KneeConWon
Leading Member
Interesting. So I'd be building the computer myself?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
GFX100S MSRP at $5999 - Is the GFX line becoming a sensible upgrade for X-series owners?
- Thread starter yayatosorus
- Start date
C
Chris Dodkin
Guest
Thanks - the GF 45mm is definitely up there with the 110mm in the GF lens lineup as being top 2 or 3 lenses with a given FOV.
--
Your time is limited, so don't waste it arguing about camera features - go out and capture memories - Oh, and size does matter - shoot MF
Last edited:
C
Chris Dodkin
Guest
Demonstrably not the same, and completely independent of being at 'normal display size' - which is why I always include examples (at normal display size).
Opinion vs Experience
Experience wins the day
C
Chris Dodkin
Guest
No magic - just physics.
Plenty of GFX examples provided above, plus below Hasselblad 500 c/m on 120 film
--
Your time is limited, so don't waste it arguing about camera features - go out and capture memories - Oh, and size does matter - shoot MF
Plenty of GFX examples provided above, plus below Hasselblad 500 c/m on 120 film
--
Your time is limited, so don't waste it arguing about camera features - go out and capture memories - Oh, and size does matter - shoot MF
M
mcslsk
Guest
So mine is opinion and yours is fact (i.e. experience)?
M
mcslsk
Guest
He was asking for facts - not feelings. Great images - could be APS-C, FF or MF.No magic - just physics.
Plenty of GFX examples provided above, plus below Hasselblad 500 c/m on 120 film
michaeladawson
Forum Pro
$5999 may be a good price for a medium format sized sensor. But it's not chicken feed. And you haven't even started looking at lenses yet. This price doesn't scream out to me as "now I can finally afford it". Those photographers whose work actually needs it and benefits from it have probably already gotten into MF.
It would not be a stretch to say that most X body shooters simply aren't good enough for GFX to matter. More pixels, larger pixels, doesn't make a mediocre photograph better. This is not a "sensible" upgrade just because the price has come down a bit. It's still 4X more than an APS-C body.
Having said all that, if you have the money and want one go out and buy it. Why not? Have some fun. I'm not going to do it, even though I can afford it, because medium format isn't really a sensible format for wildlife/bird photographers. I'll get far better improvement in IQ using a 60MP full frame system with appropriate lenses. That's were my $15,000 would go if I were after IQ upgrades.
It would not be a stretch to say that most X body shooters simply aren't good enough for GFX to matter. More pixels, larger pixels, doesn't make a mediocre photograph better. This is not a "sensible" upgrade just because the price has come down a bit. It's still 4X more than an APS-C body.
Having said all that, if you have the money and want one go out and buy it. Why not? Have some fun. I'm not going to do it, even though I can afford it, because medium format isn't really a sensible format for wildlife/bird photographers. I'll get far better improvement in IQ using a 60MP full frame system with appropriate lenses. That's were my $15,000 would go if I were after IQ upgrades.
Jerry-astro
Forum Pro
Perhaps you can forgive my directness here (or not, doesn’t much matter)... but... I’ll only add that I’ll take experience and proven competence over random opinions in the forum any day of the week. Chris has demonstrated his competence time and time again with countless images and extensive knowledge, and continues to do so day after day. If you can back your opinions with similar experience and examples, then I might consider taking those strong opinions or yours with anything but a large grain of salt.
Bottom line: experience is hard earned... opinions are a dime a dozen.
--
Jerry-Astro
Fujifilm X Forum Co-Mod
Last edited:
C
Chris Dodkin
Guest
A picture is worth a thousand words mcslsk
--
Your time is limited, so don't waste it arguing about camera features - go out and capture memories - Oh, and size does matter - shoot MF
--
Your time is limited, so don't waste it arguing about camera features - go out and capture memories - Oh, and size does matter - shoot MF
Last edited:
jhorse
Veteran Member
Ah, the best 4x4byfar!A picture is worth a thousand words mcslsk
--
J.
M
mcslsk
Guest
So why do you think that what I see (or do not see) is "random" opinion? But someone w/o evidence claiming that MF lenses are better corrected is right because of "experience"? His images are great - but they do not show anything that couldn't be done with good APS-C or FF equipment. I have taken enough images in my life, and used enough cameras (including MF in film days) to know what I am talking about. And I know what I see or what I do not see. I know what the advantages (and disadvatages) are of different formats. And no, all his beautiful images prove nothing other than that he is a good photographer. And yes, your taking sides like this as a Mod is remarkable.
M
mcslsk
Guest
Nice image, could have been taken with FF or APS-C. There is nothing at normal viewing distance that shows the magic that you see.A picture is worth a thousand words mcslsk
C
Chris Dodkin
Guest
I used to have a sticker on the back of my Discovery 2 that said 'Don't follow me, you'll never make it" :-DAh, the best 4x4byfar!A picture is worth a thousand words mcslsk
--
Your time is limited, so don't waste it arguing about camera features - go out and capture memories - Oh, and size does matter - shoot MF
jhorse
Veteran Member
Great statement and so true!
C
Chris Dodkin
Guest
No magic - just a more realistic rendering of depth in the image - even at web sizes.Nice image, could have been taken with FF or APS-C. There is nothing at normal viewing distance that shows the magic that you see.A picture is worth a thousand words mcslsk
--
Your time is limited, so don't waste it arguing about camera features - go out and capture memories - Oh, and size does matter - shoot MF
Last edited:
M
mcslsk
Guest
It is called DoF. No magic. Look, nice images, but they prove nothing. Refer me articles that explain the physics behind your claims (other than the known advantages of larger formats), in particular to your claim of MF lenses being better corrected than other lenses.No magic - just a more realistic rendering of depth in the image - even at web sizes.Nice image, could have been taken with FF or APS-C. There is nothing at normal viewing distance that shows the magic that you see.A picture is worth a thousand words mcslsk
Jerry-astro
Forum Pro
Sorry, bud, but I function here both as a forum member and a moderator. As such, I have the freedom to share my opinions here, as long as I [as with any forum member] keep things civil and on topic. I stand by my earlier comment, and I’m afraid you’ll have to get used to moderators at times also taking active part in discussions within the forum, whether or not you are used to seeing that in forums like this.
And... I also have a decent amount of experience with various format cameras (though admittedly not MF) dating many years back as well. I would never claim to be an expert nor try to compare my experience with that of many highly experienced photographers here, but I like to think that I also “know what I’m talking about” in various areas that I choose to comment. Disagreements on subjective matters are inevitable and also welcome, as long as they remain civil. So, bottom line, I’d suggest you learn and accept the difference between stating an opinion (whether to agree or disagree) as opposed to “taking sides.” This is, after all, a discussion forum.
Let’s move on, shall we?
C
Chris Dodkin
Guest
You're getting warmer.It is called DoF. No magic. Look, nice images, but they prove nothing. Refer me articles that explain the physics behind your claims (other than the known advantages of larger formats), in particular to your claim of MF lenses being better corrected than other lenses.No magic - just a more realistic rendering of depth in the image - even at web sizes.Nice image, could have been taken with FF or APS-C. There is nothing at normal viewing distance that shows the magic that you see.A picture is worth a thousand words mcslsk
Small formats can have shallow DOF, but this is very planar, with no visible transition between in-focus and OOF.
As you use larger and larger sensors, or film, you achieve a more visible transition of focus at the final image size. This allows the depth and dimension to be better represented.
No magic though - just the amount of magnification of the CoC to get from the original image size to the final image size.
Bigger format, less CoC magnification.
A 10x8 plate camera requires zero magnification of CoC to get to a 10x8 final image. The same shot taken on 35mm small format requires the CoC to be magnified x7.
You see better depth rendition in plate cameras than 35mm - even with the less than ideal lenses they typically come with.
33x44 is big enough for the physics to produce a visible difference - from there on up it becomes easier.
I really appreciate the opportunity this discussion has presented to show multiple worked examples from the GFX and other MF systems.
--
Your time is limited, so don't waste it arguing about camera features - go out and capture memories - Oh, and size does matter - shoot MF
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum