Reading mode: Light Dark

Mulling X to GFX: how big of a difference?

Go to last post
Lens_Goat

Lens_Goat

Leading Member
Messages
827
Solutions
1
Reaction score
499
I've been lurking in this corner of the DPR forum since the GFX 50S II and its remarkably small "kit" lens were first rumored. To my astonishment, the kit is in stock everywhere. I imagined I wouldn't be able to get my hands on it until, say, April.

As much as this new system intrigues me -- the big, luscious sensor; the relative portability for such a format -- I still feel guilty for contemplating moving up from a smaller format system that has served me so well.

While I've come into some discretionary income from a daily fantasy sports gambling habit, this upgrade still feels gratuitous but I'm thus consumed with wonder on how much better the images would be coming out of a medium format sensor? I'm almost entirely a landscape photographer and this camera seems to be designed for me. The IBIS would be a godsend as well, as my current camera does not possess it.

All the while I've only ever shot APS-C. I started with an A6000 then graduated to an XT-3 in 2018. I've never once took a phot on full frame or anything greater. I remember when I first took a shot with my A6000 and compared it to my iPhone 6. I could instantly see the difference on my computer screen, no zooming in necessary. The pictures were so much richer, so much more saturated. Would going from APS-C to Medium Format be the same or when it comes to ILC cameras with good glass, the law of diminishing returns sets in once you get to like Micro 4/3?

The biggest concern I have is how I would deal with the weight? I'm used to the heft of the "Red Badge" zooms on my XT-3 (I've even come around to the 50-140) so I know I would be comfortable with the weight of the GF 35-70. However, as a landscape photographer, the next obligatory purchase would be the 100-200 f/5.6. Like I said I've come around to the 50-140 and the 100-200 is close to it in weight. But, once you mount the100-200 on the 50S II body it'll be 14 ounces heavier than the 50-140 on my XT-3. I usually hike with my 55-200 and have only once hiked with the 50-140. For those of you who owned the 50-140 on the X series and now have the 100-200, how much of difference does the added heft make? The one positive is that the lens would probably feel better balanced on the larger body.

Any thoughts, encouragement or discouragements would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Dan

--
https://www.flickr.com/gp/137773398@N07/07L61t
 
Last edited:
Lens_Goat said:
I've been lurking in this corner of the DPR forum since the GFX 50S II and its remarkably small "kit" lens were first rumored. To my astonishment, the kit is in stock everywhere. I imagined I wouldn't be able to get my hands on it until, say, April.

As much as this new system intrigues me -- the big, luscious sensor; the relative portability for such a format -- I still feel guilty for contemplating moving up from a smaller format system that has served me so well.

While I've come into some discretionary income from a daily fantasy sports gambling habit, this upgrade still feels gratuitous but I'm thus consumed with wonder on how much better the images would be coming out of a medium format sensor? I'm almost entirely a landscape photographer and this camera seems to be designed for me. The IBIS would be a godsend as well, as my current camera does not possess it.

All the while I've only ever shot APS-C. I started with an A6000 then graduated to an XT-3 in 2018. I've never once took a phot on full frame or anything greater. I remember when I first took a shot with my A6000 and compared it to my iPhone 6. I could instantly see the difference on my computer screen, no zooming in necessary. The pictures were so much richer, so much more saturated. Would going from APS-C to Medium Format be the same or when it comes to ILC cameras with good glass, the law of diminishing returns sets in once you get to like Micro 4/3?

The biggest concern I have is how I would deal with the weight? I'm used to the heft of the "Red Badge" zooms on my XT-3 (I've even come around to the 50-140) so I know I would be comfortable with the weight of the GF 35-70. However, as a landscape photographer, the next obligatory purchase would be the 100-200 f/5.6. Like I said I've come around to the 50-140 and the 100-200 is close to it in weight. But, once you mount the100-200 on the 50S II body it'll be 14 ounces heavier than the 50-140 on my XT-3. I usually hike with my 55-200 and have only once hiked with the 50-140. For those of you who owned the 50-140 on the X series and now have the 100-200, how much of difference does the added heft make? The one positive is that the lens would probably feel better balanced on the larger body.

Any thoughts, encouragement or discouragements would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Dan
Click to expand...
Dan,

I pretty much share your doubts. Also look at my post here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4606086?page=3

I think that before making that jump, one should consider all the potential FF options. My biggest reservation is that the sensor technology in the 50mkII is ~7-8 years old.

I've been shooting with Fuji X for many years, and i've carried the red badge zooms (although, i've sold all but the 16-55, I really got tired of the weight and size). I did add a sony a7r3 and good glass to the mix last year, so if I get into GFX then i'll sell the Sony.

I also shoot landscapes and hike a lot; that's one of the problems with FF or MF, the longer zooms become large and heavy. The XF 55-200 or 70-300 are better candidates for hiking; With FF, the difference in weight goes down for normal to WA glass. If I jump into MF, then I doubt i'll hike with this gear, so the Fuji X will remain in the mix.

--
Igal
.
http://www.igalbrenerphoto.com
.
500px, Instagram
 
Last edited:
Lens_Goat said:
I've been lurking in this corner of the DPR forum since the GFX 50S II and its remarkably small "kit" lens were first rumored. To my astonishment, the kit is in stock everywhere. I imagined I wouldn't be able to get my hands on it until, say, April.

As much as this new system intrigues me -- the big, luscious sensor; the relative portability for such a format -- I still feel guilty for contemplating moving up from a smaller format system that has served me so well.

While I've come into some discretionary income from a daily fantasy sports gambling habit, this upgrade still feels gratuitous but I'm thus consumed with wonder on how much better the images would be coming out of a medium format sensor? I'm almost entirely a landscape photographer and this camera seems to be designed for me. The IBIS would be a godsend as well, as my current camera does not possess it.

All the while I've only ever shot APS-C. I started with an A6000 then graduated to an XT-3 in 2018. I've never once took a phot on full frame or anything greater. I remember when I first took a shot with my A6000 and compared it to my iPhone 6. I could instantly see the difference on my computer screen, no zooming in necessary. The pictures were so much richer, so much more saturated. Would going from APS-C to Medium Format be the same or when it comes to ILC cameras with good glass, the law of diminishing returns sets in once you get to like Micro 4/3?

The biggest concern I have is how I would deal with the weight? I'm used to the heft of the "Red Badge" zooms on my XT-3 (I've even come around to the 50-140) so I know I would be comfortable with the weight of the GF 35-70. However, as a landscape photographer, the next obligatory purchase would be the 100-200 f/5.6. Like I said I've come around to the 50-140 and the 100-200 is close to it in weight. But, once you mount the100-200 on the 50S II body it'll be 14 ounces heavier than the 50-140 on my XT-3. I usually hike with my 55-200 and have only once hiked with the 50-140. For those of you who owned the 50-140 on the X series and now have the 100-200, how much of difference does the added heft make? The one positive is that the lens would probably feel better balanced on the larger body.

Any thoughts, encouragement or discouragements would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Dan
Click to expand...
 
Lens_Goat said:
The biggest concern I have is how I would deal with the weight? I'm used to the heft of the "Red Badge" zooms on my XT-3 (I've even come around to the 50-140) so I know I would be comfortable with the weight of the GF 35-70. However, as a landscape photographer, the next obligatory purchase would be the 100-200 f/5.6.
Click to expand...
Careful with that. You're going to the GXF to get more IQ than you can get with your X system, right?

You could do better than the 100-200 on a GFX 50x with a 70-200/2.8E or the Z equivalent on a Z7.

Fuji 100-200/5.6 on GFX, Nikon 70-200/@2.8E, Apo-Sonnar 135 on Z7, revisited - the last word

This is one in a series of posts on the Fujifilm GFX 50S and 50R. You should be able to find all the posts about that camera in the Category List on the right sidebar, below the Articles widget. There’s a drop-down menu there that you can use to get to all the posts in
blog.kasson.com blog.kasson.com

There are many fantastic GF lenses. The 100-200 isn't a bad lens, but it's not the one to hang your hat on for IQ.
 
Lens_Goat said:
I'm almost entirely a landscape photographer and this camera seems to be designed for me. The IBIS would be a godsend as well, as my current camera does not possess it.
Click to expand...
For landscape, it's hard to beat a medium format sensor. This type of camera is really made for this purpose. However, I would ask what your future intentions are. If you see yourself wanting/needing 150MP down the road, then it makes a lot of sense to start your journey with the 50SII.

However, and I know there are many GFX owners that will be annoyed at me saying this, if you'd be happy with 80MP or perhaps 100MP, then you may be better served by going down the Canon R5/ Sony A7R4/Nikon Z7 route. Those cameras provide for far better AF performance than the 50SII, and even the 100S. You also get more lenses choices.

Full frame is really the sweet spot for cameras in my opinion. I went down the DMF route because I want ultimate image quality, and I'm willing to accept the compromises. I also enjoy being on the GFX technology journey and like the excitement that comes with being part of something new.
Lens_Goat said:
The biggest concern I have is how I would deal with the weight? I'm used to the heft of the "Red Badge" zooms on my XT-3 (I've even come around to the 50-140) so I know I would be comfortable with the weight of the GF 35-70. However, as a landscape photographer, the next obligatory purchase would be the 100-200 f/5.6. Like I said I've come around to the 50-140 and the 100-200 is close to it in weight. But, once you mount the100-200 on the 50S II body it'll be 14 ounces heavier than the 50-140 on my XT-3. I usually hike with my 55-200 and have only once hiked with the 50-140. For those of you who owned the 50-140 on the X series and now have the 100-200, how much of difference does the added heft make? The one positive is that the lens would probably feel better balanced on the larger body.
Click to expand...
If you visit my website below, you'll see that I've taken the 50R and now the 100S to dozens of cities around the world, and I've loved every minute of it. I have incredibly detailed images that I can print at huge sizes.

There's a 60" acrylic print of Hong Kong hanging in my house that blows minds every time people see it. They stick their nose right up against the print and marvel at how they can see someone having a drink in their living room.

I also have an A7R4 in the house, but I never use it. I just love the image quality of the GFX100S, and I love the feel of the camera. This camera has soul like many of the Fujifilm X and Leica M cameras. I hate making a subjective comment like that, but I don't know any other way to convey how I feel using this camera.
 
JimKasson said:
Lens_Goat said:
I've been lurking in this corner of the DPR forum since the GFX 50S II and its remarkably small "kit" lens were first rumored. To my astonishment, the kit is in stock everywhere. I imagined I wouldn't be able to get my hands on it until, say, April.

As much as this new system intrigues me -- the big, luscious sensor; the relative portability for such a format -- I still feel guilty for contemplating moving up from a smaller format system that has served me so well.

While I've come into some discretionary income from a daily fantasy sports gambling habit, this upgrade still feels gratuitous but I'm thus consumed with wonder on how much better the images would be coming out of a medium format sensor? I'm almost entirely a landscape photographer and this camera seems to be designed for me. The IBIS would be a godsend as well, as my current camera does not possess it.

All the while I've only ever shot APS-C. I started with an A6000 then graduated to an XT-3 in 2018. I've never once took a phot on full frame or anything greater. I remember when I first took a shot with my A6000 and compared it to my iPhone 6. I could instantly see the difference on my computer screen, no zooming in necessary. The pictures were so much richer, so much more saturated. Would going from APS-C to Medium Format be the same or when it comes to ILC cameras with good glass, the law of diminishing returns sets in once you get to like Micro 4/3?

The biggest concern I have is how I would deal with the weight? I'm used to the heft of the "Red Badge" zooms on my XT-3 (I've even come around to the 50-140) so I know I would be comfortable with the weight of the GF 35-70. However, as a landscape photographer, the next obligatory purchase would be the 100-200 f/5.6. Like I said I've come around to the 50-140 and the 100-200 is close to it in weight. But, once you mount the100-200 on the 50S II body it'll be 14 ounces heavier than the 50-140 on my XT-3. I usually hike with my 55-200 and have only once hiked with the 50-140. For those of you who owned the 50-140 on the X series and now have the 100-200, how much of difference does the added heft make? The one positive is that the lens would probably feel better balanced on the larger body.

Any thoughts, encouragement or discouragements would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Dan
Click to expand...
How big do you print?
Click to expand...
I'm relatively new to printing. I just had a showing where all the work had been printed by a professional. The largest size was 28"x40". I was happy with how everything came out. Perhaps, if you get too close they could look a bit smeary but I kinda dig the aesthetic. There's an ethereal quality to them.
 
JimKasson said:
Lens_Goat said:
The biggest concern I have is how I would deal with the weight? I'm used to the heft of the "Red Badge" zooms on my XT-3 (I've even come around to the 50-140) so I know I would be comfortable with the weight of the GF 35-70. However, as a landscape photographer, the next obligatory purchase would be the 100-200 f/5.6.
Click to expand...
Careful with that. You're going to the GXF to get more IQ than you can get with your X system, right?

You could do better than the 100-200 on a GFX 50x with a 70-200/2.8E or the Z equivalent on a Z7.

https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-50s/fuj...n-70-200-2-8e-apo-sonnar-135-on-z7-revisited/

There are many fantastic GF lenses. The 100-200 isn't a bad lens, but it's not the one to hang your hat on for IQ.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. That's a shame that the 100-200 IQ isn't up to snuff. Be that as it may, if I were to go GFX, I would ultimately invest in this lens. I find zooms infinitely more useful (versatile) for the application of landscape photography. Oftentimes, you can't "zoom with your feet" -- you could, however, zoom to an untimely death by walking off a cliff.

Beyond printing large, the appeal of going MF would be the gratification of examining my photos on my computer. Like there'd be a salient richness, a dimensionality to them, or something. Would you say this is true or is it incumbent upon the choice of lens? If the advantages of MF over APS-C can only be experienced by pixel-peeping or printing very large, then I may be somewhat disenchanted.
 
fcracer said:
Lens_Goat said:
I'm almost entirely a landscape photographer and this camera seems to be designed for me. The IBIS would be a godsend as well, as my current camera does not possess it.
Click to expand...
For landscape, it's hard to beat a medium format sensor. This type of camera is really made for this purpose. However, I would ask what your future intentions are. If you see yourself wanting/needing 150MP down the road, then it makes a lot of sense to start your journey with the 50SII.

However, and I know there are many GFX owners that will be annoyed at me saying this, if you'd be happy with 80MP or perhaps 100MP, then you may be better served by going down the Canon R5/ Sony A7R4/Nikon Z7 route. Those cameras provide for far better AF performance than the 50SII, and even the 100S. You also get more lenses choices.

Full frame is really the sweet spot for cameras in my opinion. I went down the DMF route because I want ultimate image quality, and I'm willing to accept the compromises. I also enjoy being on the GFX technology journey and like the excitement that comes with being part of something new.
fcracer said:
The biggest concern I have is how I would deal with the weight? I'm used to the heft of the "Red Badge" zooms on my XT-3 (I've even come around to the 50-140) so I know I would be comfortable with the weight of the GF 35-70. However, as a landscape photographer, the next obligatory purchase would be the 100-200 f/5.6. Like I said I've come around to the 50-140 and the 100-200 is close to it in weight. But, once you mount the100-200 on the 50S II body it'll be 14 ounces heavier than the 50-140 on my XT-3. I usually hike with my 55-200 and have only once hiked with the 50-140. For those of you who owned the 50-140 on the X series and now have the 100-200, how much of difference does the added heft make? The one positive is that the lens would probably feel better balanced on the larger body.
Click to expand...
If you visit my website below, you'll see that I've taken the 50R and now the 100S to dozens of cities around the world, and I've loved every minute of it. I have incredibly detailed images that I can print at huge sizes.

There's a 60" acrylic print of Hong Kong hanging in my house that blows minds every time people see it. They stick their nose right up against the print and marvel at how they can see someone having a drink in their living room.

I also have an A7R4 in the house, but I never use it. I just love the image quality of the GFX100S, and I love the feel of the camera. This camera has soul like many of the Fujifilm X and Leica M cameras. I hate making a subjective comment like that, but I don't know any other way to convey how I feel using this camera.
Click to expand...
Very nice pictures on your website.

I think you and I share the same sentiment. I've acknowledged that full frame may be the "sweet spot" when it comes to performance, price and size. But I have no interest in it. Fuji does it for me. Whether it's the tactile experience and retro coolness of the X-series cameras or the exoticness of shooting medium format, Fuji has me in their clutches. Their cameras are inspiring and fun to use.

--
https://www.flickr.com/gp/137773398@N07/07L61t
 
Last edited:
I didn't see GFX as replacement for X - I still have 2 X-T3 and use them regularly.

Keep in mind, once you have 2 or 3 GF lenses in your bag weight can be significantly more than X series - unless you deliberately pick the heaviest lenses, attach a grip etc. But the beauty of X is you can go the other way - pick the lighter primes and you have a super light and compact kit.

The image differences I see are:

1. GFX files have a subtler graduation of tones, so you don't have to work so hard in post to bring out details in shadows. I have achieved similar results with X using exposure bracketing and HDR though, but to me that's computer work more than photography.

2. More detail in large prints. Again though, up to A3 the X-T3 does very well.
 
Lens_Goat said:
JimKasson said:
Lens_Goat said:
The biggest concern I have is how I would deal with the weight? I'm used to the heft of the "Red Badge" zooms on my XT-3 (I've even come around to the 50-140) so I know I would be comfortable with the weight of the GF 35-70. However, as a landscape photographer, the next obligatory purchase would be the 100-200 f/5.6.
Click to expand...
Careful with that. You're going to the GXF to get more IQ than you can get with your X system, right?

You could do better than the 100-200 on a GFX 50x with a 70-200/2.8E or the Z equivalent on a Z7.

https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-50s/fuj...n-70-200-2-8e-apo-sonnar-135-on-z7-revisited/

There are many fantastic GF lenses. The 100-200 isn't a bad lens, but it's not the one to hang your hat on for IQ.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. That's a shame that the 100-200 IQ isn't up to snuff. Be that as it may, if I were to go GFX, I would ultimately invest in this lens. I find zooms infinitely more useful (versatile) for the application of landscape photography. Oftentimes, you can't "zoom with your feet" -- you could, however, zoom to an untimely death by walking off a cliff.

Beyond printing large, the appeal of going MF would be the gratification of examining my photos on my computer. Like there'd be a salient richness, a dimensionality to them, or something. Would you say this is true or is it incumbent upon the choice of lens? If the advantages of MF over APS-C can only be experienced by pixel-peeping or printing very large, then I may be somewhat disenchanted.
Click to expand...
 
I can't say I've noticed any difference between 20Mp 4/3 and 42Mp full frame yet. But I don't shoot high ISO and I haven't printed anything bigger than A3.

I think use case is important. Big sensors and high megapixels enable high quality large prints. If you are not doing that, I'd suggest doing some hands on testing of you particular use case, see if it makes a difference that is worth the expense. If it doesn't, why over buy?
 
Lens_Goat said:
Thanks for the link. That's a shame that the 100-200 IQ isn't up to snuff. Be that as it may, if I were to go GFX, I would ultimately invest in this lens. I find zooms infinitely more useful (versatile) for the application of landscape photography. Oftentimes, you can't "zoom with your feet" -- you could, however, zoom to an untimely death by walking off a cliff.
Click to expand...
The 100-200 is more than good enough, and an essential GF landscape tool for the reasons you identify. I sold the sharper 120mm macro because the zoom gets you shots you otherwise wouldn't, in the landscape genre at least.
 
zurubi said:
zurubi wrote:
I think that before making that jump, one should consider all the potential FF options. My biggest reservation is that the sensor technology in the 50mkII is ~7-8 years old.
Click to expand...
Not sure I get this. The pace of technological change in this area is relatively pedestrian. The 50MP is considered to be a terrific sensor that competes with or betters the majority of sensors on the market, in any format, now available in a body that makes the most of it.

Could I do just as well with FF? Probably. But I have a strong preference for 645 ratio, the 50MP files and the GF lenses. Is the 100S better? Objectively, yes. It's also much less accessible to most people.
 
Lens_Goat said:
Very nice pictures on your website.

I think you and I share the same sentiment. I've acknowledged that full frame may be the "sweet spot" when it comes to performance, price and size. But I have no interest in it. Fuji does it for me. Whether it's the tactile experience and retro coolness of the X-series cameras or the exoticness of shooting medium format, Fuji has me in their clutches. Their cameras are inspiring and fun to use.
Click to expand...
I forgot to mention one very important point. The 4:3 image format is something that I don’t think I can give up now. I find that 3:2 is too short now. It’s another benefit of the GFX.
 
Zorki-6 said:
Zorki-6 said:
zurubi wrote:
I think that before making that jump, one should consider all the potential FF options. My biggest reservation is that the sensor technology in the 50mkII is ~7-8 years old.
Click to expand...
Not sure I get this. The pace of technological change in this area is relatively pedestrian. The 50MP is considered to be a terrific sensor that competes with or betters the majority of sensors on the market, in any format, now available in a body that makes the most of it.

Could I do just as well with FF? Probably. But I have a strong preference for 645 ratio, the 50MP files and the GF lenses. Is the 100S better? Objectively, yes. It's also much less accessible to most people.
Click to expand...
I feel the same way as stated above..

I own 2 D850s and they have great IQ, but in the end, if the subject is slow paced I prefer to use the Pentax 645z ( same sensor as the GFX50) I love the IQ and the 645 ratio.
 
Lens_Goat said:
JimKasson said:
How big do you print?
Click to expand...
I'm relatively new to printing. I just had a showing where all the work had been printed by a professional. The largest size was 28"x40". I was happy with how everything came out. Perhaps, if you get too close they could look a bit smeary but I kinda dig the aesthetic. There's an ethereal quality to them.
Click to expand...
At that size, you’ll see a definite improvement with the GFX.

--
https://blog.kasson.com
 
Last edited:
Lens_Goat said:
I'm relatively new to printing. I just had a showing where all the work had been printed by a professional. The largest size was 28"x40". I was happy with how everything came out. Perhaps, if you get too close they could look a bit smeary but I kinda dig the aesthetic. There's an ethereal quality to them.
Click to expand...
You will lose at least some of that smeary quality with a GFX 100x, or even with a GFX 50x.
 
Lens_Goat said:
Beyond printing large, the appeal of going MF would be the gratification of examining my photos on my computer.
Click to expand...
I'm the wrong person to ask about that. I consider photography to be a communications medium, and pixel peeping for the sake of pixel peeping, rather than in order to test gear or produce the best print, seems vaguely onanistic to me.
Lens_Goat said:
Like there'd be a salient richness, a dimensionality to them, or something. Would you say this is true or is it incumbent upon the choice of lens?
Click to expand...
I wrote about that once:

Format size and image quality - the last word

The format rhetoric seems to be heating up again. Maybe it never cooled off. In the last 7 or 8 years, I’ve owned and made many images with APS-C (with crop factors between 1.3 and 1.5), full frame (FF), and 33x44 (MF, or crop MF, depending on your level of precision – and maybe your
blog.kasson.com blog.kasson.com
Lens_Goat said:
If the advantages of MF over APS-C can only be experienced by pixel-peeping or printing very large, then I may be somewhat disenchanted.
Click to expand...
 
Lens_Goat said:
Beyond printing large, the appeal of going MF would be the gratification of examining my photos on my computer. Like there'd be a salient richness, a dimensionality to them, or something. Would you say this is true or is it incumbent upon the choice of lens? If the advantages of MF over APS-C can only be experienced by pixel-peeping or printing very large, then I may be somewhat disenchanted.
Click to expand...
To me photography is about the print. It always has been and always will be. Examining the image on my computer screen is just a necessary step toward the final appearance of the image on one of a number of matte printing surfaces.

Of course, more pixels means larger potential print size. And MF allows larger prints than smaller formats, "everything else being equal." (It never really is)

(One of the inequities in comparing GFX to FF is that all the GF lenses are so damned good.)

But it is not necessary to print very large to see the image quality inherent in a larger sensor. Like so many things on the Internet, the misinformation that it's necessary to print huge to benefit from the potential of the quality possible with medium format is not true.

"Moderate" size printing for me is 13 x 19. It's the smallest I usually print. Below about 11 x 14 I don't think it's possible to see any image quality difference between FF and MF when both are shot carefully for the best results. But at that size and, of course larger, it's there.

Here's a good article on the subject at Luminous Landscape. (You might need to join to read it - worth the $1/month)

https://luminous-landscape.com/the-...g-part-iii-of-a-slew-of-similar-sony-sensors/

Rich
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

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