XT2 vs Gfx

djsuth said:

From an IQ perspective personally I see quite a difference ( in favour of the GFX ). That said, I do like using my X-T2 for similar reasons to yours.

I think if cost wasn't such a factor, I daresay many more Fuji X uses would be picking up a GFX too.

Click to expand...

djsuth said:

The GFX image has better clarity, sharpness & tonality in my opinion. Also, less noise. But then, I'd expect that with it's larger sensor size and resolution.

Click to expand...

Vic Chapman said:

http://f16.click/gear/fujifilm-gfx-50s.html

Kevin Mullins article.

Vic

Click to expand...

djsuth said:

I have looked at both, and I'm sorry, but when viewed at 100% especially I can see clear differences in the IQ.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the X-T2 image is bad. But, there is no way it stands up to the GFX, all else being equal.

Click to expand...

Advent1sam said:

Vic Chapman said:

http://f16.click/gear/fujifilm-gfx-50s.html

Kevin Mullins article.

Vic

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

SkvLTD said:

OP, you're NOT comparing ooc jpegs now, are you?

Click to expand...

Vic Chapman said:

Advent1sam said:

Vic Chapman said:

http://f16.click/gear/fujifilm-gfx-50s.html

Kevin Mullins article.

Vic

--
The sky is full of holes that let the rain get in, the holes are very small - that's why the rain is thin.
Spike Milligan. Writer, comedian, poet, Goon. 1918 - 2002

Click to expand...

Interesting but I would like to see some equivalent focus, ie to width or height, gfx xt2

Click to expand...

Why? What is the point? What are you constantly and unsuccessfully trying to prove by upsizing, up/down-sampling, turning inside-out, upside-down and etc? Show the images as they are at native resolution if you must compare. Even better, just show some real life pictures from each.

They are different cameras, producing different results.

Click to expand...

Vic Chapman said:

Vic

--
The sky is full of holes that let the rain get in, the holes are very small - that's why the rain is thin.
Spike Milligan. Writer, comedian, poet, Goon. 1918 - 2002

Click to expand...

Matpan said:

a 6.5k Medium Format Camera vs a 1.2k APS-C camera... the result is obvious.

Image has more resolution straight out of camera, to begin with, 8256 x 6192 vs 6000x4000. that is a LOT more pixels. Bigger sensor size also implies more total light gather for the same exposure, lower ISO, less total noise. Images will and DO look sharper and more detailed.

Micro contrast looks better, color rendition looks nicer and richer in general. Everything about the bigger camera says: This is a more capable tool.

There is nothing in the first picture that is better than in the second one, by no stretch of the criteria. Not even equal... the Medium format image is superior in every aspect. Ans while you may say, Hey, but those criteria are very subjective... I can assure you than out of 1000 people you may ask about these upwards of 950 will choose the GFx image.

I am as happy a owner of an X-T2 as one can be, an amazingly capable tool which is by no means a slouch and I feel is no compromise for what it offers. It can handle a professional shooting for sure. Not because I say so (I am merely a learning aficionado) but because I know a couple of working pros that use it and are happy with it, apart from the plethora of pros that attest to it´s capabilities online.

But to try and equate what an XT-2 can do to what a GFx 50s can is nonsensical. These are two different tools with two different goals in mind.
You have answered to every comment that differs from your opinion with yet another comeback trying to refutem which leads me to think you are heavily biased. From this it is possible to deduce you either own an XT2 and need to justify your purchase (as many a people do given any choice), or are looking to get one and need reassurance in your almost set decision.
There is no part in the fact that a Medium format, more expensive and capable of delivering more sophisticated images camera, which makes the XT2 a less valuable and awesome piece of hardware.
I would be thrilled to own an Audi R4, but I wouldn´t go saying, this is better than a ferrari F50...

Click to expand...

Advent1sam said:

Matpan said:

a 6.5k Medium Format Camera vs a 1.2k APS-C camera... the result is obvious.

Image has more resolution straight out of camera, to begin with, 8256 x 6192 vs 6000x4000. that is a LOT more pixels. Bigger sensor size also implies more total light gather for the same exposure, lower ISO, less total noise. Images will and DO look sharper and more detailed.

Micro contrast looks better, color rendition looks nicer and richer in general. Everything about the bigger camera says: This is a more capable tool.

There is nothing in the first picture that is better than in the second one, by no stretch of the criteria. Not even equal... the Medium format image is superior in every aspect. Ans while you may say, Hey, but those criteria are very subjective... I can assure you than out of 1000 people you may ask about these upwards of 950 will choose the GFx image.

I am as happy a owner of an X-T2 as one can be, an amazingly capable tool which is by no means a slouch and I feel is no compromise for what it offers. It can handle a professional shooting for sure. Not because I say so (I am merely a learning aficionado) but because I know a couple of working pros that use it and are happy with it, apart from the plethora of pros that attest to it´s capabilities online.

But to try and equate what an XT-2 can do to what a GFx 50s can is nonsensical. These are two different tools with two different goals in mind.
You have answered to every comment that differs from your opinion with yet another comeback trying to refutem which leads me to think you are heavily biased. From this it is possible to deduce you either own an XT2 and need to justify your purchase (as many a people do given any choice), or are looking to get one and need reassurance in your almost set decision.
There is no part in the fact that a Medium format, more expensive and capable of delivering more sophisticated images camera, which makes the XT2 a less valuable and awesome piece of hardware.
I would be thrilled to own an Audi R4, but I wouldn´t go saying, this is better than a ferrari F50...

Click to expand...

Impossible to know without equivalent shots, the gfx is much bigger in the 4:3 frame than xt2, I think the xt2 will outperform the gfx in 99% of shots and when presented on-line will be impossible to tell. For print, xt2 will match gfx too no doubt about it, none!

Click to expand...

Advent1sam said:

djsuth said:

I have looked at both, and I'm sorry, but when viewed at 100% especially I can see clear differences in the IQ.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the X-T2 image is bad. But, there is no way it stands up to the GFX, all else being equal.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying/seeing but the image is zoomed in in comparison, I think it's very close baring this in mind.

Click to expand...

Truman Prevatt said:

Advent1sam said:

djsuth said:

I have looked at both, and I'm sorry, but when viewed at 100% especially I can see clear differences in the IQ.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the X-T2 image is bad. But, there is no way it stands up to the GFX, all else being equal.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying/seeing but the image is zoomed in in comparison, I think it's very close baring this in mind.

Click to expand...

And you are probably a guy that would argue with his girlfriend when she said "size does matter." In photography size does matter.

The XT2 is a fine camera. But there is no way an APS-C sensor can hold up to a super FF (I won't call this a medium format sensor since it can't hole up to a Phase One sensor).

If you like the XT2 let it ride - you don't have to justify your choice.

Click to expand...