Your precious and honest opinions about differences between Fujifilm and others (Sony, Canon, Nikon)

Jerry-astro wrote:

BeatX wrote:

Jose Rocha wrote:

BeatX wrote:

Can You give me link to FM forum with thread you mentioned? Thx in advice, and sorry for OT!

Sure, I found the thread, it's huge. But I've read it all back then! It's worth it, it's full of great photos.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1253369

Thank You Jose
I'm lookin at this thread, currently Im only on page 4.
But still, even on beginning of this thread, I allready pick up some cherrys, like:

or this:

Not to mention, about this picture which is simply jaw dropping. Best 3D pop I've seen from long, long time. I do allready has this picture as a wallpaper on my laptop and Im about to write PM via flicker to ask if I can buy this shot in full res (artist: this lady: https://www.flickr.com/photos/liltuki/ )

Sorry for completly offtopic, but I just simply cannot resist.
I mean.. There is no way, to replicate such organic/three dimensional pictures from any Fujifilm glass (medium format included, too modern rendering, to clinical).
Even so called "magical" XF 35/1.4 even dont stand close compared to Nikkor 58/1.4
To be honest, Im not sure if there is glass on any system who can match Nikkor 58/1.4 in terms of such way of rendering.
Moderns top lenses are corrected in every way, simply optical perfection - what in final result gives flat, lifeless image (vide Fujifilm XF 18/1.4)
So yeah, couple of my 3 cents about diffirances in camera systems

Yup, off topic indeed. And I’m sure Nikon appreciated the advert.

Frankly, so this could be truly relevant to the Fuji forum you posted it in, I’d be much more interested in seeing direct comparisons between the two cameras which might better illustrate the “organic, 3D… etc.” advantages you talk about here. Ideally, same (or very similar) FL, aperture, and the same compositions. All the terms used here (organic, 3D, rendering, clinical) etc. I see all the time here, but there’s nothing like an apples-to-apples comparison with the same or similar FOV to support your assertion here. Otherwise, it’s very subjective and subject to interpretation.

Hi Jerry I would rally like to find You such comparsion. There isnt any, because 99,9% photographers only cares about sharpness and CA. Sad but true. So noone focus on most important part of lens: way how it renders in widest apertures, and how final images looks on large format prints or on 4k big screens without pixel peeping.
I know im too crazy about 3D pop/organic rendering in every imaging, to simply just walk by and not being intrigued when I do see very unique look.
So, when some lens catch my attention to the point that I cannot restist to hide my impressions, I guarantee all of You that its worth further investigate
Im serious. Take a picture of some nicely light landscape shot with newest iPhone and duplicate it (same angle, FOV, composition and lets say DOF), from top dog like Sony GM 24-70/2.8 ver II, then print it to 40x60cm, and try to tell which gives less flat image (viewed from at least 1 meter or more),
Is there will be almost any diffirance (?) IMO They both will look flat, lifeless (Im not talking about DR, noise levels, colors etc - just "organic" rendering"), They will look basically identically - when viewing in such terms as above, which is 99,9% times in normal viewing of photography.

Maybe some day /I do hope so/ I will get Nikon 58/1.4 + some Nikon FF body so I can do first in the world comparsion of Nikkor 58/1.4 vs ... (?). Yeah, vs what lens beside MF Voigtländer 58/1.4 ?
Such combination of FL, aperture and character has no substitute in any M4/3, aps-c, and FF system, beside small medium format Fuji GFX 80/1.7
But like I said, for my taste GFX 80/1.7 is too clinical, to "modern", to digital compared to Nikkor 58/1.4 (not to mention about size, weight and size diffirance)
https://www.flickr.com/groups/fujinon_gf80mm/
So even I wish, I dont know how I can prepare direct comparsion.