GFX 100 vs a7RIV landscape IQ Locked

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
Teila Day
Teila Day Veteran Member • Posts: 4,963
Re: Relevance (reiterated.. slowly)

Macro guy wrote:

Teila Day wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

Jim

Hi Jim,

Very good demo!

How much of that difference is due to the GFX 100 having more pixels?

A lot of it. Probably most of it. Both those lenses are really so good that they could use 800 MP sensors. But at the end of the day, it's easier to make an equivalent lens for a larger sensor.

Jim

Jim,

If the lenses in both formats are capable if resolving up to 800mp, would it be accurate to assume that the sensor size makes no difference from a resolution perspective if both cameras have the same megapixel count? If that's the case, what would be the reason to spend more on a camera with a slightly bigger sensor if a camera with a slightly smaller sensor can deliver identical (or at least very similar results) for less?

Macro guy

I'm curious what 'how much a lens can resolve' has anything to do with the inherent differences between sensor sizes (even with the same number of pixels). Off the top of my head (I am not an engineer) I would think that there are enough attribute differences between cameras to make the advantage(s) evident in even a casual test at the counter in a camera store.

Which I've done between the 645z and the Canon offering; don whatever lens you like and you pretty much get the same k-i-n-d of difference. You'll see more of a contrasty processed look in the Canon's raw in comparison to the 645z. Compare with the older Hassy and you often see the same.

Actually, no. The only inherent difference is the difference in depth of field at a given aperture.

Oh? ISO sensitivity? Do the raws take the same abuse and yield the same results across the ISO range? Practical differences. They didn't to my eyes.

Isn't the difference (advantage or disadvantage) between say, a Canon 5Ds (50mp) and a 50mp Hasselblad/Pentax/Fuji rather evident without much fiddling or investigation?

Not at all. I am struggling to see any advantages at a given pixel count.

I think it would be moot today which is why I wouldn't purchase a 44x33 camera today, but when comparing cameras years ago I noted differences. I was eager to snap up the Canon but it wasn't to my liking.

Below is the (additional input)

** kind of real-word difference that I'd see between the Canon (meaning the 5ds series) and the MF offerings of any kind (with the aging 33x44 CMOS found in the 645z et al, or current MF cameras with an even better sensor) ** (end input)

especially when it came to certain foliage when the sun was out.. leaves were quicker to return to white, less malleable detail/options in post with the Canon... etc.. but I didn't need DPR to tell me that, I could readily see it with my old eyes, especially the difference in processing raws

Look at the sheen / reflected highlights and you get the idea of what I'm talking about. Larger sensor = softer, especially the newer MF cameras even if they use the same 'base' 44x33 sensor.

Throw in other differences (higher ISO options, etc..) and whether those differences are worth it to you or not, can really be an easy decision making process.

Best in photography to you

You are assuming that what you're seeing are differences in sensor size.

I'm not assuming. I'm basing my assertion on what I commonly notice between shooting MF and FF across the brands. Process thousands of files of both and the difference is pretty easily noticeable. I don't think anyone who's processed thousands of files of MF (CMOS) and compared them to processing their FF raw files cannot tell a difference.

You could be seeing the differences in lenses or the differences in sensor tech or implementation or a combination of the above. In other words, you really don't know what you're looking at, or rather the causes of whatever differences you're seeing.

Lenses? I can take a old-as-dirt 400mm or 120mm lens from the film days and get the same general result that I'm talking about- especially when it comes to resolution / pixels which is a primary reason for shooting MF for many photographers manipulating raw files whether the output be intended for screen or print.

Slap whatever lens you have on the Canon 5Ds series - do the same for the Pentax or same vintage Hasselblad and you get the same basic result irrespective of lenses used. What that means to me is that the lenses aren't the cause of the slightly-cooked difference in the Canon's raw files that I was seeing back then. Switch cameras (same models), same thing.

Now since I can't buy a 5dsr, 645z or Hasselblad without whatever electronic seasoning that comes from the factory, in layman's terms, that means that the 5ds/r didn't perform the same as the 33x44 based MF offerings. Better or worse is up to the photographer, but my bet is that it's hard to find an owner of both to attest that they can't tell a difference, ** especially ** after shooting MF for months, then going back to the same era FF Canon/Nikon.

In that vein - 50mp doesn't look like 24mp just like 150mp doesn't look like 50mp, especially when shooting small subjects, cooking the file in your favorite processor, a bit of cropping, then sending to output.. the practical advantages are pretty obvious.

Today the difference between 50mp MF and a 65mp FF camera isn't worth quibbling about in most cases.. and I think it goes without saying that most photographers worried about practical advantages and a bottom line won't shell out tens of thousands in gear unless the difference is a decisive one; not one predicated on emotion.

I sold a BW shot taken at 51k ISO, and several series at 12k ISO... don't think I could've done the former, or that to my liking in the case of the latter, with the 5Ds series.

Let me reiterate... the example that I gave (DPR Graphic above) isn't the point. The point isn't how DPR does their testing. The point is that the graphic represents the k-i-n-d of difference that I've seen between the FF Canon and same-era MF offerings is all. How DPR does their testing isn't relevant here.

Kind regards and best in photography to all of you!

-- hide signature --

Teila K. Day
http://teiladay.com

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