itís the career I ended up in after my first career working in photo labs went tits up in 1995 thanks to digital. As a commercial photographer I donít chase the ultimate quality at all costs. I chase quality that will keep me working. The Leaf Aptus delivered that quality, it was pretty good actually. By the time it was ready to be replaced I felt that the Sony system delivered quality that my clients required. A combination of the smaller cameras getting better and hugely versatile and the very high res requirements of commercial work declining. Actually I think the Sony A7r3 with good glass beats the quality I got from the Leaf Aptus 12r. Iím not knocking MF at all. Itís a commercial thing and in my market thatís the reality.

Personally I shoot a lot of private work. Photography is still my love and my passion. I shoot a lot of landscape. How it works is I buy what I need for commercial work and some of that stuff gets used for my hobby stuff. At the moment I am very happy with my system. It does what I need. I like good quality images but I prefer good content. They donít always overlap.

A bit wordy I realize but thatís mostly how I ended moving away from MF. How I got into it originally was because it was all that provided the quality I felt I needed back in those days. No longer true for me.

Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 719
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #44 on: January 04, 2020, 03:13:16 pm »

Thanks for sharing Martin!!
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 #45 on: January 04, 2020, 04:11:52 pm »

I must admit, I had hoped someone would convince me that my sample of the GFX 100 was flawed and I should have Adorama send me another sample.

In the past, I have received new lenses that were not up to par, but never a camera body, but there is always a first time.

Let me ask the consenses of folks here, from the image samples I put up, are they basically the same as what YOU are seeing from YOUR GFX 100, not as sharp as the 50S?

Jack

PS:  I just got a message back from Hassie in Europa and the Dynamic Range of the H4D60, which I own but have no lenses for, is 12 stops.  Thus about the same as the 50S or 100.  So the issue to define becomes sharpness.
Logged
Jack

elliot_n

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1210
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #46 on: January 04, 2020, 04:24:31 pm »

I'm not sure what you mean by 'not as sharp'. Based on your samples, the GFX100 has clearly captured a lot more detail than the GFX50.
Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #47 on: January 04, 2020, 04:33:59 pm »

I must admit, I had hoped someone would convince me that my sample of the GFX 100 was flawed and I should have Adorama send me another sample.

In the past, I have received new lenses that were not up to par, but never a camera body, but there is always a first time.

Let me ask the consenses of folks here, from the image samples I put up, are they basically the same as what YOU are seeing from YOUR GFX 100, not as sharp as the 50S?

Jack

PS:  I just got a message back from Hassie in Europa and the Dynamic Range of the H4D60, which I own but have no lenses for, is 12 stops.  Thus about the same as the 50S or 100.  So the issue to define becomes sharpness.

I already answered your "consensus" question: On a physical level, the GFX 50S and GFX 100 are about as sharp. However, the GFX 100 has greater resolution and thus less aliasing. In addition, it is more amenable to deconvolution sharpening. The net of all that is that, for the same sized print, the GFX 100 provides a superior image. I think the unusually small microlenses of the GFX 50S have lead you astray.

12 stops measured how? The DR of the CDF H4D60 is far inferior to that of the GFX 50S or 100.

Jim

vjbelle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 593
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #48 on: January 04, 2020, 04:39:23 pm »

This is a very fascinating thread as I have also had the returning of my GFX 100 almost mimicking Jack's reasons.  I have the 50s and compared files and also thought that the '100' had a softer look and was more difficult to work with then the 50s files.  I've printed 50s files to 40 inches with ease using all of the latest Topaz AI apps.  I also have a 4150 and have been with Phase since the P20 days. 

Although I don't have the disciplined training of the OP and other contributors to this thread I do have my eyes and that is how I guided myself the last 50 years of printing which I thoroughly enjoy. 

My reason for purchasing the '100' was to finally leave the Phase upgrade cycle as I had a 3100 which with its 100MP was enough for my printing needs which are mostly in the 40 to 48 inch range.  But the '100' was disappointing from the beginning.  The files didn't even remotely look like what came out of my 3100 and when compared to my 50s were lacking in sharpness.  Then there was the issue of size/bulk which was a tremendous negative.  And.... then there was the issue of using the '100' on my Actus which was really a hindering experience compared to the 50s. 

I had also hoped that the live view would be a little sharper than the 50s but it wasn't which was another negative.  So, after returning the '100' I upgraded to the 4150 which I like but is not the reason for my post. 

I also ultimately purchased a Sony 7RM4 which has transformed my photographic shooting.  I was encouraged to do this by following Chris Barrett, a Chicago based architectural photographer, who left Phase years ago and transitioned to Sony using an Arca Swiss MF2 and various MF lenses in the beginning.  That was years ago and this is now.....

As much as I appreciate the 4150 I am also using the same generation sensor with my Sony.  I can easily attach the sony to my Actus and shoot with all of my MF lenses from 60mm to 180mm.  I can shift with ease due to the size of the sensor and still stay easily within the sweet spot of the lenses.  With shifting and stitching of only 3 files I can easily match the resolution of my 4150 and have all of the wonderful electronic capabilities of the 7RM4.
I may be limited to 14 stops of DR but that has never had a negative effect on any of my printing.  And.... not to forget, the live view on the Sony with either the EVF or LCD is tack sharp for focusing needs.

Just wanted to add this to the mix....

Regards

Victor
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 #49 on: January 04, 2020, 04:53:04 pm »

Jim,

I didn't argue with Hasselblad, just asked for the technical answer, and I used the right term too in my question!
I'm can still learn!

"Thank you for contacting Hasselblad.

Please refer to the following information to your question:
1. the Dynamic range of the H4D-60 will be 12 stops.
2. the best wide lens for landscape will be the HCD28mm lens, it will cover the full array of the 60.

Best regards,
The Hasselblad Support Team"
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 #50 on: January 04, 2020, 04:57:46 pm »

Hi Victor,

Thanks for your input on this thread!  It's mimicking my reasons for return the 100 and tends to remove the thought of ordering another one to confirm my initial findings.

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 #51 on: January 04, 2020, 05:03:32 pm »

Jim,

I didn't argue with Hasselblad, just asked for the technical answer, and I used the right term too in my question!
I'm can still learn!

"Thank you for contacting Hasselblad.

Please refer to the following information to your question:
1. the Dynamic range of the H4D-60 will be 12 stops.
2. the best wide lens for landscape will be the HCD28mm lens, it will cover the full array of the 60.

Best regards,
The Hasselblad Support Team"

There are lots of ways to measure dynamic range. There are two main variables: what the threshold SNR is set to, and whether (and how) the normalization takes place. Without that information, a number like 12 stops is worthless.

Jim

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #52 on: January 04, 2020, 05:08:52 pm »


I also ultimately purchased a Sony 7RM4 which has transformed my photographic shooting.

On a physical level, the a7RIV, GFX 100, and IQ4 150 sharpness is the same. They all use the same 3.76 um pixel architecture. The microlenses appear to be very similar. The ISOs where the conversion gain changes are different.

https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/iq4-150-gfx-100-a7riv-different-slices-off-the-same-sausage/

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 #53 on: January 04, 2020, 05:16:52 pm »

Interesting article Jim.  You certainly had a stable of lenses to work with!

Your last sentence in the comments section is what is haunting me about keeping my H4D 60 with it's dramatically larger sensor than the GFX of either flavor:
 "Of course, at same print size, the IQ4 150 MP shots will be sharper, because the sensor is larger."

Jack
Logged
Jack

Christopher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1499
    • http://www.hauser-photoart.com
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #54 on: January 04, 2020, 05:19:44 pm »

Well I do love my GFX100, I get mich better results than with my 50s especially with the IBIS! Sharpness between it, the iq4150 and the Sony is actually the same.... no wonder itís basically the same sensor design.

You have to get perfect technique to get it all out and itís even for me sometimes difficult. In the end everyone should use what works for them, but yes I can see a big difference between some 50s and 100 files printed at 100x150.

Not so happy when it come to lots of other things on the GFX... or iq4... image quality isnít the problem.
Logged
Christopher Hauser
[email=chris@hauser-p

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #55 on: January 04, 2020, 05:21:46 pm »

Interesting article Jim.  You certainly had a stable of lenses to work with!

Your last sentence in the comments section is what is haunting me about keeping my H4D 60 with it's dramatically larger sensor than the GFX of either flavor:
 "Of course, at same print size, the IQ4 150 MP shots will be sharper, because the sensor is larger."

Jack

That applies in my sentence above because the pixel pitch of all three sensors under discussion is the same. That's not the case with the H4D 60. The H4D pitch is 6 um, which is substantially larger than the 3.76 um of the other sensors. So you can't draw that conclusion.

Jim
« Last Edit: January 04, 2020, 05:48:15 pm by Jim Kasson »
Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: GX 100 returned as it could not match my GFX 50S
« Reply #56 on: January 04, 2020, 05:23:27 pm »

Well I do love my GFX100, I get mich better results than with my 50s especially with the IBIS! Sharpness between it, the iq4150 and the Sony is actually the same.... no wonder itís basically the same sensor design.

That is only true at the physical level. For same-sized prints, the IQ4 150 is sharper than the GFX 100 which is sharper than the a7rIV.

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 #57 on: January 04, 2020, 06:18:08 pm »

That is only true at the physical level. For same-sized prints, the IQ4 150 is sharper than the GFX 100 which is sharper than the a7rIV.

Jim

Descending image sharpness is directly proportional to the respective cameras price is what one could conclude.
Only logical to me.

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 #58 on: January 04, 2020, 06:23:34 pm »

Descending image sharpness is directly proportional to the respective cameras price is what one could conclude.
Only logical to me.

The sharpness is monotonic with camera price, but it is far from directly proportional; the relationship is highly nonlinear. For example, the jump from the GFX 100 to the IQ4 150 yields a 22% increase in sharpness at the sensor level.

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 #59 on: January 04, 2020, 06:26:41 pm »

The sharpness is monotonic with camera price, but it is far from directly proportional; the relationship is highly nonlinear. For example, the jump from the GFX 100 to the IQ4 150 yields a 22% increase in sharpness at the sensor level.

Jim

I'll give  you  that if you give me the percentage of price increase between the two.
By directly, I am say it goes up.
Logged
Jack
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up