How sharp is the FP-L?

DMillier wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

DMillier wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

adegroot wrote:

I might consider the FPL.

But: I have scoured photos on the internet, and they seem sharp, but not supersharp to my eyes. Am I wrong? What is the largest print you have made that wowed you?

It's very "sharp" . . . especially if you use the 65mm f2 i on it, or better yet, the 105mm f2.8 Art macro, which just may be the sharpest lens available (watch out you don't cut your eyes out with those sharp photos you'll make with it!).

Seriously, you can use various tools to "sharpen" photos from just about any camera, of course. In the L mount though, I don't think you can get a camera that will allow you to capture more detail than the fp L. Well . . . maybe the Panasonic S1R in pixel-shift mode . . .

If you don't want such a big, heavy camera as the S1R, but you want to use L mount lenses, I suggest going for the fp L. The only alternatives that can match or beat the fp L that I can think of are the more expensive Sony A7r IV and A7r V, or the much more expensive Leica M11, or the bigger, heavier Fuji GFX 100 S, which costs more than twice the price and requires big, heavy, expensive medium format lenses.

Many medium format users claim the 50MP MF cameras are better than the 61MP full frame sensor as well. I don't know whether this is just "medium format magic thinking" at work or whether the larger area does beat the smaller, higher pixel count sensor. Either way, I can't imagine there is much in it. On the lens front, the 35-70mm is affordable and quite light and compact for a medium format lens. It's good as well.

On the used market, the Fuji 50MP bodies are a very similar price to the A7r4. The fpL is slightly cheaper, but that is for the bare body. It's interesting that you can get medium format cameras for around the same price as full frame. In L mount, the S1r is about the same price as the fpL and it is an excellent camera.

With this pricing I still personally can't see the appeal of the fp cameras, unless you absolutely must have small size at the cost of everything else. But some people seem taken by them, so I guess there is a camera for everyone.

I can't see any significant difference between the test images from cameras with 24 MP APS-C sensors vs those with 24 MP full-frame sensors, so I bet the image quality from the fp L is actually better than the Fuji 50 MP cameras . . . at least up to about ISO 400 anyway.

I suppose the DPR test chart allows some kind of test of this...

EDIT: Similar detail, the GFX50 a little crisper but with more aliasing.

- you need to look at the GFX50R or GFX50SII as DPR used the correct lens (the 120mm macro).

The GFX50S results (-the first GFX camera to be launched) used the first GF lens - the GF63mm - which does not perform that well at close distances.

So select GFX50R or GFX50SII when comparing.