See for yourself:
blog.kasson.com
Should have guessed you'd have a deep dive. Thanks brother Jim for the handy link. Will look there first next time. Peace.
Is it fair to say the 63 is sharpest at F4 or F5.6? Vs other apertures not vs any other lens.
Dumb question perhaps but what are the practical uses of narrower apertures on this lens. And when focus bracketing should I be shooting at F4?
Deeper DOF.
Focus bracketing to find the best focus, or focus bracketing for stacking in post?
Sorry poorly worded. Of course deeper DOF should have been clearer that I meant in the context of the next question of focus bracketing and I meant for purpose of stacking in post. Should I be shooting F4 for stacking since the deeper DOF is solved by stacking?
Where it starts getting curious is not so much about the "Z" vs. GFX, rather looking at the larger market place concerning price/performance/utility ratio, which is about to get really interesting over the next few years. Once Canon shows what they've been cooking (mirrorless or otherwise), we'll see how the FF offerings will affect things to come in the context of "pressure" created by growing market expectations.We aren't seriously comparing these cameras are we?No finder on the Fuji...Interesting comparo just in terms of size/weight
Will the rumored GFX50R make the GFX line even more enticing as a street/landscape camera?
No, I don't either, however, a good number of prospective MF buyers will take, say, a Canon 80mp mirrorless camera with 8-10 fps / 20 frame buffer, excellent video features, and how such can integrate with their premium Canon, (Zeiss, etc.) glass... into serious consideration in their purchase decision making process even if they're considering buying MF.
I work at close range, but I find that f/4 makes for too many captures. I usually work at f/8 or thereabouts. Sometimes narrower, and rarely wider.
I will defer to you. I really don't know anything about the market for this stuff, and am artist with a camera, not a photographer in any sense. I have three ranges of cameras I'm using to that effect, 1", ASPC, and MFD. For what I'm getting out of the GFX 50S, I'm not seeing as being offered in these FF cameras. It's not really about the megapixels.Where it starts getting curious is not so much about the "Z" vs. GFX, rather looking at the larger market place concerning price/performance/utility ratio, which is about to get really interesting over the next few years. Once Canon shows what they've been cooking (mirrorless or otherwise), we'll see how the FF offerings will affect things to come in the context of "pressure" created by growing market expectations.We aren't seriously comparing these cameras are we?No finder on the Fuji...Interesting comparo just in terms of size/weight
Will the rumored GFX50R make the GFX line even more enticing as a street/landscape camera?
Phase seems to be making a move with the integrated software stuff... irrespective of how that works, I'm thinking Phase better start pulling worthwhile rabbits out of the hat if it's going to keep selling $50 - 70k "systems"; either that or Phase will be forced to appeal to a broader market, specifically those who can afford their gear but refrain from purchasing.
No, I don't either, however, a good number of prospective MF buyers will take, say, a Canon 80mp mirrorless camera with 8-10 fps / 20 frame buffer, excellent video features, and how such can integrate with their premium Canon, (Zeiss, etc.) glass... into serious consideration in their purchase decision making process even if they're considering buying MF.
such should pressure MF manufacturers to include additional practical features on their MF offerings if they want to woo those prospective buyers. Conversely if MF cameras offered 100mp or more, 10fps, large buffer, screen that articulates more, lit buttons, auto sensing shutter (senses when leaf lenses are attached), etc... then that's a pretty compelling package as opposed to just offering 100mp and ... well... that's it.
The psychological seed has just been planted by Nikon (Sony didn't count because it doesn't have the same psychological affect and heft as Canon/Nikon). Many people will only buy mirrorless now because a DSLR is now (psychologically at least) the outgoing tech.
Nikon is nail #1
Canon's serious mirrorless option will be nail #2
The impression made, and inference by photographers is the final nail.. #3.
If Canon plays a serious game by fielding, say, an 80mp camera, 12 fps, 50 frame buffer, modular card slot bay-- meaning you can swap out dual sd card slots for dual XQD if you need faster cards; video with pro features, great weather sealing, illuminated keys, etc... for less than $4500, then not only will that do a lot to shape the FF market, but will apply pressure to future MF offerings as well.
...eager to see how it all plays out.
Best in photography to all of you
You're shooting at like a few feet ya? See my latest image post of the gas station? What would you recommend for that?
F/5.6. f/8 if you’re worried about the corners.
On a personal note, I agree with your sense of what a MF camera has to offer over the smaller sensors, though one of the largest benefits for me is the pixel count.
I understand wholeheartedly where you're coming from. The best way to understand the benefits and nuances of shooting MF or LF is to shoot it regularly for a spell, and then go back to shooting FF or smaller.
Agreed- I hope I live long enough to be able to enjoy using a 6x7 sized sensor and the modern lenses that go along with it.
Which brings us to a very important point regarding camera capability. There was a time when capabilities were highly stratified across the camera ranges; e.g. The pro bodies had the most resolution and best auto focus capabilities; another pro body model would offer the fastest frame rate, and the enthusiasts cameras had scaled down frame rates and resolution. Today FF has consolidated features that used to be in separate pro bodies, mostly into one.
Likewise; You've contributed to my never ending learning about the needs and wants of others; how others use their gear.... which helps me better understand market realities, so I'm thankful for your input.
I think this will not happen because beside fuji the other 2 players have not enough resources to really accelerate development, look at phase one they very much only pass through the improvements coming from sony . the xf outdated at arrival and ready to get a prominent place in a museum as the last of her kind.
Aside from actual sensor costs, I don't think much resources would be required to shove 20, 150mp files into a decent size buffer at 8fps. I don't think that's much of a technical exercise today, but I don't have to expertise to be certain- you and others probably know a good bit more than I do in that regard.
The movement away from MF was due almost entirely because of cost. Too costly to shoot/develop film, and too costly to sink $$,000 into a digital MF system.
The movement away from MF was due almost entirely because of cost. Too costly to shoot/develop film, and too costly to sink $$,000 into a digital MF system.
The benefit of the larger formats and more resolution isn't just in output, rather increases practical latitude in:
Lens range? Most professional photography is covered with existing lenses, whether you're shooting Pentax, Fuji, Phase, or Hasselblad. I think future lenses will be lighter and if MF gains traction, other working professional lenses will follow; t/s range of lenses, and some longer telephoto lenses. View cameras are shunned because today people have a choice that's very practical compared to dealing with film, etc.. You can carry a X1D in your purse.
- Capturing the image (one can be farther away, slightly a'skew, etc, and it not affect output irrespective if that output is print or electronic device)
- The the creative process which in itself is a money saver; cropping, moving, composites, warping, straightening (cropping), etc., all seems to fair better when you have more pixels at one's disposal.
- Final output irrespective of medium. 150mp macro of a bees face viewed on your 27" iMac doesn't look the same as the same macro taken with 20, 30, or 50mp camera.
- Billboards can be shot with practically anything... no big resolution concerns there
I predict 300mp in a simple form factor, with lenses to match. Will be interesting to see how things work out. you very well may be right with your assessment.
Time will tell.. right? Will be neat to see how it all works out.
What was the cause of your Hasselblad images being unsharp?the movement away from the smaller MF 6x6, 6x45 formats to 35mm in the 90ies was not driven by cost ! grain and resolution of film improved much in this time, think of velvia, provia... , lenses improved too but most important autofocus made work much faster and reliable for professionals ! a lot of fashion photographers I knew moved in this direction. same happens now with high res FF mirrorless.The movement away from MF was due almost entirely because of cost. Too costly to shoot/develop film, and too costly to sink $$,000 into a digital MF system.
The benefit of the larger formats and more resolution isn't just in output, rather increases practical latitude in:
Lens range? Most professional photography is covered with existing lenses, whether you're shooting Pentax, Fuji, Phase, or Hasselblad. I think future lenses will be lighter and if MF gains traction, other working professional lenses will follow; t/s range of lenses, and some longer telephoto lenses. View cameras are shunned because today people have a choice that's very practical compared to dealing with film, etc.. You can carry a X1D in your purse.
- Capturing the image (one can be farther away, slightly a'skew, etc, and it not affect output irrespective if that output is print or electronic device)
- The the creative process which in itself is a money saver; cropping, moving, composites, warping, straightening (cropping), etc., all seems to fair better when you have more pixels at one's disposal.
- Final output irrespective of medium. 150mp macro of a bees face viewed on your 27" iMac doesn't look the same as the same macro taken with 20, 30, or 50mp camera.
- Billboards can be shot with practically anything... no big resolution concerns there
I predict 300mp in a simple form factor, with lenses to match. Will be interesting to see how things work out. you very well may be right with your assessment.
Time will tell.. right? Will be neat to see how it all works out.
since I moved to sony my assistent does not need to check images for sharpens as he had to do when I was shooting Hasselblad. I can work faster have almost all shot in perfect sharpness and can focus totally on directing the shot and working with light. this is a real big improvement in my view. maybe mirrorless MF will close the gap in the future but today the small resolution advantage but worse overall performance is not worth a change.
you make it really sound like MF is the solution for lousy photographers ;-)
the widest HC lens is 24mm which 18mm for FF p1 offers only a 28mm.. not really very wide ? there are also no fast or long lenses either and there is not even a equivalent for a 2.8 70-200 zoom, can't see this will change soon...
Well, lots of folks came to MF from FF. But, I do not see that many folks flowing the other way.We aren't seriously comparing these cameras are we? I'm new to this camera thing but can't see many people cross shopping these two models.No finder on the Fuji...Interesting comparo just in terms of size/weight
Will the rumored GFX50R make the GFX line even more enticing as a street/landscape camera?
--
Once you've done fifty, anything less is iffy.
You might want to look into used GFXs. I bid on one that sold for $4500.I am one that is actually hesitating... Nikon Z seems great, but if the GFX50R is priced somewhat lower, I might be able to afford it after saving up extra. Then, I wonder what advantages Nikon Z may still hold, especially if I am to keep my current Nikon D750 with its lenses. I would be using the Fuji mostly for portrait and landscapes.Well, lots of folks came to MF from FF. But, I do not see that many folks flowing the other way.We aren't seriously comparing these cameras are we? I'm new to this camera thing but can't see many people cross shopping these two models.No finder on the Fuji...Interesting comparo just in terms of size/weight
Will the rumored GFX50R make the GFX line even more enticing as a street/landscape camera?
i shoot people and portraits work on location and it is often not desired to have the background in focus. focus and recompose simply sucks under this condtiontions.
