Exchange Sony A7R IV with GFX 50S?

Started 2 months ago | Questions thread
Thoughts R Us
Thoughts R Us Senior Member • Posts: 2,794
Re: Double standards

Greg7579 wrote:

Velocity of Sound wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

It is obvious that larger size has an advantage. But the 44x33 mm sensor is just 1.68 times the area of the the 24x36 mm sensor. Going from APS-C is 2.25X, a much larger step. The 1.68X size is equivalent to 2/3EV advantage.

I am a dual-system shooter with µ4/3 (Olympus) and Fuji's GFX system. The µ4/3 system (and the 4/3 system before it, which I was shooting with for about a decade prior to "upgrading" to the newer mount) were always trashed based on sensor size. It's a bit better these days but people talked about APS-C as being far superior to 4/3. Yet the size difference (based on a multiplier) between 4/3 and APS-C is about the same as the difference between "full frame" and "mini medium format." If there's a significant difference between 4/3 and APS-C then there must be a significant difference between "full frame" and medium format.

So it's been very interesting from my perspective to see the way that both systems are treated. µ4/3 is still trashed for its size and all of the downsides that people assume must come with it (many of which are overblown, in my opinion). I figured the GFX system would be universally exalted but it's not the case. Many "full frame" shooters claim they don't see a significant difference, and there's not a significant difference in sensor sizes. It comes across as a double standard. (Both 4/3 and GFX systems earn ire from APS-C and "full frame" shooters for having the 4:3 ratio.)

To me it indicates that the standards and views are not held universally. They are tweaked so that "full frame" is the preferred format by the photography community and many review sites. I don't find it fair or particularly intellectually honest. But then photography is an interesting mixture of art and science, and at the end of the day this is about business rather than pure science. There's little fairness in business, I suppose.

If you follow all this carefully like I do, the language, attitude and leanings of the camera press (and many DPR posters) is amazing when it comes to talking about MF in relation to FF. When Erik says that our GFX / Hassy sensor is "just 1.68 times the area" of FF, one can see the immediate bias and leanings of the argument. That is not to pick on Erik. But that is the kind of bent language the press constantly uses in subtle ways. And then they put it (like Erik did) in terms of 2/3rds stop EV. Well, I guess that is one way to describe it if you are determined to negate the differences that are clearly there. It is a play on words and there seems to be this almost pathological need in the camera press to convince people that FF matches or is at least "very" close to MF. I don't buy it....

But you know what I did buy? The GFX 50r and then 11 months later the GFX 100.

But like I always say, all those high-res new FF cameras are great. (I just bought the Q2 by the way.) There is no need to try to make them sound the same as the much larger MF sensor. 1.68x is not a small comparison number on sensors that big.

It is all mostly nonsense in my opinion and yes, there is a double standard and pure FF fans try to play both ends of the argument. I have seen it thousands of times. Their argument is: FF = MF. FF>>>APSC. FF >>>>>> MFT. If you repeat it enough times on DPR, maybe someone starts to believe it that is thinking of buying MF.

But hey, this is a camera equipment forum and people are allowed to argue about camera gear.

As you allude to, there's nothing wrong with a good gear debate.  Kind of like debating sports.

But it is interesting that DPR removed the comments section for their piece proclaiming the A7RIV as the "best camera for landscape photography"...I wonder why?  Perhaps they were getting too much negative blowback on a very flawed conclusion?  Maybe they never intended comments in the first place?  The only other articles without comments are the promotional pieces paid for by a particular manufacturer.  Perhaps this is meant more as a promotional piece?

The Sony is a good camera, no doubt.  But also if one is talking about incremental differences, the number of megapixels, in the IV, is only 1.45 times that in the III model.  Yet some fall over themselves to declare 61 MP as this fantastic number.

For me the bottom line is that the Fuji GFX 100 should most definitely have been included in the list, and once included, it would have won.

Also, the Fuji GFX 50s is also a superior camera for pure landscape photography.

The Sony may be the best Sony, it may be the best FF mirrorless, it may be the best FF for landscapes, it may be the best for landscapes in a particular price range,  but it is not the best camera for landscape photography.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow