Fuji GFX compared to Sony FE when printing big, but not that big

Triggered by Dan Wells' article on Luminous Landscape on Fujifilm's new products, namely the GFX 100 II and in particular the new tilt-shift lenses (am a sucker for those, I worked with a 4x5 for 20 years), I (once again) took a look at the current state of the system and at the sample images from the GFX 100 II on the Fujifilm site. Currently, I'm using a Sony FE system, and I print with an Epson SC-P7500, usually to 60 cm x 75 cm (about 24" x 30"). Do you people feel that I would see a difference from the GFX with that print size? Or would I have to go to at least 40"x30" or even bigger to start to notice? (Dan seems to have a 44" printer.)

From downloading and printing that elephant image (seems to be the best in the lot and have been taken with the 250 + TC 1.4x), I feel that the GFX system won't make a difference to me with that print size, even when considering that I have to crop more to arrive at the desired aspect ratio. Of course, I'm not able to compare basically the same images taken with both the GFX and the Sony, so it's a bit of guess work. What do you think?

Arcimboldo said:

Triggered by Dan Wells' article on Luminous Landscape on Fujifilm's new products, namely the GFX 100 II and in particular the new tilt-shift lenses (am a sucker for those, I worked with a 4x5 for 20 years), I (once again) took a look at the current state of the system and at the sample images from the GFX 100 II on the Fujifilm site. Currently, I'm using a Sony FE system, and I print with an Epson SC-P7500, usually to 60 cm x 75 cm (about 24" x 30"). Do you people feel that I would see a difference from the GFX with that print size? Or would I have to go to at least 40"x30" or even bigger to start to notice? (Dan seems to have a 44" printer.)

From downloading and printing that elephant image (seems to be the best in the lot and have been taken with the 250 + TC 1.4x), I feel that the GFX system won't make a difference to me with that print size, even when considering that I have to crop more to arrive at the desired aspect ratio. Of course, I'm not able to compare basically the same images taken with both the GFX and the Sony, so it's a bit of guess work. What do you think?

Click to expand...

I’m 100% sure the GFX system will not make a differece with that print size.

With careful technique I was printing my old Nikon D3x (24MP) + Zeiss lenses at twice that print size, with excelent results.

Your current camera has twice the resolution plus you have some excellent optics, I highly doubt the GFX system will have a meaningful IQ impact in your prints.

Stefan_Iacob said:

Arcimboldo said:

Triggered by Dan Wells' article on Luminous Landscape on Fujifilm's new products, namely the GFX 100 II and in particular the new tilt-shift lenses (am a sucker for those, I worked with a 4x5 for 20 years), I (once again) took a look at the current state of the system and at the sample images from the GFX 100 II on the Fujifilm site. Currently, I'm using a Sony FE system, and I print with an Epson SC-P7500, usually to 60 cm x 75 cm (about 24" x 30"). Do you people feel that I would see a difference from the GFX with that print size? Or would I have to go to at least 40"x30" or even bigger to start to notice? (Dan seems to have a 44" printer.)

From downloading and printing that elephant image (seems to be the best in the lot and have been taken with the 250 + TC 1.4x), I feel that the GFX system won't make a difference to me with that print size, even when considering that I have to crop more to arrive at the desired aspect ratio. Of course, I'm not able to compare basically the same images taken with both the GFX and the Sony, so it's a bit of guess work. What do you think?

Click to expand...

I’m 100% sure the GFX system will not make a differece with that print size.

With careful technique I was printing my old Nikon D3x (24MP) + Zeiss lenses at twice that print size, with excelent results.

Your current camera has twice the resolution plus you have some excellent optics, I highly doubt the GFX system will have a meaningful IQ impact in your prints.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your take, Stefan. I also feel that technique and the lenses make a big difference, more so than the resolution of the camera. I tried a Sony a7R V and compared it to my III, and found that the images that looked best were those employing my best lenses and were relatively flawless technically - and under these circumstances printing the files from both bodies showed barely a difference at said print size - I wasn't even capable of reliably identifying which was which without looking at the caption. But grey is all theory as they say...

I'd actually buy into the GFX system for the fun of it, like some others around these parts, but as most of my photography involves traveling by plane and hiking, I always tried to confine myself to one system - I'd have to decide which to take upfront. Maybe Sony is also going to come out with some TS lenses someday.

Arcimboldo said:

Stefan_Iacob said:

Arcimboldo said:

Triggered by Dan Wells' article on Luminous Landscape on Fujifilm's new products, namely the GFX 100 II and in particular the new tilt-shift lenses (am a sucker for those, I worked with a 4x5 for 20 years), I (once again) took a look at the current state of the system and at the sample images from the GFX 100 II on the Fujifilm site. Currently, I'm using a Sony FE system, and I print with an Epson SC-P7500, usually to 60 cm x 75 cm (about 24" x 30"). Do you people feel that I would see a difference from the GFX with that print size? Or would I have to go to at least 40"x30" or even bigger to start to notice? (Dan seems to have a 44" printer.)

From downloading and printing that elephant image (seems to be the best in the lot and have been taken with the 250 + TC 1.4x), I feel that the GFX system won't make a difference to me with that print size, even when considering that I have to crop more to arrive at the desired aspect ratio. Of course, I'm not able to compare basically the same images taken with both the GFX and the Sony, so it's a bit of guess work. What do you think?

Click to expand...

I’m 100% sure the GFX system will not make a differece with that print size.

With careful technique I was printing my old Nikon D3x (24MP) + Zeiss lenses at twice that print size, with excelent results.

Your current camera has twice the resolution plus you have some excellent optics, I highly doubt the GFX system will have a meaningful IQ impact in your prints.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your take, Stefan. I also feel that technique and the lenses make a big difference, more so than the resolution of the camera. I tried a Sony a7R V and compared it to my III, and found that the images that looked best were those employing my best lenses and were relatively flawless technically - and under these circumstances printing the files from both bodies showed barely a difference at said print size - I wasn't even capable of reliably identifying which was which without looking at the caption. But grey is all theory as they say...

I'd actually buy into the GFX system for the fun of it, like some others around these parts, but as most of my photography involves traveling by plane and hiking, I always tried to confine myself to one system - I'd have to decide which to take upfront. Maybe Sony is also going to come out with some TS lenses someday.

Click to expand...

Fuji’s TS lenses are huge and cumbersome - I have the 30 TS mounted on my GFX 100. I think twice before picking up that camera-lens combo, and for 90% of the time my Hasselblad x2d with the xcd 30 will be out with me, in the field.

Stefan_Iacob said:

Arcimboldo said:

Stefan_Iacob said:

Arcimboldo said:

Triggered by Dan Wells' article on Luminous Landscape on Fujifilm's new products, namely the GFX 100 II and in particular the new tilt-shift lenses (am a sucker for those, I worked with a 4x5 for 20 years), I (once again) took a look at the current state of the system and at the sample images from the GFX 100 II on the Fujifilm site. Currently, I'm using a Sony FE system, and I print with an Epson SC-P7500, usually to 60 cm x 75 cm (about 24" x 30"). Do you people feel that I would see a difference from the GFX with that print size? Or would I have to go to at least 40"x30" or even bigger to start to notice? (Dan seems to have a 44" printer.)

From downloading and printing that elephant image (seems to be the best in the lot and have been taken with the 250 + TC 1.4x), I feel that the GFX system won't make a difference to me with that print size, even when considering that I have to crop more to arrive at the desired aspect ratio. Of course, I'm not able to compare basically the same images taken with both the GFX and the Sony, so it's a bit of guess work. What do you think?

Click to expand...

I’m 100% sure the GFX system will not make a differece with that print size.

With careful technique I was printing my old Nikon D3x (24MP) + Zeiss lenses at twice that print size, with excelent results.

Your current camera has twice the resolution plus you have some excellent optics, I highly doubt the GFX system will have a meaningful IQ impact in your prints.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your take, Stefan. I also feel that technique and the lenses make a big difference, more so than the resolution of the camera. I tried a Sony a7R V and compared it to my III, and found that the images that looked best were those employing my best lenses and were relatively flawless technically - and under these circumstances printing the files from both bodies showed barely a difference at said print size - I wasn't even capable of reliably identifying which was which without looking at the caption. But grey is all theory as they say...

I'd actually buy into the GFX system for the fun of it, like some others around these parts, but as most of my photography involves traveling by plane and hiking, I always tried to confine myself to one system - I'd have to decide which to take upfront. Maybe Sony is also going to come out with some TS lenses someday.

Click to expand...

Fuji’s TS lenses are huge and cumbersome - I have the 30 TS mounted on my GFX 100. I think twice before picking up that camera-lens combo, and for 90% of the time my Hasselblad x2d with the xcd 30 will be out with me, in the field.

Click to expand...

I can see that - TS lenses were always huge and cumbersome, even those for 35 mm. When I see how remarkably small Fuji was able to make the 20-35, I guess the 30 mm TS is as large as it needed to be optically. When I was still using my 4x5 field camera more, I was always laughing at TS lenses, because suddenly LF lenses together with the camera would look compact and light when you considered that every single lens was also a TS lens :-D

But while we're at it: If you had to buy one system, the Fuji GFX or the Hasselblad X, which would you prefer, and why?

Arcimboldo said:

Stefan_Iacob said:

Arcimboldo said:

Stefan_Iacob said:

Arcimboldo said:

Triggered by Dan Wells' article on Luminous Landscape on Fujifilm's new products, namely the GFX 100 II and in particular the new tilt-shift lenses (am a sucker for those, I worked with a 4x5 for 20 years), I (once again) took a look at the current state of the system and at the sample images from the GFX 100 II on the Fujifilm site. Currently, I'm using a Sony FE system, and I print with an Epson SC-P7500, usually to 60 cm x 75 cm (about 24" x 30"). Do you people feel that I would see a difference from the GFX with that print size? Or would I have to go to at least 40"x30" or even bigger to start to notice? (Dan seems to have a 44" printer.)

From downloading and printing that elephant image (seems to be the best in the lot and have been taken with the 250 + TC 1.4x), I feel that the GFX system won't make a difference to me with that print size, even when considering that I have to crop more to arrive at the desired aspect ratio. Of course, I'm not able to compare basically the same images taken with both the GFX and the Sony, so it's a bit of guess work. What do you think?

Click to expand...

I’m 100% sure the GFX system will not make a differece with that print size.

With careful technique I was printing my old Nikon D3x (24MP) + Zeiss lenses at twice that print size, with excelent results.

Your current camera has twice the resolution plus you have some excellent optics, I highly doubt the GFX system will have a meaningful IQ impact in your prints.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your take, Stefan. I also feel that technique and the lenses make a big difference, more so than the resolution of the camera. I tried a Sony a7R V and compared it to my III, and found that the images that looked best were those employing my best lenses and were relatively flawless technically - and under these circumstances printing the files from both bodies showed barely a difference at said print size - I wasn't even capable of reliably identifying which was which without looking at the caption. But grey is all theory as they say...

I'd actually buy into the GFX system for the fun of it, like some others around these parts, but as most of my photography involves traveling by plane and hiking, I always tried to confine myself to one system - I'd have to decide which to take upfront. Maybe Sony is also going to come out with some TS lenses someday.

Click to expand...

Fuji’s TS lenses are huge and cumbersome - I have the 30 TS mounted on my GFX 100. I think twice before picking up that camera-lens combo, and for 90% of the time my Hasselblad x2d with the xcd 30 will be out with me, in the field.

Click to expand...

I can see that - TS lenses were always huge and cumbersome, even those for 35 mm. When I see how remarkably small Fuji was able to make the 20-35, I guess the 30 mm TS is as large as it needed to be optically. When I was still using my 4x5 field camera more, I was always laughing at TS lenses, because suddenly LF lenses together with the camera would look compact and light when you considered that every single lens was also a TS lens :-D

But while we're at it: If you had to buy one system, the Fuji GFX or the Hasselblad X, which would you prefer, and why?

Click to expand...

Hasselblad X, for sure: better IQ (coming primarily from superior lenses and color science), lighter with better ergonomics, superior camera UI. And definitely more sexy / fun / inspiring - but that’s subjective.

Stefan_Iacob said:

Arcimboldo said:

Stefan_Iacob said:

Arcimboldo said:

Stefan_Iacob said:

Arcimboldo said:

Triggered by Dan Wells' article on Luminous Landscape on Fujifilm's new products, namely the GFX 100 II and in particular the new tilt-shift lenses (am a sucker for those, I worked with a 4x5 for 20 years), I (once again) took a look at the current state of the system and at the sample images from the GFX 100 II on the Fujifilm site. Currently, I'm using a Sony FE system, and I print with an Epson SC-P7500, usually to 60 cm x 75 cm (about 24" x 30"). Do you people feel that I would see a difference from the GFX with that print size? Or would I have to go to at least 40"x30" or even bigger to start to notice? (Dan seems to have a 44" printer.)

From downloading and printing that elephant image (seems to be the best in the lot and have been taken with the 250 + TC 1.4x), I feel that the GFX system won't make a difference to me with that print size, even when considering that I have to crop more to arrive at the desired aspect ratio. Of course, I'm not able to compare basically the same images taken with both the GFX and the Sony, so it's a bit of guess work. What do you think?

Click to expand...

I’m 100% sure the GFX system will not make a differece with that print size.

With careful technique I was printing my old Nikon D3x (24MP) + Zeiss lenses at twice that print size, with excelent results.

Your current camera has twice the resolution plus you have some excellent optics, I highly doubt the GFX system will have a meaningful IQ impact in your prints.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your take, Stefan. I also feel that technique and the lenses make a big difference, more so than the resolution of the camera. I tried a Sony a7R V and compared it to my III, and found that the images that looked best were those employing my best lenses and were relatively flawless technically - and under these circumstances printing the files from both bodies showed barely a difference at said print size - I wasn't even capable of reliably identifying which was which without looking at the caption. But grey is all theory as they say...

I'd actually buy into the GFX system for the fun of it, like some others around these parts, but as most of my photography involves traveling by plane and hiking, I always tried to confine myself to one system - I'd have to decide which to take upfront. Maybe Sony is also going to come out with some TS lenses someday.

Click to expand...

Fuji’s TS lenses are huge and cumbersome - I have the 30 TS mounted on my GFX 100. I think twice before picking up that camera-lens combo, and for 90% of the time my Hasselblad x2d with the xcd 30 will be out with me, in the field.

Click to expand...

I can see that - TS lenses were always huge and cumbersome, even those for 35 mm. When I see how remarkably small Fuji was able to make the 20-35, I guess the 30 mm TS is as large as it needed to be optically. When I was still using my 4x5 field camera more, I was always laughing at TS lenses, because suddenly LF lenses together with the camera would look compact and light when you considered that every single lens was also a TS lens :-D

But while we're at it: If you had to buy one system, the Fuji GFX or the Hasselblad X, which would you prefer, and why?

Click to expand...

Hasselblad X, for sure: better IQ (coming primarily from superior lenses and color science), lighter with better ergonomics, superior camera UI. And definitely more sexy / fun / inspiring - but that’s subjective.

Click to expand...

The latter I have to agree to - I fondled the GFX 100 II with the 110 mm on a bit at Calumet in Frankfurt the other weekend, and although I liked it due to its compactness, it doesn't look and handle much different to a 35 mm body, like Sony's or Nikon's (the Z8 even has more or less the same size), which is actually remarkable. The Hasselblad industrial design is in a different league, that's a camera I'd just like to use, while the GFX is all about great IQ for a great price.

Arcimboldo said:

Triggered by Dan Wells' article on Luminous Landscape on Fujifilm's new products, namely the GFX 100 II and in particular the new tilt-shift lenses (am a sucker for those, I worked with a 4x5 for 20 years), I (once again) took a look at the current state of the system and at the sample images from the GFX 100 II on the Fujifilm site. Currently, I'm using a Sony FE system, and I print with an Epson SC-P7500, usually to 60 cm x 75 cm (about 24" x 30"). Do you people feel that I would see a difference from the GFX with that print size? Or would I have to go to at least 40"x30" or even bigger to start to notice? (Dan seems to have a 44" printer.)

From downloading and printing that elephant image (seems to be the best in the lot and have been taken with the 250 + TC 1.4x), I feel that the GFX system won't make a difference to me with that print size, even when considering that I have to crop more to arrive at the desired aspect ratio. Of course, I'm not able to compare basically the same images taken with both the GFX and the Sony, so it's a bit of guess work. What do you think?

Click to expand...

IMO the important question to ask is: how would a GFX 100 II with whatever lens(es) you'd use on it for your needs compare with an A7R V and the most appropriate / comparable lenses, when making 60x75 cm / 24x30" prints?

FWIW, I am generally quite skeptical of the existence of any 'medium format look' but I believe that lenses (generally a strength of the GFX system, but arguably lacking on the longer end) can matter a lot and, at larger print sizes, sensor sizes and pixels can matter. I am guessing here, but 60x75 cm / 24x30" is probably (just) large enough where the larger sensor and more pixels (native 370 ppi versus native 268 ppi) might be visibly significant (depending on the subject, the paper surface, etc.).

But that's at most half the question, the respective lens(es) being the other, maybe bigger half. If you'd use the GFX 100 II with the GFX 250mm + GFX 1.4x TC, then is the most obvious alternative the Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM OSS? The Fuji combo would give you, in FF-equivalent terms for a 4:5 print, a 255mm f/4.1 for $4150, versus the Sony at 300mm f/2.8 for $6000. From an image quality, operational parameter, and cost standpoint, what do you think about those two? Or maybe instead you'd choose a zoom for the Sony, like the Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS ($2400)--how would that tip things?

Do the same for any other lens(es) you'd need or want.

Stefan_Iacob said:

Arcimboldo said:

Triggered by Dan Wells' article on Luminous Landscape on Fujifilm's new products, namely the GFX 100 II and in particular the new tilt-shift lenses (am a sucker for those, I worked with a 4x5 for 20 years), I (once again) took a look at the current state of the system and at the sample images from the GFX 100 II on the Fujifilm site. Currently, I'm using a Sony FE system, and I print with an Epson SC-P7500, usually to 60 cm x 75 cm (about 24" x 30"). Do you people feel that I would see a difference from the GFX with that print size? Or would I have to go to at least 40"x30" or even bigger to start to notice? (Dan seems to have a 44" printer.)

From downloading and printing that elephant image (seems to be the best in the lot and have been taken with the 250 + TC 1.4x), I feel that the GFX system won't make a difference to me with that print size, even when considering that I have to crop more to arrive at the desired aspect ratio. Of course, I'm not able to compare basically the same images taken with both the GFX and the Sony, so it's a bit of guess work. What do you think?

Click to expand...

I’m 100% sure the GFX system will not make a differece with that print size.

With careful technique I was printing my old Nikon D3x (24MP) + Zeiss lenses at twice that print size, with excelent results.

Your current camera has twice the resolution plus you have some excellent optics, I highly doubt the GFX system will have a meaningful IQ impact in your prints.

Click to expand...

Compared to an FF 60MP camera, a GFX 100 II (or X2D) output can have less noise, less moiré, and more details when downscaled to the same output size. Is that not visible on a 24x30 print?

SrMi said:

Stefan_Iacob said:

Arcimboldo said:

Triggered by Dan Wells' article on Luminous Landscape on Fujifilm's new products, namely the GFX 100 II and in particular the new tilt-shift lenses (am a sucker for those, I worked with a 4x5 for 20 years), I (once again) took a look at the current state of the system and at the sample images from the GFX 100 II on the Fujifilm site. Currently, I'm using a Sony FE system, and I print with an Epson SC-P7500, usually to 60 cm x 75 cm (about 24" x 30"). Do you people feel that I would see a difference from the GFX with that print size? Or would I have to go to at least 40"x30" or even bigger to start to notice? (Dan seems to have a 44" printer.)

From downloading and printing that elephant image (seems to be the best in the lot and have been taken with the 250 + TC 1.4x), I feel that the GFX system won't make a difference to me with that print size, even when considering that I have to crop more to arrive at the desired aspect ratio. Of course, I'm not able to compare basically the same images taken with both the GFX and the Sony, so it's a bit of guess work. What do you think?

Click to expand...

I’m 100% sure the GFX system will not make a differece with that print size.

With careful technique I was printing my old Nikon D3x (24MP) + Zeiss lenses at twice that print size, with excelent results.

Your current camera has twice the resolution plus you have some excellent optics, I highly doubt the GFX system will have a meaningful IQ impact in your prints.

Click to expand...

Compared to an FF 60MP camera, a GFX 100 II (or X2D) output can have less noise, less moiré, and more details when downscaled to the same output size. Is that not visible on a 24x30 print?

Click to expand...

Mostly … not ))

Composition, lighting, shooting and PP technique will have a much bigger impact

You need to more or less double that print size to really make good use of the MP advantage of MF.

Stefan_Iacob said:

SrMi said:

Stefan_Iacob said:

Arcimboldo said:

Triggered by Dan Wells' article on Luminous Landscape on Fujifilm's new products, namely the GFX 100 II and in particular the new tilt-shift lenses (am a sucker for those, I worked with a 4x5 for 20 years), I (once again) took a look at the current state of the system and at the sample images from the GFX 100 II on the Fujifilm site. Currently, I'm using a Sony FE system, and I print with an Epson SC-P7500, usually to 60 cm x 75 cm (about 24" x 30"). Do you people feel that I would see a difference from the GFX with that print size? Or would I have to go to at least 40"x30" or even bigger to start to notice? (Dan seems to have a 44" printer.)

From downloading and printing that elephant image (seems to be the best in the lot and have been taken with the 250 + TC 1.4x), I feel that the GFX system won't make a difference to me with that print size, even when considering that I have to crop more to arrive at the desired aspect ratio. Of course, I'm not able to compare basically the same images taken with both the GFX and the Sony, so it's a bit of guess work. What do you think?

Click to expand...

I’m 100% sure the GFX system will not make a differece with that print size.

With careful technique I was printing my old Nikon D3x (24MP) + Zeiss lenses at twice that print size, with excelent results.

Your current camera has twice the resolution plus you have some excellent optics, I highly doubt the GFX system will have a meaningful IQ impact in your prints.

Click to expand...

Compared to an FF 60MP camera, a GFX 100 II (or X2D) output can have less noise, less moiré, and more details when downscaled to the same output size. Is that not visible on a 24x30 print?

Click to expand...

Mostly … not ))

Composition, lighting, shooting and PP technique will have a much bigger impact

Click to expand...

I agree, but those are orthogonal to the elements I mentioned.

Stefan_Iacob said:

You need to more or less double that print size to really make good use of the MP advantage of MF.

Click to expand...

I never think of MPs being just for printing large.

Arcimboldo said:

Triggered by Dan Wells' article on Luminous Landscape on Fujifilm's new products, namely the GFX 100 II and in particular the new tilt-shift lenses (am a sucker for those, I worked with a 4x5 for 20 years), I (once again) took a look at the current state of the system and at the sample images from the GFX 100 II on the Fujifilm site. Currently, I'm using a Sony FE system, and I print with an Epson SC-P7500, usually to 60 cm x 75 cm (about 24" x 30"). Do you people feel that I would see a difference from the GFX with that print size? Or would I have to go to at least 40"x30" or even bigger to start to notice? (Dan seems to have a 44" printer.)

From downloading and printing that elephant image (seems to be the best in the lot and have been taken with the 250 + TC 1.4x), I feel that the GFX system won't make a difference to me with that print size, even when considering that I have to crop more to arrive at the desired aspect ratio. Of course, I'm not able to compare basically the same images taken with both the GFX and the Sony, so it's a bit of guess work. What do you think?

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Arcimboldo said:

Triggered by Dan Wells' article on Luminous Landscape on Fujifilm's new products, namely the GFX 100 II and in particular the new tilt-shift lenses (am a sucker for those, I worked with a 4x5 for 20 years), I (once again) took a look at the current state of the system and at the sample images from the GFX 100 II on the Fujifilm site. Currently, I'm using a Sony FE system, and I print with an Epson SC-P7500, usually to 60 cm x 75 cm (about 24" x 30"). Do you people feel that I would see a difference from the GFX with that print size? Or would I have to go to at least 40"x30" or even bigger to start to notice? (Dan seems to have a 44" printer.)

From downloading and printing that elephant image (seems to be the best in the lot and have been taken with the 250 + TC 1.4x), I feel that the GFX system won't make a difference to me with that print size, even when considering that I have to crop more to arrive at the desired aspect ratio. Of course, I'm not able to compare basically the same images taken with both the GFX and the Sony, so it's a bit of guess work. What do you think?

Click to expand...

https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-50s/gfx-vs-a7rii-visibility-of-improved-iq/

Click to expand...

Thanks, I knew this test of yours already. But it is 6 years old, and I'm not sure what to make of it today: My print size is in between and the GFX now is a 100 MP camera, which maybe speaks in favour of a noticeable difference. On the other hand, Sony's best lenses are much better today than in 2017 (as you mentioned them but didn't use them in this test anyway). What's your take? Would you expect that 30"x24" prints from the GFX do not necessarily look sharper but more 'natural'?

What is this naturalness then? Is it some kind of tonal smoothness, un-digitalness? Well, this would be plausible as that is a typical effect of more pixels - but it is exactly what I'm missing from the Fujifilm gallery to be honest. The difference back in the film days between 35 mm and medium, and then between medium and 4x5 large format with respect to smooth tonality was huge compared to the supposed difference I fail to see here. The situation is much more akin to printing to said size from technically perfect 4x5 and 8x10 transparencies where I failed to see a significant difference either, every time I tried.

This is why I was interested in someone's actual experience with taking the same picture with both classes of systems recently, ideally making a pair available in full resolution so that I could see and print myself. Alas, when I take into account confirmation bias, Stefan's claim that I won't see a difference seems to be the most plausible to me, although I would have loved to get an excuse why I have to buy into the GFX system (or into Hasselblad's X system, for that matter) ;-)

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

Triggered by Dan Wells' article on Luminous Landscape on Fujifilm's new products, namely the GFX 100 II and in particular the new tilt-shift lenses (am a sucker for those, I worked with a 4x5 for 20 years), I (once again) took a look at the current state of the system and at the sample images from the GFX 100 II on the Fujifilm site. Currently, I'm using a Sony FE system, and I print with an Epson SC-P7500, usually to 60 cm x 75 cm (about 24" x 30"). Do you people feel that I would see a difference from the GFX with that print size? Or would I have to go to at least 40"x30" or even bigger to start to notice? (Dan seems to have a 44" printer.)

From downloading and printing that elephant image (seems to be the best in the lot and have been taken with the 250 + TC 1.4x), I feel that the GFX system won't make a difference to me with that print size, even when considering that I have to crop more to arrive at the desired aspect ratio. Of course, I'm not able to compare basically the same images taken with both the GFX and the Sony, so it's a bit of guess work. What do you think?

Click to expand...

IMO the important question to ask is: how would a GFX 100 II with whatever lens(es) you'd use on it for your needs compare with an A7R V and the most appropriate / comparable lenses, when making 60x75 cm / 24x30" prints?

FWIW, I am generally quite skeptical of the existence of any 'medium format look' but I believe that lenses (generally a strength of the GFX system, but arguably lacking on the longer end) can matter a lot and, at larger print sizes, sensor sizes and pixels can matter. I am guessing here, but 60x75 cm / 24x30" is probably (just) large enough where the larger sensor and more pixels (native 370 ppi versus native 268 ppi) might be visibly significant (depending on the subject, the paper surface, etc.).

But that's at most half the question, the respective lens(es) being the other, maybe bigger half. If you'd use the GFX 100 II with the GFX 250mm + GFX 1.4x TC, then is the most obvious alternative the Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM OSS? The Fuji combo would give you, in FF-equivalent terms for a 4:5 print, a 255mm f/4.1 for $4150, versus the Sony at 300mm f/2.8 for $6000. From an image quality, operational parameter, and cost standpoint, what do you think about those two? Or maybe instead you'd choose a zoom for the Sony, like the Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS ($2400)--how would that tip things?

Do the same for any other lens(es) you'd need or want.

Click to expand...

Thanks - I agree that lenses are important, or nowadays even the most important factor (for me at least). On the other hand, the larger versatility of the Sony lens offering could be partially compensated (again: for me) by better IQ from the format per se - of course not in any practical sense but just regarding my gut feeling overall, probably that's what you meant with 'tipping things'? However, the GFX system does not only lack at the long end, it also does on the short end. I've made a few images at 14 mm with the Sony that I wouldn't want to have missed, and 14 mm (= 17.5 mm) are not available (yet) with GFX. Consequently, I would consider the GFX a second system only, not as a surrogate to the Sony system, and consequently the larger versatility of the latter doesn't tip things much: The GFX would be a special purpose system for me, and I would only buy the best lenses for it without striving for completeness.

As to your concrete example: From my experience with the Sony FE 100-400, let alone the 200-600, I clearly feel that for my expectations regarding IQ I need the 300/2.8, and actually I've preordered it. But your calculation is not entirely correct: The GF 250/4 + TC 1.4x is a 350/5.6, which in FF-terms is approx. a 280/4.5 - it is 1.3 stops slower than the 300/2.8, so it is really no wonder that it's less expensive than the new 300 GM - an actual 300/4 GM in turn, although still faster by a third of a stop, would probably be no more than 2500-3000 Euros, if it will ever become available.

Arcimboldo said:

Triggered by Dan Wells' article on Luminous Landscape on Fujifilm's new products, namely the GFX 100 II and in particular the new tilt-shift lenses (am a sucker for those, I worked with a 4x5 for 20 years), I (once again) took a look at the current state of the system and at the sample images from the GFX 100 II on the Fujifilm site. Currently, I'm using a Sony FE system, and I print with an Epson SC-P7500, usually to 60 cm x 75 cm (about 24" x 30"). Do you people feel that I would see a difference from the GFX with that print size? Or would I have to go to at least 40"x30" or even bigger to start to notice? (Dan seems to have a 44" printer.)

From downloading and printing that elephant image (seems to be the best in the lot and have been taken with the 250 + TC 1.4x), I feel that the GFX system won't make a difference to me with that print size, even when considering that I have to crop more to arrive at the desired aspect ratio. Of course, I'm not able to compare basically the same images taken with both the GFX and the Sony, so it's a bit of guess work. What do you think?

Click to expand...

Basically, the GFX 100 systems have 102 MP and Sony A7rIV has 60 MP. The pixels themselves are probably pretty much the same.

So, the GFX can carry more information, something like 68% more of it.

Questions that remain:

• How much information the lenses feed into the sensor?
• How much information is needed before we enter good enough or diminishing returns?

Shooting wildlife with an extender may not be very beneficial as long as the resolution of the lens does not exceed the resolution of the sensor.

If you shoot an animal with a 350 mm lens on GFX 100 or Sony A7rIV, you get the same number of pixels on that animal with either camera. To take benefits of the GFX 100, you will need a longer lens like 500 mm.

What I have seen in experiments is that good lenses sharpen well to about 60% of Nyquist, essentially meaning we can achieve optimal sharpness up to 60% of sensor resolution. That would yield 3800 vertical pixels on the A7rIV and 5200 vertical pixels on the GFX 100.

If we assume that we need 180 PPI for an excellent print at 60% Nyquist, the print sizes would be:

• A7rIV 21" on short edge
• GFX 100 29" on the short edge

Now, I don't think that 180 PPI at 60% Nyquist is an optimal criterium. The human vision is more sensitive to lower frequency detail but can resolve detail at twice that frequency at short viewing distance. There is also something called vernier acuity.

In the end, I don't think there is a simple answer. But I would think that in many or even most cases, the shooting conditions and the photographer may matter more than gear.

Best regards

Erik

Erik Kaffehr said:

Arcimboldo said:

Triggered by Dan Wells' article on Luminous Landscape on Fujifilm's new products, namely the GFX 100 II and in particular the new tilt-shift lenses (am a sucker for those, I worked with a 4x5 for 20 years), I (once again) took a look at the current state of the system and at the sample images from the GFX 100 II on the Fujifilm site. Currently, I'm using a Sony FE system, and I print with an Epson SC-P7500, usually to 60 cm x 75 cm (about 24" x 30"). Do you people feel that I would see a difference from the GFX with that print size? Or would I have to go to at least 40"x30" or even bigger to start to notice? (Dan seems to have a 44" printer.)

From downloading and printing that elephant image (seems to be the best in the lot and have been taken with the 250 + TC 1.4x), I feel that the GFX system won't make a difference to me with that print size, even when considering that I have to crop more to arrive at the desired aspect ratio. Of course, I'm not able to compare basically the same images taken with both the GFX and the Sony, so it's a bit of guess work. What do you think?

Click to expand...

Basically, the GFX 100 systems have 102 MP and Sony A7rIV has 60 MP. The pixels themselves are probably pretty much the same.

So, the GFX can carry more information, something like 68% more of it.

Questions that remain:

• How much information the lenses feed into the sensor?
• How much information is needed before we enter good enough or diminishing returns?

Shooting wildlife with an extender may not be very beneficial as long as the resolution of the lens does not exceed the resolution of the sensor.

If you shoot an animal with a 350 mm lens on GFX 100 or Sony A7rIV, you get the same number of pixels on that animal with either camera. To take benefits of the GFX 100, you will need a longer lens like 500 mm.

What I have seen in experiments is that good lenses sharpen well to about 60% of Nyquist, essentially meaning we can achieve optimal sharpness up to 60% of sensor resolution. That would yield 3800 vertical pixels on the A7rIV and 5200 vertical pixels on the GFX 100.

If we assume that we need 180 PPI for an excellent print at 60% Nyquist, the print sizes would be:

• A7rIV 21" on short edge
• GFX 100 29" on the short edge

Now, I don't think that 180 PPI at 60% Nyquist is an optimal criterium. The human vision is more sensitive to lower frequency detail but can resolve detail at twice that frequency at short viewing distance. There is also something called vernier acuity.

In the end, I don't think there is a simple answer. But I would think that in many or even most cases, the shooting conditions and the photographer may matter more than gear.

Best regards

Erik

Click to expand...

Thanks - yes, that's basically the conclusion I also arrived at on paper, in particular when I see how little some people get out of their equipment specifically with respect to sharpness. But, as I said elsewhere and as 'they' say, too: Grey is all theory.

Sorry for not being clear about what I would shoot with a GFX: mostly landscape. The quoted elephant image was just by far the technically best image in the Fujifilm GFX 100 II gallery - I looked at it more like an intimate landscape with a large animal happening to be in it ;-)

Arcimboldo said:

Triggered by Dan Wells' article on Luminous Landscape on Fujifilm's new products, namely the GFX 100 II and in particular the new tilt-shift lenses (am a sucker for those, I worked with a 4x5 for 20 years), I (once again) took a look at the current state of the system and at the sample images from the GFX 100 II on the Fujifilm site. Currently, I'm using a Sony FE system, and I print with an Epson SC-P7500, usually to 60 cm x 75 cm (about 24" x 30"). Do you people feel that I would see a difference from the GFX with that print size? Or would I have to go to at least 40"x30" or even bigger to start to notice? (Dan seems to have a 44" printer.)

From downloading and printing that elephant image (seems to be the best in the lot and have been taken with the 250 + TC 1.4x), I feel that the GFX system won't make a difference to me with that print size, even when considering that I have to crop more to arrive at the desired aspect ratio. Of course, I'm not able to compare basically the same images taken with both the GFX and the Sony, so it's a bit of guess work. What do you think?

Click to expand...

Really I think the best thing to do is make a print at your preferred size of 30x24 inchs then also make one of the same image but smaller, say something like 24x18 inchs. Look to see whether the quality difference per area is notable to you because the GFx100 is likely to give you the kind of quality of the 24x18 image at the 30x24 size.

MoreorLess said:

Arcimboldo said:

Triggered by Dan Wells' article on Luminous Landscape on Fujifilm's new products, namely the GFX 100 II and in particular the new tilt-shift lenses (am a sucker for those, I worked with a 4x5 for 20 years), I (once again) took a look at the current state of the system and at the sample images from the GFX 100 II on the Fujifilm site. Currently, I'm using a Sony FE system, and I print with an Epson SC-P7500, usually to 60 cm x 75 cm (about 24" x 30"). Do you people feel that I would see a difference from the GFX with that print size? Or would I have to go to at least 40"x30" or even bigger to start to notice? (Dan seems to have a 44" printer.)

From downloading and printing that elephant image (seems to be the best in the lot and have been taken with the 250 + TC 1.4x), I feel that the GFX system won't make a difference to me with that print size, even when considering that I have to crop more to arrive at the desired aspect ratio. Of course, I'm not able to compare basically the same images taken with both the GFX and the Sony, so it's a bit of guess work. What do you think?

Click to expand...

Really I think the best thing to do is make a print at your preferred size of 30x24 inchs then also make one of the same image but smaller, say something like 24x18 inchs. Look to see whether the quality difference per area is notable to you because the GFx100 is likely to give you the kind of quality of the 24x18 image at the 30x24 size.

Click to expand...

That could work if I make two images with different focal length that exactly compensate for the shrinking, by the crop factor of 0.8 of the GFX - not sure whether you meant that. Of course, this only really works with a zoom lens, and you get the additional parameter of the quality of that lens at two different focal lengths - but the quality of two lenses from two different system will be at least a bit different, too, which is probably why Jim used two Otuses in his test: to get that parameter out of the equation as much as possible. But it sounds like an idea worth trying, in particular because the sensor in the GFX 100 II is basically the same as that in the a7R V, just bigger. Thanks!

From a practical point of view it will make little to no difference. There are so many variables, between systems and on the day of the shoot, that you would be hard pressed to see any difference.

Last year I had the Z9 out and made this photo with the camera and 14-24 zoom







I was curious. So I had it printed to 5 feet on the long side. It is sharp and detailed right in to the corners, even viewed from a foot away.

Pick what makes you feel good, suits your style and just enjoy. I would not hesitate to take the Z9 on any landscape shoot, but I almost always default to MF and primes. Again, go with your own flow.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Can one see the difference?

I can see a tonality difference, even in small sizes, between printed images from my Fuji GFX 100 and my wife's Canon R5. My wife, who is a talented photographer, cannot see any difference in the same printed images. Her visual sensitivity is not the same as mine. This is quite common.

Is it good enough?

Cell phones do a wonderful job with contrast, saturation, sharpness and even high dynamic range imaging for immediate display. For the average person the photograph successfully meets their standard of acceptable quality. Due to small pixel size they do not enlarge well, but that doesn't matter.

Distance is a factor?

The old story with billboards. Due to the viewing distance it only takes a few megapixels for a great billboard.

Photograph quality is a perceived value. We serious photographers are eager to embrace higher values. Many do not see the difference or care.