Reading mode: Light Dark

Fujifilm Medium Format vs Canon R5

Go to last post
Hi, no MF look at all? Even with larger digital MF or film?

I don't know, I can't see how different sensors sizes can't have different looks... different aspect ratios, different angles of view, different levels of dof...

Take one extreme to the other; smartphones with wide angle and everything in focus looking flat, to larger sensors with a wide angle lens and still with subject seperation. It's a completely different look which changes as the sensor size increases?

Lenses, cropping, stitching and advances in smaller sensors may make them look more similar, but for me that's making them closer to the look traditionally assosiated with medium format cameras.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
skyisland said:
Hello all,

I hate to inquire here for a question surly a google search should have accomplished. Trouble is Google search is now geared toward showing results which are selling things instead of information gathering.
So to my question, I’m invested into the Canon RF system and have a good amount of professional grade lenses. I’m currently using 2 EOS Rs which I consider a high quality camera except for the dynamic range. Now I have money saved up and would like to replace one of my EOS Rs for a Canon R5. But I’m really looking at the new Fujifilm 50s II and of course I can see it has the edge against all FF cameras. The problem I have is seeing how much is it better as I can’t find a site that has really compared apples to apples with a genuine scene with the equivalent lenses used to show a landscape scene.
Is there a website that anyone knows that has shown a GFX vs Canon R5? It can be a 50r or 50s original but not the 100. It just needs to be specific for landscapes or regular architecture type scenes. I don’t do portraits and that’s what I’m typically seeing comparisons of.

Any help would be appreciated!
Click to expand...
Moving to the R5 from the R is a noticeable upgrade for landscape IQ but an immense upgrade for portraits/wildlife/sports. R5 can nail iris focus on portrait-speed subjects at f/1.2, and the ergonomics (rear control wheel, joystick, etc.) are much, much better. IBIS on the R5 is incredible, and you can leave your tripod at home if you don't plan to shoot long exposures for effect (smooth flowing water effects, etc.).

The GFX 50S/R are not going anywhere, and they are getting less expensive every day. I think you might be happier with an R5 and then adding the 50X plus maybe the GF 50 down the road as a starter kit.

I would also set a long-term goal to move to the R5 plus 100S.

Note: I was the one who did the GFX 50R + GF 63 vs R5 + RF 50 1.2 comparison on FM, and to me the results are a wash. Where the 50R did better was overall tonality (mostly in the highlights), but the R5 did better with background character/blur.

The biggest difference to me between the systems is not sensor size, it's about getting a 4:3 ratio without losing image area and in fact gaining it. If Canon ever made an R camera that took the 35mm sensor and expanded it vertically to make a 4:3 sensor, it would be a formidable GFX competitor.

Moving from a 3:2 sensor to 4:3 – to me it felt like I no longer had to photograph landscapes through a narrow slit in a prison door :)
 
Last edited:
3opkuu said:
Erik Kaffehr said:
skyisland said:
Hamilton, thanks for these studio scenes. But I’ve already looked those over and if anything they just show FF is just fine to have compared to MF. There’s no real scene comparison during the day to see any real advantages or a “MF look”. I’m looking for ppl who think there’s a MF look that FF doesn’t have and have examples to see it. Pixel peeping is not what I need. I’ll just buy a R5 from those type of comparisons as I already know MF or even Nikon Z 7 have a slight advantage in slightly better details and ISO advantage. $4,500 minimum system with kit lens needs to show that extra cost in real apples to apples comparisons that differ than just slightly better pixel peeping studio shots.
Click to expand...
What would the reason be for an MF look?

Best regards

Erik
Click to expand...
It's not a reason so much as a set of intangibles that you notice the absence of if you've spent much of your life working the format and switch to another.

I say intangibles but I'm pretty confident we're talking mainly about the DOF offered by the larger format combined with the characteristics of the transition to OOF areas. This isn't present with the GFX cameras, nor even the larger format Hasselblads, and that's fine because I don't really miss it anymore. But it's very apparent when I shoot the same subject with my GFX camera and a Rolleiflex, or GW690, or Mamiya 7II etc.
Click to expand...
Hi, I'd love to see some examples of the same subject with those cameras if possible?
 
Regarding aspect ratio, I would agree that 4:3 may often be preferable to 3:2.
On the other hand, doing serious work, I would always crop my images to subject.

Sam Eide statue in Rjukan Norway, stitched.
Sam Eide statue in Rjukan Norway, stitched.

Same subject but a wider view, also stitched.
Same subject but a wider view, also stitched.

I would think that cropping to subject is a part of the photographic workflow. Sometimes 4:3 is better and sometimes 3:2 is better. But, I think that 4:3 may be an advantage.

This was shot in my MFD days, it is still cropped but may be close to 4:3.
This was shot in my MFD days, it is still cropped but may be close to 4:3.

This was from the beginning of my MFD period.
This was from the beginning of my MFD period.

This was one of my last 'regular' shoots with MFD.
This was one of my last 'regular' shoots with MFD.

I still use MFD from time to time, mostly because I have it.

Visby Cathedral, Sweden, Distagon 40 on Phase One P45+, two images stitched.
Visby Cathedral, Sweden, Distagon 40 on Phase One P45+, two images stitched.



View attachment ebd700c720a04f2193f19dce09788536.jpg
Ramparts, Visby, Sweden, P45+ stitched



Best regards

Erik



--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles
 
Last edited:
Landscapes, portraits, sports, etc....

I have experience with the R and my personal experience is beyond poor unless you are a landscape or product photographer.

I can not answer your question properly until I underatand how the camera will be used.
 
Erik Kaffehr said:
Regarding aspect ratio, I would agree that 4:3 may often be preferable to 3:2.
On the other hand, doing serious work, I would always crop my images to subject.
Click to expand...
Yes, and 4:3 is almost as versatile as square. I don't know how many times with a 4:3 horizontal shot I've ended up cropping to a vertical – and in doing so, I loose so much less than I would with a wider native format. Guilt-free changes of mind.
 
highdesertmesa said:
skyisland said:
Hello all,

I hate to inquire here for a question surly a google search should have accomplished. Trouble is Google search is now geared toward showing results which are selling things instead of information gathering.
So to my question, I’m invested into the Canon RF system and have a good amount of professional grade lenses. I’m currently using 2 EOS Rs which I consider a high quality camera except for the dynamic range. Now I have money saved up and would like to replace one of my EOS Rs for a Canon R5. But I’m really looking at the new Fujifilm 50s II and of course I can see it has the edge against all FF cameras. The problem I have is seeing how much is it better as I can’t find a site that has really compared apples to apples with a genuine scene with the equivalent lenses used to show a landscape scene.
Is there a website that anyone knows that has shown a GFX vs Canon R5? It can be a 50r or 50s original but not the 100. It just needs to be specific for landscapes or regular architecture type scenes. I don’t do portraits and that’s what I’m typically seeing comparisons of.

Any help would be appreciated!
Click to expand...
Moving to the R5 from the R is a noticeable upgrade for landscape IQ but an immense upgrade for portraits/wildlife/sports. R5 can nail iris focus on portrait-speed subjects at f/1.2, and the ergonomics (rear control wheel, joystick, etc.) are much, much better. IBIS on the R5 is incredible, and you can leave your tripod at home if you don't plan to shoot long exposures for effect (smooth flowing water effects, etc.).

The GFX 50S/R are not going anywhere, and they are getting less expensive every day. I think you might be happier with an R5 and then adding the 50X plus maybe the GF 50 down the road as a starter kit.

I would also set a long-term goal to move to the R5 plus 100S.

Note: I was the one who did the GFX 50R + GF 63 vs R5 + RF 50 1.2 comparison on FM, and to me the results are a wash. Where the 50R did better was overall tonality (mostly in the highlights), but the R5 did better with background character/blur.

The biggest difference to me between the systems is not sensor size, it's about getting a 4:3 ratio without losing image area and in fact gaining it. If Canon ever made an R camera that took the 35mm sensor and expanded it vertically to make a 4:3 sensor, it would be a formidable GFX competitor.

Moving from a 3:2 sensor to 4:3 – to me it felt like I no longer had to photograph landscapes through a narrow slit in a prison door :)
Click to expand...
I've been thinking about adding the GFX 100s to our gear bag as we do a lot of architectural and landscape photography. I already have an R5 which I am very happy with but do think the increase in MP and additional DR is always helpful. Been using the R5 for wildlife photography and think the GFX 100s would be a good compliment in additional IQ for walk around architectural photos on trips and work.

I saw your post comparison and will say it made me reconsider if the GFX 100s is worth it if we really can't tell the difference. Do you think you'll be doing another comparison between the R5 and GFX 100s? Kinda on the fence about getting it and would like additional comparisons like the OP was asking.

I Have a trip to Italy coming up in November and think more MP is good for the architectural shots I'll be taking.
 
highdesertmesa said:
Note: I was the one who did the GFX 50R + GF 63 vs R5 + RF 50 1.2 comparison on FM, and to me the results are a wash. Where the 50R did better was overall tonality (mostly in the highlights), but the R5 did better with background character/blur.
Click to expand...
Thank you, it is one of the very few informative comparisons between those two lenses across the web. Would you say, given 50R propensity to sharper results due to smaller microlenses and R5 dulled sharpness due to a presence of AA filter, RF50 1.2 could be even sharper than 63/2.8?

There are lenses that might beat them: Leica SL 50 &35 F/2 APO (for some reason 35 is nicer, judging by flickriver stream), but both are very expensive and stuck to different cameras/sensors.

Regards
 
Erik Kaffehr said:
On the other hand, doing serious work, I would always crop my images to subject.

I would think that cropping to subject is a part of the photographic workflow.
Click to expand...
Each to his own of course , but these two sentences have to be the among the weirdest statements I have read on these forums :-O:-O

Harold
 
Erik Kaffehr said:
Regarding aspect ratio, I would agree that 4:3 may often be preferable to 3:2.
On the other hand, doing serious work, I would always crop my images to subject.

I would think that cropping to subject is a part of the photographic workflow.
Click to expand...
Who's recommending this stuff? I have hundreds of photobooks and don't recall seeing a single photographer working like this. I was taught to do that work with the camera unless there's a compelling reason not to, and I've no idea what that compelling reason could be.
 
AkarN said:
3opkuu said:
Erik Kaffehr said:
skyisland said:
Hamilton, thanks for these studio scenes. But I’ve already looked those over and if anything they just show FF is just fine to have compared to MF. There’s no real scene comparison during the day to see any real advantages or a “MF look”. I’m looking for ppl who think there’s a MF look that FF doesn’t have and have examples to see it. Pixel peeping is not what I need. I’ll just buy a R5 from those type of comparisons as I already know MF or even Nikon Z 7 have a slight advantage in slightly better details and ISO advantage. $4,500 minimum system with kit lens needs to show that extra cost in real apples to apples comparisons that differ than just slightly better pixel peeping studio shots.
Click to expand...
What would the reason be for an MF look?

Best regards

Erik
Click to expand...
It's not a reason so much as a set of intangibles that you notice the absence of if you've spent much of your life working the format and switch to another.

I say intangibles but I'm pretty confident we're talking mainly about the DOF offered by the larger format combined with the characteristics of the transition to OOF areas. This isn't present with the GFX cameras, nor even the larger format Hasselblads, and that's fine because I don't really miss it anymore. But it's very apparent when I shoot the same subject with my GFX camera and a Rolleiflex, or GW690, or Mamiya 7II etc.
Click to expand...
Hi, I'd love to see some examples of the same subject with those cameras if possible?
Click to expand...
This wasn't rigorous testing - I'm too busy being a photographer for that - so you've got 80mm f1.9 on 67 compared to 63mm f2.8 on the little GFX sensor etc.

I'll have walk round with the 50R and whatever I can dig out that will get close to equivalent DOF, might have to be my Pentax 67.

There are a lot of people here who aren't shooting these larger formats but are still managing to pooh-pooh the idea of an MF look that's evident to anybody that works primarily with the GFX system and still manages to shoot over 400 rolls of 120 in a few months.
 
3opkuu said:
There are a lot of people here who aren't shooting these larger formats but are still managing to pooh-pooh the idea of an MF look that's evident to anybody that works primarily with the GFX system and still manages to shoot over 400 rolls of 120 in a few months.
Click to expand...
Question for you and your fellow MF or Large Format film shooters. Is there a good place that you guys showcase your pictures on a website? I only shoot digital and use Flickr only. I would like to know if there's a similar photo sharing website for mainly those larger film formats.
 
skyisland said:
skyisland said:
There are a lot of people here who aren't shooting these larger formats but are still managing to pooh-pooh the idea of an MF look that's evident to anybody that works primarily with the GFX system and still manages to shoot over 400 rolls of 120 in a few months.
Click to expand...
Question for you and your fellow MF or Large Format film shooters. Is there a good place that you guys showcase your pictures on a website? I only shoot digital and use Flickr only. I would like to know if there's a similar photo sharing website for mainly those larger film formats.
Click to expand...
Most of the photographers working in larger formats I know tend to maintain portfolios on their own domains using a portfolio CMS like Cargo, Format, Fabrik, Carbonmade... - more control over IQ as you don't have to deal with excessive compression.

Some will also post to Insta but obviously that's less than ideal and really, the aim is to get stuff printed.

I've seen plenty of larger format work on Flickr and 500px though. Just search Flickr for images tagged with Ebony RW45 for example.
 
AkarN said:
JimKasson said:
AkarN said:
Hi, no MF look at all? Even with larger digital MF or film?

I don't know, I can't see how different sensors sizes can't have different looks... different aspect ratios, different angles of view, different levels of dof...
Click to expand...
Within limits, FOV, DOF, diffraction effects, etc. can all be the same.

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

I've published a link in this thread to a post that talks about the limits.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Ok, I get that you can match the look of a photo with different systems, but if there's a specific look you want, it makes sense to go with the system that makes it easiest to achieve that without cropping a loosing resolution.

Saying that, for the original poster wanting normal landscape and architecture shots at f8 or f11 then I'd imagine they'll do great with the Canon.
Click to expand...
This. Very few people in a professional context have time to read or care about any of that stuff, they find a system that offers the characteristics that help them render scenes how they'd like to see them and get busy taking pictures. If Joseph hadn't written a 50,000 word treatise on equivalence he'd have had time to get better at photography.

My practice has me working with a standard lens at f11 90% of the time, so I could use any number of formats successful. I'm happy with GFX - prefer the aspect ratio - but I have no doubt I could get along fine with Pentax K1 or Canon R for example. None of which will ever look like a Flextight scan from 67 without me jumping through a lot of hoops, but that's also fine.
 
Last edited:
I would imagine the main beneficiaries of understanding equivalence are people who have one system, have no intention of changing to a different format but want to emulate a different format with their existing gear.

There is no such thing as a true 6x7 format sensor as yet, so it is not currently possible to use a conventional larger than 35mm full frame to get the same depth of field characteristics at the same aperture and focal length with a single shot. But you can emulate the resolution and depth of field of a large medium format frame with a smaller format by stitching. Fully understanding equivalence will help perfect the emulation.
 
3opkuu said:
Erik Kaffehr said:
Regarding aspect ratio, I would agree that 4:3 may often be preferable to 3:2.
On the other hand, doing serious work, I would always crop my images to subject.

I would think that cropping to subject is a part of the photographic workflow.
Click to expand...
Who's recommending this stuff? I have hundreds of photobooks and don't recall seeing a single photographer working like this. I was taught to do that work with the camera unless there's a compelling reason not to, and I've no idea what that compelling reason could be.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what this means. Surely every enthusiast photographer crops their images? I know there are a few people out there who have this obsession with using exactly the whole frame, but that is what sounds weird to me. You shoot the shot, then later you optimise the shot to look as good as it can be, including cropping if that improves the composition.
 
DMillier said:
I would imagine the main beneficiaries of understanding equivalence are people who have one system, have no intention of changing to a different format but want to emulate a different format with their existing gear.
Click to expand...
If you use multiple formats, understanding equivalence will allow experience gained in one format to transfer to the others. In the film era, I used 35mm through 8x10, and using each format made me better with the others.
DavidMillier said:
There is no such thing as a true 6x7 format sensor as yet, so it is not currently possible to use a conventional larger than 35mm full frame to get the same depth of field characteristics at the same aperture and focal length with a single shot. But you can emulate the resolution and depth of field of a large medium format frame with a smaller format by stitching. Fully understanding equivalence will help perfect the emulation.
Click to expand...
 
DMillier said:
3opkuu said:
Erik Kaffehr said:
Regarding aspect ratio, I would agree that 4:3 may often be preferable to 3:2.
On the other hand, doing serious work, I would always crop my images to subject.

I would think that cropping to subject is a part of the photographic workflow.
Click to expand...
Who's recommending this stuff? I have hundreds of photobooks and don't recall seeing a single photographer working like this. I was taught to do that work with the camera unless there's a compelling reason not to, and I've no idea what that compelling reason could be.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what this means. Surely every enthusiast photographer crops their images? I know there are a few people out there who have this obsession with using exactly the whole frame, but that is what sounds weird to me. You shoot the shot, then later you optimise the shot to look as good as it can be, including cropping if that improves the composition.
Click to expand...
If you find yourself consistently cropping in both directions for the same image, there’s something amiss with your technique or your equipment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rand 47
What purpose high megapixel medium format cameras?
6 7 8
Replies
149
Views
2K
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
T
Canon R5 Mark II & pre-capture
Replies
7
Views
15K
TBSCW
T
Jeroen1969
Newbee to the Medium Format Universe
2 3
Replies
49
Views
3K
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
O
Astro Mods R5 vs R8
Replies
0
Views
86
Owk
O
J
M Mount pancakes on GFX—anyone tried?
Replies
19
Views
381
Jeff Biscuits
J

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top