GFX100RF size argument

[JimKasson]

I share your “brick” philosophy when it comes to portability: height and width are not significant issues, but depth and protrusions are.

I have four categories, which I should probably think of better names for:

• pocketable (there is one camera that stands head, shoulders and frankly an entire torso above everything else in this category: the Ricoh GR in all its forms)
• highly baggable (won’t fit in a pocket, but will go in and out of a tiny bag with minimal fuss: for me this is an X100, or an X-Pro/X-E with a small/pancake lens)
• baggable (eg my 50R with the GF 50 or an adapted F/K Mount lens, which still easily fits in my Bellroy Venture Camera bag, among other bags, but not the smallest slings)
• big (the 50R with a full-size GF lens, which demands a dedicated bag larger than I’d normally carry)

For me the 100RF just about scraped into highly baggable: it wouldn’t fit the smallest of bags, but small enough, and given that it would take the place of additional/adapter lenses for an X100 or X-E/X-Pro it was firmly in the same pigeon hole as those.

In the end I’ve gone back to the X-Pro/X-E approach, but that was down to a couple of other aspects of the 100RF, not its physical size and shape.

At the end of the day, I’d never be without a GR, so having such a tiny option kind of takes the pressure off any other camera when it comes to the last slivers of compactness.

In the early days of computers we distinguished between "portable" and "transportable" -- the latter referring to computers you could move if you had to.

Or, like the original Compaq, luggable. I hated schlepping that thing through airports.

Was that the one that looked and weighed like a sewing machine when it had its case on?

Yup. The keyboard was the 'Lid'.

I'd like to say that I had fond memories of that machine, but.....it was good, but s royal PITA to take anywhere

Indeed. I once took one to Mount Batchelor so the kids could play games and I could learn Lisp. Nice once it got there.

 

[UsherFellig]

I have never really been able to find a satisfactory "compact" camera. It's a set of contradictions.

• I want a camera that is big enough so that the controls are not miniaturised or get in the way of holding it. That rules out almost every RX100-style mini camera.
• I want a proper grip but I also don't want a camera that snags on a pocket, ruling out most cameras with sticky out lenses and grips
• I want a decently wide ranging zoom that doesn't take up much space
• I want mechanical zoom, hate motorised lenses and power zooms
• I want a decent viewfinder
• I want speedy operation
• I want light weight
• I want something with good enough image quality to do A3 prints

The biggest contradiction of all: I don't really do photography on a 'just in case' basis - I do my photography in a dedicated photo trip way.

Over the years I have tried a fair number of compact carry everywhere options and not found anything that fits the bill. Failures include: Nikon Coolpix CP950, CP3100, Canon Powershot G7, Fuji X10, Konica-Minolta A200, Fuji S4000.

Of these, the closest I got was the Minolta A200, a very small superzoom bridge camera, and the X10, both nice cameras with 2/3" sensors and mechanical zoom, but neither really met the snag-free shape test.

One camera I never tried which looks like it might get close was the Nikon P7800.

I ended up giving up on the idea of compacts and instead use a Lumix GX7 with a pair of collapsible pancake zooms. It's smallish and competent and not that much bigger than compacts.

Only thing is that, because I don't really need a carry-anywhere camera, I rarely use it!

Did you ever try the Panasonic GM5 with 12-32mm lens?

It hits many of your requirements, depending on your threshold. The Evf is a weak point though as it can rainbow when viewing. Paired with the compact 35-100mm you litterally can fit it in your pocket. I do with cargo like shorts, the side pockets.

It was my first m43rds camera, moving away from my Olympus E3. I also like the Leica 15mm lens or Panasonic 20mm lenses with it.

An excellent standard-range zoom that is small and light precisely because it isn't fast, plus an excellent pancake/small faster prime for lowlight, is a favorite mobile outfit of mine for travel and on-the-roam, be it m43, APSC, or FF. And in m43 that 12-32mm plus the P20mm f1.7 with one of the small EVF bodies (or two of the small bodies) is absolutely classic. The trick is not to be pining for a Holy Trinity of fast telephotos and every other permutation under the sun. Doesn't work for certain scenarios, but those generally aren't my scenarios.

 

[Lukacs85]

I recommend trying the Peak Design Outdoor Sling 7l with different inserts.

I had the 3L version, but I wouldn't use it for an EDC sling.

 

[Smogg]

I recommend trying the Peak Design Outdoor Sling 7l with different inserts.

I had the 3L version, but I wouldn't use it for an EDC sling.

Are you confusing the sling model? These slings only come in 2l, 4l and 7l.

 

[Lukacs85]

I recommend trying the Peak Design Outdoor Sling 7l with different inserts.

I had the 3L version, but I wouldn't use it for an EDC sling.

Are you confusing the sling model? These slings only come in 2l, 4l and 7l.

Yes, you are right. However I just bought this Bellroy Classic Sling 5L, this is the largest bag I want as EDC or travel. Also I prefer a fixed strap for an EDC sling, I don't have to worry if the clip broke after several years. I commute by bike, so reliability is extremely important, especially if I carry an expensive gear.

 

[marc aurel]

My solution for the "highly baggable" category:

I adapted my standard messenger bag for the GFX 100RF. Because I have it with me most of the time. So I added some dividers from other camera bags to protect the camera. There is still room for other stuff in the bag. Cheap and dirty, but suits my needs.



View: original size



View: original size

 

[Truman Prevatt]

I've packed a 4x5 field camera with tripod, film carriers, focusing cloth, etc. over 12,000 foot passes in the Rockies along with the other stuff for a multi-way backpack. Got some wonderful prints. My pack topped out at about 50 pounds. Did I enjoy it - Hell no. But one needed large format to get sufficient image quality for landscape If 35 mm was sufficient - I'd pack my M4 and nothing more.

The best camera for the job is the one you have handy. One of Ansel Adams most iconic landscapes, Moon and Half Dome, was taken with a Hasselblad 500C. This was also taken in the 1960's when Adams had a few years on him and his scrambling over rocks with heavy camera equipment was nearing an end. He noticed the shot while driving without the necessary large format gear he would have needed - stopped and got it.

i've had a fixed lens compact for several years and for two that is all I used. I did add a Z8 since every once in awhile I get a hair up my butt to take some things I can't get with a 28 or 35 mm lens. In 1975, I would throw my M4 over my shoulder and head out. Even then when I was young and dumb, I would not do that with my F2. I'm no longer young and I'm not doing it with my Z8. The Z8 travels with me in the car/truck - not over my shoulder or back.

Along comes the GFX100RF. I didn't get much time to get out with it since we were getting ready for our trip out West, having the house stained and painted and working to get rid of a tree that lightning took out in the upper pasture. But since we have been on the road trip, the RF is always there. BTW I enjoy 28 mm focal length. Leica had it right with the Q3 (28 mm) and the Q3 43. Maybe something down the road like a GFX100RF with a 50 mm lens would be a nice addition. I find 35 mm lens on 35 mm camera somewhat boring. Because of the 35 mm RF lens, sometimes one has a challenge in finding a way to get the story, but challenge often leads to a more creative image.

I have been on a search for the best bag for my compact cameras. The PD slings are either too big or too small. They are also stiff which mades it difficult to get my Q2M easily in and out. That was even more true on horseback where you only have one hand most of the time.

I think I have finally found a good solution with the RF. The new PD outdoor slings are really nice and light. It would have worked well for the Q2M also. Their extra small camera cube is designed to fit in offering a little padding and rigidity. The RF fits in nicely and comes in and out easily with one hand. There is enough room for an extra battery, phone, ND and CP filter stack and hood which I don't use much. It can be worn over the shoulder or as a "fanny pack" either in the front or back.

Right now I'm a happy camper - my camera is always with me. My Z8 is still in the truck along with a 28-75, 50-100 and if I need a fast lens a 35 f1.4. I'll surely get it out for the Badlands as the big horn sheep tend to pose for you. However, the RF will be over my shoulder, even on horseback.

Right now it is figuring out the best workflow for GFX files to get high quality 16x20 prints without having to buy a disk farm. But as Emerson famously said, it's not the destination, it's the journey.

 

[JimKasson]

Right now it is figuring out the best workflow for GFX files to get high quality 16x20 prints without having to buy a disk farm.

40 TB of SSD storage above the Mac. FW and 10GbE interfaces.





--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

 

[jhunna]

40 TB of SSD storage above the Mac. FW and 10GbE interfaces.

In a world of high end cameras, THIS is a proper flex. "Impressive" - Darth Vader

 

[Lukacs85]

Right now it is figuring out the best workflow for GFX files to get high quality 16x20 prints without having to buy a disk farm.

40 TB of SSD storage above the Mac. FW and 10GbE interfaces.

Hell, I don't keep raw files anymore. Process them, and hit the delete. Storing 15-40MB jpegs is not a huge deal.

 

[JimKasson]

Right now it is figuring out the best workflow for GFX files to get high quality 16x20 prints without having to buy a disk farm.

40 TB of SSD storage above the Mac. FW and 10GbE interfaces.

Hell, I don't keep raw files anymore. Process them, and hit the delete. Storing 15-40MB jpegs is not a huge deal.

I keep raw files. As new process versions of Lr/ACR come out, you can upgrade the processing with a click of a mouse -- even for entire directories -- it you want. I never store JPEGs for reuse; just PSDs, PSBs, and TIFFs. Every time you modify and save a JPEG file, you rerun the lossy discrete cosine transform algorithm all over again; that's IQ loss you don't need.

--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

 

[jhunna]

I keep raw files. As new process versions of Lr/ACR come out, you can upgrade the processing with a click of a mouse -- even for entire directories -- it you want. I never store JPEGs for reuse; just PSDs, PSBs, and TIFFs. Every time you modify and save a JPEG file, you rerun the lossy discrete cosine transform algorithm all over again; that's IQ loss you don't need.

So when you modify a TIFF file (I don't use the other ones you describe), you aren't losing any quality do to rerunning the algorithm? Also at what point should you stop modifying a jpeg?

 

[Rob de Loe]

Hell, I don't keep raw files anymore. Process them, and hit the delete. Storing 15-40MB jpegs is not a huge deal.

Maybe a reason to keep RAW files...

I have a friend who discovered that his catalogue is full of good work from many years ago that he had written off because it looked terrible to him many years later. The issue turned out to be a preset that he was applying on import back then in Lightroom. At the time he didn't know better, and because it was an import preset that he no longer had on his computer, it wasn't obvious what it had done. When he started from scratch, he discovered some excellent images again.

I keep my RAW files because storage is cheap. And I mean all of them -- every one I've created, and all the ones in my catalogue that I actually processed. It probably doesn't make sense, but I have lots of old bare drives and I don't make 100s of thousands of pictures each year like some folks.

 

[JimKasson]

I keep raw files. As new process versions of Lr/ACR come out, you can upgrade the processing with a click of a mouse -- even for entire directories -- it you want. I never store JPEGs for reuse; just PSDs, PSBs, and TIFFs. Every time you modify and save a JPEG file, you rerun the lossy discrete cosine transform algorithm all over again; that's IQ loss you don't need.

So when you modify a TIFF file (I don't use the other ones you describe), you aren't losing any quality do to rerunning the algorithm?

No. As I think I've told you before, lossless compression is indeed lossless.

Also at what point should you stop modifying a jpeg?

I wouldn't modify a JPEG at all. But that's just me.

 

[JimKasson]

Hell, I don't keep raw files anymore. Process them, and hit the delete. Storing 15-40MB jpegs is not a huge deal.

Maybe a reason to keep RAW files...

I have a friend who discovered that his catalogue is full of good work from many years ago that he had written off because it looked terrible to him many years later. The issue turned out to be a preset that he was applying on import back then in Lightroom. At the time he didn't know better, and because it was an import preset that he no longer had on his computer, it wasn't obvious what it had done. When he started from scratch, he discovered some excellent images again.

I keep my RAW files because storage is cheap. And I mean all of them -- every one I've created, and all the ones in my catalogue that I actually processed. It probably doesn't make sense, but I have lots of old bare drives and I don't make 100s of thousands of pictures each year like some folks.

When I'm doing the focus stacked macro work, I generate about 5000 raws a week. I don't keep those, just the stacked TIFFs.

 

[jhunna]

I keep raw files. As new process versions of Lr/ACR come out, you can upgrade the processing with a click of a mouse -- even for entire directories -- it you want. I never store JPEGs for reuse; just PSDs, PSBs, and TIFFs. Every time you modify and save a JPEG file, you rerun the lossy discrete cosine transform algorithm all over again; that's IQ loss you don't need.

So when you modify a TIFF file (I don't use the other ones you describe), you aren't losing any quality do to rerunning the algorithm?

No. As I think I've told you before, lossless compression is indeed lossless.

Is TIFF lossless compression?

Also at what point should you stop modifying a jpeg?

I wouldn't modify a JPEG at all. But that's just me.

Understood

 

[JimKasson]

I keep raw files. As new process versions of Lr/ACR come out, you can upgrade the processing with a click of a mouse -- even for entire directories -- it you want. I never store JPEGs for reuse; just PSDs, PSBs, and TIFFs. Every time you modify and save a JPEG file, you rerun the lossy discrete cosine transform algorithm all over again; that's IQ loss you don't need.

So when you modify a TIFF file (I don't use the other ones you describe), you aren't losing any quality do to rerunning the algorithm?

No. As I think I've told you before, lossless compression is indeed lossless.

Is TIFF lossless compression?

TIFF files support several compression methods, two of the most common being ZIP and LZW. Both are lossless compression schemes, meaning they reduce file size without discarding any image data.

LZW, which stands for Lempel–Ziv–Welch, is a dictionary-based compression algorithm developed in the 1980s. In the context of TIFF files, LZW is identified by a compression tag value of 5. The algorithm works by identifying repeated sequences of data, storing them in a dictionary, and then replacing repeated sequences with references to this dictionary. This method is fast and widely supported. It works well with images that have large areas of uniform color, such as line drawings or indexed-color graphics. LZW compression was once encumbered by patents, which discouraged its use in some open-source software for a time, but those patents have since expired. While LZW is simple and relatively efficient, it does not include entropy coding techniques like Huffman or arithmetic coding, which limits how much compression it can achieve on more complex images.

ZIP compression in TIFF files uses the same DEFLATE algorithm found in ZIP file archives and PNG images. It is identified in TIFF files with a compression tag value of 8. DEFLATE combines sliding window compression, similar to LZ77, with Huffman coding to further reduce redundancy. This method tends to achieve better compression ratios than LZW, especially on photographic content where image complexity and noise reduce the effectiveness of dictionary-based approaches. Although ZIP compression is generally slower than LZW, particularly during decompression, it is well supported in most modern imaging software, including Adobe Photoshop, and Lightroom. However, compatibility may be an issue with older software that has not been updated to recognize or decode ZIP-compressed TIFFs.

The choice between ZIP and LZW often comes down to the type of image and the software in use. LZW may be preferred for compatibility and for simpler images with large uniform areas. ZIP is usually better for compressing photographs and continuous-tone images, especially when file size is a priority and the software ecosystem supports it.

Also at what point should you stop modifying a jpeg?

I wouldn't modify a JPEG at all. But that's just me.

Understood

--
https://blog.kasson.com

 

[BobsYourUncle]

I keep raw files. As new process versions of Lr/ACR come out, you can upgrade the processing with a click of a mouse -- even for entire directories -- it you want. I never store JPEGs for reuse; just PSDs, PSBs, and TIFFs. Every time you modify and save a JPEG file, you rerun the lossy discrete cosine transform algorithm all over again; that's IQ loss you don't need.

So when you modify a TIFF file (I don't use the other ones you describe), you aren't losing any quality do to rerunning the algorithm?

No. As I think I've told you before, lossless compression is indeed lossless.

Is TIFF lossless compression?

TIFF files support several compression methods, two of the most common being ZIP and LZW. Both are lossless compression schemes, meaning they reduce file size without discarding any image data.

LZW, which stands for Lempel–Ziv–Welch, is a dictionary-based compression algorithm developed in the 1980s. In the context of TIFF files, LZW is identified by a compression tag value of 5. The algorithm works by identifying repeated sequences of data, storing them in a dictionary, and then replacing repeated sequences with references to this dictionary. This method is fast and widely supported. It works well with images that have large areas of uniform color, such as line drawings or indexed-color graphics. LZW compression was once encumbered by patents, which discouraged its use in some open-source software for a time, but those patents have since expired. While LZW is simple and relatively efficient, it does not include entropy coding techniques like Huffman or arithmetic coding, which limits how much compression it can achieve on more complex images.

ZIP compression in TIFF files uses the same DEFLATE algorithm found in ZIP file archives and PNG images. It is identified in TIFF files with a compression tag value of 8. DEFLATE combines sliding window compression, similar to LZ77, with Huffman coding to further reduce redundancy. This method tends to achieve better compression ratios than LZW, especially on photographic content where image complexity and noise reduce the effectiveness of dictionary-based approaches. Although ZIP compression is generally slower than LZW, particularly during decompression, it is well supported in most modern imaging software, including Adobe Photoshop, and Lightroom. However, compatibility may be an issue with older software that has not been updated to recognize or decode ZIP-compressed TIFFs.

The choice between ZIP and LZW often comes down to the type of image and the software in use. LZW may be preferred for compatibility and for simpler images with large uniform areas. ZIP is usually better for compressing photographs and continuous-tone images, especially when file size is a priority and the software ecosystem supports it.

Also at what point should you stop modifying a jpeg?

I wouldn't modify a JPEG at all. But that's just me.

Understood

the above abbreviation LZW and its meaning is something I was not aware of. I just assumed all these years it was a compression method for TIFF files and that was it. Prompted me to look up the individuals. I suppose I learn something every day.

 

[jhunna]

I keep raw files. As new process versions of Lr/ACR come out, you can upgrade the processing with a click of a mouse -- even for entire directories -- it you want. I never store JPEGs for reuse; just PSDs, PSBs, and TIFFs. Every time you modify and save a JPEG file, you rerun the lossy discrete cosine transform algorithm all over again; that's IQ loss you don't need.

So when you modify a TIFF file (I don't use the other ones you describe), you aren't losing any quality do to rerunning the algorithm?

No. As I think I've told you before, lossless compression is indeed lossless.

Is TIFF lossless compression?

TIFF files support several compression methods, two of the most common being ZIP and LZW. Both are lossless compression schemes, meaning they reduce file size without discarding any image data.

LZW, which stands for Lempel–Ziv–Welch, is a dictionary-based compression algorithm developed in the 1980s. In the context of TIFF files, LZW is identified by a compression tag value of 5. The algorithm works by identifying repeated sequences of data, storing them in a dictionary, and then replacing repeated sequences with references to this dictionary. This method is fast and widely supported. It works well with images that have large areas of uniform color, such as line drawings or indexed-color graphics. LZW compression was once encumbered by patents, which discouraged its use in some open-source software for a time, but those patents have since expired. While LZW is simple and relatively efficient, it does not include entropy coding techniques like Huffman or arithmetic coding, which limits how much compression it can achieve on more complex images.

ZIP compression in TIFF files uses the same DEFLATE algorithm found in ZIP file archives and PNG images. It is identified in TIFF files with a compression tag value of 8. DEFLATE combines sliding window compression, similar to LZ77, with Huffman coding to further reduce redundancy. This method tends to achieve better compression ratios than LZW, especially on photographic content where image complexity and noise reduce the effectiveness of dictionary-based approaches. Although ZIP compression is generally slower than LZW, particularly during decompression, it is well supported in most modern imaging software, including Adobe Photoshop, and Lightroom. However, compatibility may be an issue with older software that has not been updated to recognize or decode ZIP-compressed TIFFs.

The choice between ZIP and LZW often comes down to the type of image and the software in use. LZW may be preferred for compatibility and for simpler images with large uniform areas. ZIP is usually better for compressing photographs and continuous-tone images, especially when file size is a priority and the software ecosystem supports it.

This is excellent, thanks for this and I have 2 more questions:

1. How is the compression method determined?

2 why are tiff files often larger than the original RAW?

 

[JimKasson]

I keep raw files. As new process versions of Lr/ACR come out, you can upgrade the processing with a click of a mouse -- even for entire directories -- it you want. I never store JPEGs for reuse; just PSDs, PSBs, and TIFFs. Every time you modify and save a JPEG file, you rerun the lossy discrete cosine transform algorithm all over again; that's IQ loss you don't need.

So when you modify a TIFF file (I don't use the other ones you describe), you aren't losing any quality do to rerunning the algorithm?

No. As I think I've told you before, lossless compression is indeed lossless.

Is TIFF lossless compression?

TIFF files support several compression methods, two of the most common being ZIP and LZW. Both are lossless compression schemes, meaning they reduce file size without discarding any image data.

LZW, which stands for Lempel–Ziv–Welch, is a dictionary-based compression algorithm developed in the 1980s. In the context of TIFF files, LZW is identified by a compression tag value of 5. The algorithm works by identifying repeated sequences of data, storing them in a dictionary, and then replacing repeated sequences with references to this dictionary. This method is fast and widely supported. It works well with images that have large areas of uniform color, such as line drawings or indexed-color graphics. LZW compression was once encumbered by patents, which discouraged its use in some open-source software for a time, but those patents have since expired. While LZW is simple and relatively efficient, it does not include entropy coding techniques like Huffman or arithmetic coding, which limits how much compression it can achieve on more complex images.

ZIP compression in TIFF files uses the same DEFLATE algorithm found in ZIP file archives and PNG images. It is identified in TIFF files with a compression tag value of 8. DEFLATE combines sliding window compression, similar to LZ77, with Huffman coding to further reduce redundancy. This method tends to achieve better compression ratios than LZW, especially on photographic content where image complexity and noise reduce the effectiveness of dictionary-based approaches. Although ZIP compression is generally slower than LZW, particularly during decompression, it is well supported in most modern imaging software, including Adobe Photoshop, and Lightroom. However, compatibility may be an issue with older software that has not been updated to recognize or decode ZIP-compressed TIFFs.

The choice between ZIP and LZW often comes down to the type of image and the software in use. LZW may be preferred for compatibility and for simpler images with large uniform areas. ZIP is usually better for compressing photographs and continuous-tone images, especially when file size is a priority and the software ecosystem supports it.

This is excellent, thanks for this and I have 2 more questions:

1. How is the compression method determined?

It is a save option.

2 why are tiff files often larger than the original RAW?

They are demosaiced.