GFX 100 vs a7RIV landscape IQ Locked

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
Erik Kaffehr
Erik Kaffehr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,611
Re: Relevance (reiterated.. slowly)

Teila Day wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

Teila Day wrote:

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.

Ok, so you don't like the Canon sensor. That's fine, but would that sensor have been any better scaled up to 33x44? Would the Sony sensor have been any worse scaled down to 24x36? (aside from the resolution differences of course)

I don't know or even suppose either way because I can't purchase "what if".. I can only buy what exists.

It is a good point. Regarding Sony sensors I would say that the sensor technology in the GFX 100 and the Sony A7rIV is essentially the same. But it is entirely possible that say Fuji does a better job of using the sensor

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.

We have a great opportunity to actually compare the same sensor in the Sony A7R4 and in the Fuji GFX100. As Jim's test have shown, aside from the obvious resolution difference that comes from having a bigger sensor, both cameras are on par with regard to IQ. And that brings me to the point that I've been trying to make all along and that is that the ONLY advantage that 33x44 has over 24x36 format is greater resolution at a given pixel pitch.

That's a very noticeable advantage for people who purchase for readily visible practical differences and or notable processing advantages. The problem with 33x44 today is that it doesn't make remotely as much sense as it did half a decade ago (which is expected), except for those wanting a leaf shutter option (HSS, etc., doesn't compare when it comes to the versatility of a leaf shutter lens).

Personally I don't really care about sensor size at all. What I think is important that it is adequate for the task at hand.

If you need 100 MP, I would think that a 100 MP 44x33 sensor may be as good as a 100 MP 54x41 mm sensor. The larger sensor may have other advantages, of course.

Interesting thing you mention leaf shutter, I think it matters. I would also say that it is noticeable even shooting macro outdoors with the Hasselblad 555/ELD and electronic flash.

Today the 44x33 sensor doesn't make sense in most cases. Again, it made a lot of sense years ago and I haven't wavered from my assessment.

Resolution is the largest draw for many photographers when it comes to buying MF.

I think 150mp is the only option today that really makes sense; it's just a let down that Phase is basically the only option right now for those wanting a lot of resolution / pixels.

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.

You're absolutely right. The 5DS doesn't go above ISO 6400

My point exactly- if you wanted a camera that offered unrivaled image quality, and or leaf lenses, 50mp or greater, excellent high iso performance, etc., 5 years ago-- MF was your only option. There was no rival at that time. Today is different for MF using the 44x33 sensor.

I would advise many if not most people today looking at MF, to simply wait.

100mp crammed onto the 44x33 sensor... I hope Fuji gives buyers to option to purchase a larger sensor in the future.

Best  regards


-- hide signature --

Erik Kaffehr
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…

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