GF 110 reason enough to switch to GFX?

Thanks for the replied already.

For DR the Canon 5DMkIV is probably not the winner but then the Leica M9P surely isn't. I am used to consider that when lightning the subject. Anyhow each replacement will be a huge step forward. I hear the Canon is able to gain quite a lot of info out of the overexposed parts.

For AF, the Canon 5DMkIV is certainly the winner (and Sony A7RII & D810 best it) but then again the GFX50 will still be a huge step forward in comparison to my MF of the Leica. 50L and 85L aren't very fast either (but as posted probably faster).

Anyhow there should be some wow feeling before ditching my beloved M9P. Up till now the GFX images are very attractive to me.

Anyone that can compare this setups directly:

Canon 5D MkIV 35L-50L-85L (especially the last two lenses) vs GFX 32-64, 63, 110.

Currently I am also looking at the work of Jay Cassario http://www.jaycassario.com/blog/2017/1/3/my-top-3-lenses. He did not test the GFX yet but I am sure other people here did compare the setups I am considering.

Thanks

Iflare said:

Iflare said:

Although I like the skin tones with the Canon the color rendering I saw with the Fuji GFX (and even with my Xpro2) looks very fine. I know that those can be tweaked in PP but still that takes a significant amount of time behind the computer. That is also the main reason why I did get the XPro2 in stead of a A7 series.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Significant amounts if you are just learning. Once fluent with image processing software, a glance at the preview image and you know what it needs. If there are a series of images shot under the same circumstances, they can be batch processed with a click. Of course, there is no point in processing any image other than those you will print and post.

The reward is that the final image will exactly match your expectations.

i have quite a bit of experience with rangefinders (leica and various fuji MF) and i have always found it to be a great way to focus manually....

sometimes i find reliance on AF messes me up more then it helps....for example the eye AF on the sony is pretty amazing but once all those little flashing squares get confused, i find it takes me longer to find focus again and get back into the rhythm then when focusing manually....

with a slower AF like the GFX it is not that different....i guess to me focus/shoot is a rhythm and any AF sometimes takes you out of that...and that is what is annoying to me...

i tried the new firmware on the GFX and on first try the AF-C still wasn't much better, other people have had a different experience...

i find the DOF does not compare easily between FF and the GFX....fall off is just different....i was a little concerned how the f4 of the fuji zoom would compare to the f2.8 on the sony 24-70....but i find myself shooting more at f5.6 now with the fuji and not missing a soft background.....i don't know what the numbers are but it just looks different and in the end that is what matters most to me....

Paul said:

i have quite a bit of experience with rangefinders (leica and various fuji MF) and i have always found it to be a great way to focus manually....

sometimes i find reliance on AF messes me up more then it helps....for example the eye AF on the sony is pretty amazing but once all those little flashing squares get confused, i find it takes me longer to find focus again and get back into the rhythm then when focusing manually....

with a slower AF like the GFX it is not that different....i guess to me focus/shoot is a rhythm and any AF sometimes takes you out of that...and that is what is annoying to me...

i tried the new firmware on the GFX and on first try the AF-C still wasn't much better, other people have had a different experience...

i find the DOF does not compare easily between FF and the GFX....fall off is just different....

Click to expand...

DOF is DOF. Same aperture size and same FOV = same DOF. Any difference in how things look is about bokeh, not DOF.

Paul said:

i was a little concerned how the f4 of the fuji zoom would compare to the f2.8 on the sony 24-70

Click to expand...

f4 / 1.79 = f2.2. So the Sony FF lens will have less DOF.

Paul said:

....but i find myself shooting more at f5.6

Click to expand...

f5.6 / 1.79 = f3.1. That is closer to that f2.8.

Paul said:

now with the fuji and not missing a soft background.....i don't know what the numbers are but it just looks different and in the end that is what matters most to me....

Click to expand...

brightcolours said:

Paul said:

i have quite a bit of experience with rangefinders (leica and various fuji MF) and i have always found it to be a great way to focus manually....

sometimes i find reliance on AF messes me up more then it helps....for example the eye AF on the sony is pretty amazing but once all those little flashing squares get confused, i find it takes me longer to find focus again and get back into the rhythm then when focusing manually....

with a slower AF like the GFX it is not that different....i guess to me focus/shoot is a rhythm and any AF sometimes takes you out of that...and that is what is annoying to me...

i tried the new firmware on the GFX and on first try the AF-C still wasn't much better, other people have had a different experience...

i find the DOF does not compare easily between FF and the GFX....fall off is just different....

Click to expand...

DOF is DOF. Same aperture size and same FOV = same DOF. Any difference in how things look is about bokeh, not DOF.

brightcolours said:

i was a little concerned how the f4 of the fuji zoom would compare to the f2.8 on the sony 24-70

Click to expand...

f4 / 1.79 = f2.2. So the Sony FF lens will have less DOF.

brightcolours said:

....but i find myself shooting more at f5.6

Click to expand...

f5.6 / 1.79 = f3.1. That is closer to that f2.8.

Click to expand...

Essentially, this is what he was saying without quoting the numbers.

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

now with the fuji and not missing a soft background.....i don't know what the numbers are but it just looks different and in the end that is what matters most to me....

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hi,

I'm also father of twins, already at 2.5+ age. I also happen to own quite a few interesting cameras, like GFX, M10, SL (using it only with M lenses), and since very recently, A9.

I took thousands of pictures of my kids with all those cameras (well not yet with A9 obviously). I have a lot of keepers from M10 and SL - my favorite lenses being 28 summilux, 50 APO, and 50 noctilux.

In my opinion GFX doesn't give a lot compared to SL/M10 when kids are in motion when it comes to nailing the focus: yes it has AF, but it's not really quick/snappy AF, and continuous mode is completely unusable. Given that with Leicas I shoot mostly wide open while manually focusing, and with GFX even with 63/2.8 I have more DoF than with leicas, I find the keeper ratio comparable between those twos, due to GFX not having a sport-grade AF.

GFX has superior IQ of all of those cameras, that's no doubt. But I'm having a blast with A9 and 50ZA + 35ZA lenses - hit ratio is unbelievable, IQ is comparable with SL/M10 (with those lenses that is), eye AF with AF-C tracking is a game changer. EVF is fantastic. It pretty much became my favorite camera (probably ever for shooting my kids in just one week.

And kids tend to move more and more when they get older, so if you have problems now with 1 year old ones, you will have way more problems in the future.

I'm pretty much now considering converting to A9 as a main camera for all portraits/kids work, with GFX being my main landscape camera since it's unbeatable for that.

Iflare said:

LightBug said:

I don't think AF performance is the reason why people would choose MF.

Switching to Canon seems more practical given your AF needs.

Click to expand...

I tested the GFX with the 63 mm for an hour or so. I guess the AF is probably all right for photographing children unless they are really running around. As said I would also keep the Xpro2 and with the 35/2 I feel it's fine for some children action pictures.

It should be quicker than my manual focus of the M I think.

Click to expand...

Well I don't want to spread FUD, but at least in my case, the kids started to "really run around" when they got slightly older (2+ years old). I already posted my thoughts in another comment of mine. Anyway, you are right that if kids are not running around, 50s can nail the focus - been there, done that many times..

Iflare said:

LightBug said:

I don't think AF performance is the reason why people would choose MF.

Switching to Canon seems more practical given your AF needs.

Click to expand...

I tested the GFX with the 63 mm for an hour or so. I guess the AF is probably all right for photographing children unless they are really running around. As said I would also keep the Xpro2 and with the 35/2 I feel it's fine for some children action pictures.

It should be quicker than my manual focus of the M I think.

Click to expand...

Another way to use the GFX is to set camera + lens to MF and turn Focus Peaking on.
(Focus Peaking shows which part of the frame is focused using a colored highlight overlay)

Being used to AF, it was for me quite a learning curve, but after getting used to this, feels more natural than chasing the AF squares and finding out where the camera thinks the focus should be.
Well, i had to, GFX with HC lenses is MF only

JoepMinnen said:

Iflare said:

LightBug said:

I don't think AF performance is the reason why people would choose MF.

Switching to Canon seems more practical given your AF needs.

Click to expand...

I tested the GFX with the 63 mm for an hour or so. I guess the AF is probably all right for photographing children unless they are really running around. As said I would also keep the Xpro2 and with the 35/2 I feel it's fine for some children action pictures.

It should be quicker than my manual focus of the M I think.

Click to expand...

Another way to use the GFX is to set camera + lens to MF and turn Focus Peaking on.
(Focus Peaking shows which part of the frame is focused using a colored highlight overlay)

Being used to AF, it was for me quite a learning curve, but after getting used to this, feels more natural than chasing the AF squares and finding out where the camera thinks the focus should be.
Well, i had to, GFX with HC lenses is MF only

Click to expand...

I think manual focus will be a reality, while I need some time to learn a new raw converter to post any real images I wanted to provide this snapshot to show just how thin the DOF is at 100mm f2.2 This is at ~1.2M away. I will try to get some real examples up using the HC 2,2/100mm, but as lots of people are coming from smaller formats I wanted to show how f2.2 may sound slow but is very fast at this size.

I will try to post some real images soon. FWIW, I expect to buy the GF110 as my main lens, but am testing the HC to see if it is reliable enough for a rental when I need a bit more sync speed.

I hope dpreview will allow users to view this silly shot at full rez, but the hair demonstrates the fall-off extremely well on my computer, even if it is a junk (learning the dials) photo.

View attachment 00781afbc23b42bca44fc5ddb005b9ac.jpg

Well the weather conspired against me and the clouds that I was hoping would lead to a great sunset turned into a haze. So I will share a picture that is not gret but does show the potential here. As Fuji was the maker of the Hasselblad HC 2,2/100MM I hope that the 110/2 will be just as good or better.

this picture was taken in direct sunlight, at f/10. My D800 would be suffering from diffraction here. If you look at the black side of the boat at 1:1, the gate black and the wood on the boats dash this really demonstrates what this sensor can do.

While I am still adjusting to lightroom and really don't like the results on my amateurish attempt here the dynamic range on the GFX is extremely impressive. Even with bracketed exposure I couldn't replicate the subtleties in tone between the vinyl on the seat and gel-coat with my D800. I am not much of a forum user, but now that I have the controls down I will try to return with some real work.

But as the Fuji lens is shipping on the 30th, and because there is a lot of spotty information out there I wanted to share this snapshot. I don't think that most people would want to deal with manual focus on the far more expensive HC 2,2/100MM, but I think that most people who are interested in getting past the diffraction limitations of 35mm sized sensors will want to buy the G 110mm. I hope it is at least in the same league, but I will at least be renting the HC when I need faster strobe sync (which works up to 1/800 btw)

View attachment 24fcc3d70e2544deb187535c54195c89.jpg

I know this is the medium format forum, but for taking pictures of kids consider the Fujifilm XT2 and the 18-55mm lens. With the GFX you'll need much more light to get reasonable depth of field. The XT2 has the newest AF of the Fuji line, and the 18-55 is a fantastic lens. It's a great system especially with less than perfect lighting.

The GF 110mm f/2 lens looks very interesting... Any problem with the AF speed and usability won't be due to the lens, but to the camera... At the moment the only camera offered, the GFX 50s, focuses using contrast detect, and AF is "sluggish in low light" (dpreview review)... If you care about AF, buy rather the Pentax 645z...

NM

--
Your time is limited, so don't waste it arguing about camera features - go out and capture memories

View attachment 76c58242ddc7437682a3f0aecd514d2e.jpg
Amateurish shot just showing how thin the DOF is on the 110 f/2 at close focus.



I am trying to call around like crazy to find an interesting subject to shoot but I wanted to share just how shallow the DOF is on this lens. Sorry this is my form of a brick wall shot and she was moving but it is paper thin and at the absolute closest focus so it is fairly useless.
But I will try to be back with something more than a hand held nasty snapshot.
The close focus does hunt, and it is slower than the 120 which I would expect with this much glass but the focus ring is the best I have felt yet on a Fuji, although that is very subjective.

View attachment 2f4aeb2fae644bf59bc9479e467fcec8.jpg
Amateurish shot just showing how thin the DOF is on the 110 f/2 at close focus.