Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
vjbelle said:
I own both the Fuji 100 II and Sony 7RM5 and have been printing large for years. My usual print is 30X40 but I also print at 48X27. I don't print at your size (24X30) but can comment on the subjective differences between the two cameras when printing.

I have found that anything I can see at 100% pixels will be visible in the print - at least to me. If I process a Sony file to enhanced details in ACR I am able to easily print to 40 inches ( I always use GAI for upsampling ) and satisfy my critical inspections. Going to 48 inches things start to slightly fall apart. Very fine detail will become more homogenized - losing some of the crisp edges. The print can be very acceptable at normal viewing distances but very close inspection will show flaws.

At 30 inches ( I have done some comparisons ) if the Sony file is processed well and taken well there will be no difference. At that point it's all about the lenses.

So my advice would be to save your money and stay with FF. Stay away from the bells and whistles that are advertised by Topaz or DXO and sharpen with 'Smart Sharpen' or Focus Magic and the files produced will be very high quality.

Best....

Victor B.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your informed assessment, coincides with my gut feeling. I sometimes use super resolution in Lightroom (always check for artefacts), and AI noise reduction with smooth tone areas, such as clouds or sea, combine both in Photoshop and scale back down to print to 30"x24" - the result can be pretty impressing. I have some (I think) excellent lenses and these really make the difference, in particular towards the corners.
 
Sometimes I get stuck in a rut from my film days when "bigger the better" was de rigeur for big enlargements. Fifty years ago I traded my Olympus Pen-F outfit for an old (1954) Linhof Technika 4x5 with 135 Symmar lens. Made 30x40 prints (Cibachrome) from 4x5 and then found, years later, Fuji 64T used for copying watercolor paintings. 64T had no observable grain and a 4x5 transparency converted to a 640MB image for printing.

When the GFX came out my mind kept saying sell everything and invest in the new system. Sanity revived its head and found my Sony A99II with Minolta AF lenses had more than enough for big prints. And, for T/S I still had 5x7 and 4x10 systems for B/W.

Now my mind is once again saying get 2 GFX100II with the new 30mm T/S and 55mm lenses. But I don't want to sell most of my other camera systems this time. I drive a 1996 Chevrolet S10 that works great, so instead of getting a new truck for $60k+ why not get the GFX100II outfit.
 
Indeed - I really feel that my Sony a7R III files when printed to 30"x24" look just as good as drum scans from my 4x5 transparencies. I have a few 4x5 transparencies that could be enlarged to 40"x32", which I wouldn't do with any of the Sony files, but for all practical purposes I get as much quality from a 35 mm sensor today than from a 4x5 transparency 30 years ago.
 
Stefan_Iacob said:
I highly doubt the GFX system will have a meaningful IQ impact in your prints.
Click to expand...
I've heard that hundreds of times on this Board and all the big maker FF boards.

I never believed it then and believe it even less now.

That schtick is part of the whole storyline that all the big camera makers push. GFX is not something you need because you won't see much of a difference with prints or anywhere else when compared to FF and the many excellent top-end FF systems from Leica, Canon, Sony and Nikon.

Let's take a poll. How many GFX shooters that have bought into the system really believe that? I know Mads does because his world class product shooting techniques are a little cumbersome with GFX and FF is great for that (as it is for most things).

I guess there is some truth to it in terms of how much IQ / image fidelity / res / sensor size does one really need?

Only you can decide that.

But GFX is succeeding for a reason, and that reason is not because guys like me are stupid.

Do this. Go buy the new Dell 6K 32-inch pro monitor.

Then go buy a GFX 100 II and the 45-100 and take 500 shots. Load the first shot into LR. Throw the other 499 away.

Look at the first shot in LR on that screen.

Then come back on this thread and tell us what you think.
 
Greg7579 said:
Stefan_Iacob said:
I highly doubt the GFX system will have a meaningful IQ impact in your prints.
Click to expand...
I've heard that hundreds of times on this Board and all the big maker FF boards.

I never believed it then and believe it even less now.

That schtick is part of the whole storyline that all the big camera makers push. GFX is not something you need because you won't see much of a difference with prints or anywhere else when compared to FF and the many excellent top-end FF systems from Leica, Canon, Sony and Nikon.

Let's take a poll. How many GFX shooters that have bought into the system really believe that? I know Mads does because his world class product shooting techniques are a little cumbersome with GFX and FF is great for that (as it is for most things).

I guess there is some truth to it in terms of how much IQ / image fidelity / res / sensor size does one really need?

Only you can decide that.

But GFX is succeeding for a reason, and that reason is not because guys like me are stupid.

Do this. Go buy the new Dell 6K 32-inch pro monitor.

Then go buy a GFX 100 II and the 45-100 and take 500 shots. Load the first shot into LR. Throw the other 499 away.

Look at the first shot in LR on that screen.

Then come back on this thread and tell us what you think.
Click to expand...
I don't quite get what you're driving at with this. But nobody said that you cannot see a difference between the so-called 'full format' and GFX, or Hasselblad X, for that matter, - to see that that claim is nonsense you just have to look at the dpreview studio scene. The discussion is whether you see it in a print to 30"x24"? In this respect, there seems to be some consensus that mostly you won't, you have to print (much) larger.
 
Last edited:
Arcimboldo said:
Indeed - I really feel that my Sony a7R III files when printed to 30"x24" look just as good as drum scans from my 4x5 transparencies. I have a few 4x5 transparencies that could be enlarged to 40"x32", which I wouldn't do with any of the Sony files, but for all practical purposes I get as much quality from a 35 mm sensor today than from a 4x5 transparency 30 years ago.
Click to expand...
Hi,

As a check point, quite a few photographers converted from 4"x5" to Phase One P45/P45+ back in 2006/2007. Thinking of Bill Atkison, Charlie Cramer and Joseph Holmes, if memory serves me right.

Charlie Cramer shared quite a lot of info comparing P45 with 4"x5" Velvia.

I have a P45+ (39 MP) on Hasselblad V which I used 2013-2015 on side with Sony A99 at 24 MP. Had to go past A2 (16"x23") to observe differences.

It may be possible to eek out more performance from Velvia, Charlie Cramer scanned at 2000 PPI. I suppose that 2000 PPI on 4"x5" Velvia was good enough for the intended purpose.

My own experience was with Pentax 67 on Velvia, mostly scanned on a CCD scanner at 3200 PPI, I would have pegged the result around 20 MP in real world terms, but with 24 MP digital being much cleaner.

I have a few 30"x40" prints made from Velvia 67 and from digital, but I would say the jury is still out...

Best regards

Erik
 
Arcimboldo said:
Greg7579 said:
Stefan_Iacob said:
I highly doubt the GFX system will have a meaningful IQ impact in your prints.
Click to expand...
I've heard that hundreds of times on this Board and all the big maker FF boards.

I never believed it then and believe it even less now.

That schtick is part of the whole storyline that all the big camera makers push. GFX is not something you need because you won't see much of a difference with prints or anywhere else when compared to FF and the many excellent top-end FF systems from Leica, Canon, Sony and Nikon.

Let's take a poll. How many GFX shooters that have bought into the system really believe that? I know Mads does because his world class product shooting techniques are a little cumbersome with GFX and FF is great for that (as it is for most things).

I guess there is some truth to it in terms of how much IQ / image fidelity / res / sensor size does one really need?

Only you can decide that.

But GFX is succeeding for a reason, and that reason is not because guys like me are stupid.

Do this. Go buy the new Dell 6K 32-inch pro monitor.

Then go buy a GFX 100 II and the 45-100 and take 500 shots. Load the first shot into LR. Throw the other 499 away.

Look at the first shot in LR on that screen.

Then come back on this thread and tell us what you think.
Click to expand...
I don't quite get what you're driving at with this. But nobody said that you cannot see a difference between the so-called 'full format' and GFX, or Hasselblad X, for that matter, - to see that that claim is nonsense you just have to look at the dpreview studio scene. The discussion is whether you see it in a print to 30"x24"? In this respect, there seems to be some consensus that mostly you won't, you have to print (much) larger.
Click to expand...
My printer will do a practical max of 16" x 16" for square crops. I don't see a difference.
 
Erik Kaffehr said:
As a check point, quite a few photographers converted from 4"x5" to Phase One P45/P45+ back in 2006/2007. Thinking of Bill Atkison, Charlie Cramer and Joseph Holmes, if memory serves me right.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I was emailing Joseph Holmes a few months ago. He is using GFX 100S. Good enough for me.
 
Arcimboldo said:
Arcimboldo said:
Arcimboldo said:
Arcimboldo 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...
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.
Click to expand...
IIRC there's a third-party 17mm manual-focus lens for GFX, but that's about it.
Arcimboldo said:
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
Click to expand...
My equivalence calculation was based on the stated 4:5 output aspect ratio (for which it's 0.73x), and for that it's correct. For the overall average using the sensor diagonals, it's about 0.79x. If the output is e.g. 2:3 or 1:2, then the equivalence factor is 0.82x.
Click to expand...
Oh, my bad :D
Click to expand...
No worries!

Also, I was curious about third-party ultrawide GFX lenses, so looking just now at B&H, I see Venus Optics / Laowa offering:

* 15mm f/4.5R Zero-D Shift,

* 17mm f/4 GFX Zero-D,

* 19mm f/2.8 Zero-D, and

* 20mm f/4 Zero-D Shift.

Yes four (!) GFX ultrawides, two of them shift lenses, all of them currently $1,000.
 
NAwlins Contrarian said:
NAwlins Contrarian said:
NAwlins Contrarian said:
NAwlins Contrarian said:
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.
Click to expand...
IIRC there's a third-party 17mm manual-focus lens for GFX, but that's about it.
NAwlins Contrarian said:
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
Click to expand...
My equivalence calculation was based on the stated 4:5 output aspect ratio (for which it's 0.73x), and for that it's correct. For the overall average using the sensor diagonals, it's about 0.79x. If the output is e.g. 2:3 or 1:2, then the equivalence factor is 0.82x.
Click to expand...
Oh, my bad :D
Click to expand...
No worries!

Also, I was curious about third-party ultrawide GFX lenses, so looking just now at B&H, I see Venus Optics / Laowa offering:

* 15mm f/4.5R Zero-D Shift,

* 17mm f/4 GFX Zero-D,

* 19mm f/2.8 Zero-D, and

* 20mm f/4 Zero-D Shift.

Yes four (!) GFX ultrawides, two of them shift lenses, all of them currently $1,000.
Click to expand...
There is also Canon 17mm TSE lens.
 
JimKasson said:
avalvo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is an image that depends on fine detail for its success.
Click to expand...
I love this shot.

--
Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas

Greg Johnson’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
Greg7579 said:
Stefan_Iacob said:
I highly doubt the GFX system will have a meaningful IQ impact in your prints.
Click to expand...
I've heard that hundreds of times on this Board and all the big maker FF boards.

I never believed it then and believe it even less now.

That schtick is part of the whole storyline that all the big camera makers push. GFX is not something you need because you won't see much of a difference with prints or anywhere else when compared to FF and the many excellent top-end FF systems from Leica, Canon, Sony and Nikon.

Let's take a poll. How many GFX shooters that have bought into the system really believe that? I know Mads does because his world class product shooting techniques are a little cumbersome with GFX and FF is great for that (as it is for most things).

I guess there is some truth to it in terms of how much IQ / image fidelity / res / sensor size does one really need?

Only you can decide that.

But GFX is succeeding for a reason, and that reason is not because guys like me are stupid.

Do this. Go buy the new Dell 6K 32-inch pro monitor.

Then go buy a GFX 100 II and the 45-100 and take 500 shots. Load the first shot into LR. Throw the other 499 away.

Look at the first shot in LR on that screen.

Then come back on this thread and tell us what you think.
Click to expand...
Greg, respectfully, you're free to believe in whatever you want. For those who need evidence-driven answers, they look for an experimental approach to confirm or reject what they believe in. Your GFX isn't a God to believe in it.

In your 500 shots, do you know which camera was used to shoot them, or was it a blind test? In the next series of your shots, could you please take them side-by-side with any high-res 35mm camera (R5, Z8, whatever) and high-end lenses and point to us the difference in "fidelity" (not sure what it is) that you see so obviously? At least to some distant extent, you'd have a reference control that you can compare to.

I love the shots that I took with my Leica S006. But I know these shots were taken with that camera, and that makes me biased. Do you understand the analogy?
 
bobby350z said:
bobby350z said:
bobby350z said:
bobby350z said:
bobby350z said:
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.
Click to expand...
IIRC there's a third-party 17mm manual-focus lens for GFX, but that's about it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Also, I was curious about third-party ultrawide GFX lenses, so looking just now at B&H, I see Venus Optics / Laowa offering:

* 15mm f/4.5R Zero-D Shift,

* 17mm f/4 GFX Zero-D,

* 19mm f/2.8 Zero-D, and

* 20mm f/4 Zero-D Shift.

Yes four (!) GFX ultrawides, two of them shift lenses, all of them currently $1,000.
Click to expand...
There is also Canon 17mm TSE lens.
Click to expand...
If you open the consideration to adapted lenses, then I imagine there are a bunch of other options. The Laowa ones above have a GFX mount on them / do not require any sort of adapter, although they are not auto-focus.
 
kparseg said:
Greg7579 said:
Stefan_Iacob said:
I highly doubt the GFX system will have a meaningful IQ impact in your prints.
Click to expand...
I've heard that hundreds of times on this Board and all the big maker FF boards.

I never believed it then and believe it even less now.

That schtick is part of the whole storyline that all the big camera makers push. GFX is not something you need because you won't see much of a difference with prints or anywhere else when compared to FF and the many excellent top-end FF systems from Leica, Canon, Sony and Nikon.

Let's take a poll. How many GFX shooters that have bought into the system really believe that? I know Mads does because his world class product shooting techniques are a little cumbersome with GFX and FF is great for that (as it is for most things).

I guess there is some truth to it in terms of how much IQ / image fidelity / res / sensor size does one really need?

Only you can decide that.

But GFX is succeeding for a reason, and that reason is not because guys like me are stupid.

Do this. Go buy the new Dell 6K 32-inch pro monitor.

Then go buy a GFX 100 II and the 45-100 and take 500 shots. Load the first shot into LR. Throw the other 499 away.

Look at the first shot in LR on that screen.

Then come back on this thread and tell us what you think.
Click to expand...
Greg, respectfully, you're free to believe in whatever you want. For those who need evidence-driven answers, they look for an experimental approach to confirm or reject what they believe in. Your GFX isn't a God to believe in it.

In your 500 shots, do you know which camera was used to shoot them, or was it a blind test? In the next series of your shots, could you please take them side-by-side with any high-res 35mm camera (R5, Z8, whatever) and high-end lenses and point to us the difference in "fidelity" (not sure what it is) that you see so obviously? At least to some distant extent, you'd have a reference control that you can compare to.

I love the shots that I took with my Leica S006. But I know these shots were taken with that camera, and that makes me biased. Do you understand the analogy?
Click to expand...
We will just have to respectfully disagree on this whole FF vs GFX bit.

You pick and then buy your FF camera system and shoot it. They are all good.

But you should try my experiment. You will see.

If you think that image fidelity between any FF system and GFX is close, then I know you are wrong.

But you are a lucky man in thinking that. It saves you a lot of money.
 
DMillier said:
I don't see a difference.
Click to expand...
You never have and you never will. It's a mystery to me, but some people just don't. Those numbers are few.

If they were large numbers, GFX would not exist.

So why in the world would you even think about spending money on GFX David?

Me finally convincing you to get a decent monitor should have showed you something.

You should be able to see it. It is so glaringly obvious (at least to me).

Save money and go shoot Fuji X. APSC is all you need, and it is outstanding IQ.

We've been through this a hundred times in the past 5 years.

These cameras are all so good. Just pick one and be happy, and don't pick GFX if you don't immediately and clearly see a big difference in image fidelity. Pick FF or APSC.

Or better yet, just use a phone. Those are fine for the web and smaller prints.

Save the money and go on a nice trip.
 
Greg7579 said:
kparseg said:
Greg7579 said:
Stefan_Iacob said:
I highly doubt the GFX system will have a meaningful IQ impact in your prints.
Click to expand...
I've heard that hundreds of times on this Board and all the big maker FF boards.

I never believed it then and believe it even less now.

That schtick is part of the whole storyline that all the big camera makers push. GFX is not something you need because you won't see much of a difference with prints or anywhere else when compared to FF and the many excellent top-end FF systems from Leica, Canon, Sony and Nikon.

Let's take a poll. How many GFX shooters that have bought into the system really believe that? I know Mads does because his world class product shooting techniques are a little cumbersome with GFX and FF is great for that (as it is for most things).

I guess there is some truth to it in terms of how much IQ / image fidelity / res / sensor size does one really need?

Only you can decide that.

But GFX is succeeding for a reason, and that reason is not because guys like me are stupid.

Do this. Go buy the new Dell 6K 32-inch pro monitor.

Then go buy a GFX 100 II and the 45-100 and take 500 shots. Load the first shot into LR. Throw the other 499 away.

Look at the first shot in LR on that screen.

Then come back on this thread and tell us what you think.
Click to expand...
Greg, respectfully, you're free to believe in whatever you want. For those who need evidence-driven answers, they look for an experimental approach to confirm or reject what they believe in. Your GFX isn't a God to believe in it.

In your 500 shots, do you know which camera was used to shoot them, or was it a blind test? In the next series of your shots, could you please take them side-by-side with any high-res 35mm camera (R5, Z8, whatever) and high-end lenses and point to us the difference in "fidelity" (not sure what it is) that you see so obviously? At least to some distant extent, you'd have a reference control that you can compare to.

I love the shots that I took with my Leica S006. But I know these shots were taken with that camera, and that makes me biased. Do you understand the analogy?
Click to expand...
We will just have to respectfully disagree on this whole FF vs GFX bit.

You pick and then buy your FF camera system and shoot it. They are all good.

But you should try my experiment. You will see.

If you think that image fidelity between any FF system and GFX is close, then I know you are wrong.

But you are a lucky man in thinking that. It saves you a lot of money.
Click to expand...
And what's your experiment specifically? Taking images with a single camera, looking at them, and saying "Yeah, the fidelity in these images taken with GFX is much better than in images taken with Canon 5 years ago in different environments and different processing software?"

I have Leica S 006, Nikon Z8, and Canon R5. For static subjects I like the Leica S006 the best, you know why? Because I cared to learn how to use this camera the most when I was younger, not because it provides some imaginary better fidelity. And yes, I used GFX 50s with 110 f2, and to me, a biased color-blind mere mortal, S 006 with 100 f2 Summicron is a better portrait combination. Can you ask me for a proof? I don't have it but I don't claim I do. But if I claimed it's better because of some measurements, I'd take these measurements first before I speak.

If I decide that the image fidelity between 35mm and GFX is the same, how can you prove that I'm wrong? What are you going to measure to determine that?

35mm doesn't really save you a lot of money anymore. That's why GFX became so popular first of all. When have you looked at the 35mm gear prices last time?

Please also educate yourself on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo
 
kparseg said:
And what's your experiment specifically? Taking images with a single camera, looking at them, and saying "Yeah, the fidelity in these images taken with GFX is much better than in images taken with Canon 5 years ago in different environments and different processing software?"

I have Leica S 006, Nikon Z8, and Canon R5. For static subjects I like the Leica S006 the best, you know why? Because I cared to learn how to use this camera the most when I was younger, not because it provides some imaginary better fidelity. And yes, I used GFX 50s with 110 f2, and to me, a biased color-blind mere mortal, S 006 with 100 f2 Summicron is a better portrait combination. Can you ask me for a proof? I don't have it but I don't claim I do. But if I claimed it's better because of some measurements, I'd take these measurements first before I speak.

If I decide that the image fidelity between 35mm and GFX is the same, how can you prove that I'm wrong?
Click to expand...
I can't. No one can.
kparseg said:
What are you going to measure to determine that?
Click to expand...
Looking.
kparseg said:
35mm doesn't really save you a lot of money anymore. That's why GFX became so popular first of all. When have you looked at the 35mm gear prices last time?
Click to expand...
GFX costs a lot more money once you start down that road. But the bodies are getting cheaper. I paid 10 grand for the first GFX 100.

Look, do yourself a favor. Go shoot those FF systems and be happy. Why worry about GFX? Forget about it.... No need to try to talk yourself slowly into it. Just stay with FF and be happy. Those FF systems are all sort of a wash and are all really good.

GFX is more than FF (Fuji advert!) but you'll never know it unless you run my experiment, which involves looking at the files and just going - wow.

It doesn't matter. For me it's all just for fun. I don't care if people are deluded into actually believing that FF image fidelity matches a sensor that is 70% bigger and shot with GF glass. I don't care anymore. I just want you to be happy because we are all a dying breed of photographers who like cameras. We gotta stick together.

Hey Jim - some lady this morning emailed me and asked me for 7 of my recent GFX shots for some kind of book on Southern churches they are publishing. They want me to sign a release for them, Why is that? Happens all the time.

My images are free....

--
Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums
 
Last edited:
Greg7579 said:
They want me to sign a release for them, Why is that? Happens all the time.

My images are free....
Click to expand...
The lawyers for their publisher/printer probably want it in writing.

Sterling
--
Lens Grit
 
NAwlins Contrarian said:
NAwlins Contrarian said:
NAwlins Contrarian said:
NAwlins Contrarian said:
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.
Click to expand...
IIRC there's a third-party 17mm manual-focus lens for GFX, but that's about it.
NAwlins Contrarian said:
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
Click to expand...
My equivalence calculation was based on the stated 4:5 output aspect ratio (for which it's 0.73x), and for that it's correct. For the overall average using the sensor diagonals, it's about 0.79x. If the output is e.g. 2:3 or 1:2, then the equivalence factor is 0.82x.
Click to expand...
Oh, my bad :D
Click to expand...
No worries!

Also, I was curious about third-party ultrawide GFX lenses, so looking just now at B&H, I see Venus Optics / Laowa offering:

* 15mm f/4.5R Zero-D Shift,

* 17mm f/4 GFX Zero-D,

* 19mm f/2.8 Zero-D, and

* 20mm f/4 Zero-D Shift.

Yes four (!) GFX ultrawides, two of them shift lenses, all of them currently $1,000.
Click to expand...
I would love to see a decent review of the 4 Laowa lenses. Does anyone know which of these is considered to have the best IQ? (Corner sharpness mainly). Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JimKasson
  • Sticky
GFX 100RF review draft
5 6 7
Replies
139
Views
173K
ZilverHaylide
Z
N
  • Question Question
What the spot? Help needed with GF 55 f/1.7 + Fujifilm GFX 100 II
Replies
3
Views
2K
alpshiker
A
JFScheck
  • Locked
FujiFilm GFX 100S II: An Upgrade Worth Celebrating
Replies
4
Views
5K
ZilverHaylide
Z
G
Getting into GFX at last - a GFX 100 (original) - tips?
2
Replies
29
Views
12K
GeoffHarris
G
M
GFX 100RF - sharpness compared to GF 32-64mm
3 4 5
Replies
97
Views
17K
jhunna
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