XT5 vs GFX100s

Greg7579 said:

DMillier said:

All this talk of DPR spoiling the image quality seems so much hot air to me.

Click to expand...

I first said it 7 years ago, then 5 years ago and many times since. I don't use those terms though.

DPR doesn't spoil the image. But in my opinion, they need to remove that 100% zoom function nor figure out a way to make it scale correctly because my images look like garbage on there and so do yours when I click on that function.

Many people have formed judgements on other people's images based on viewing a trashed-out view that looks horrible compared to what you see when you view the actual full-size high-quality jpeg at full res.

I have always thought it was a very serious problem on a photography web site.

Either remove the function or fix it. It is dreadfully misleading and 99% of the people on here don't know what they are looking at when they use 100% zoom.

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

Greg7579 said:

bobby350z said:

Greg7579 said:

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

Seriously and all kidding aside.... There could be other factors at play here that we don't know, and I never trust viewing a jpeg using the very unreliable DPR "100% Zoom" option,

Click to expand...

It's not unreliable if you understand all the places where scaling is taking place.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know - I'm not knocking DPR on this at all. My only point is that when people out there click on 100 Zoom, we don't know what they are seeing or making judgments off of.

I don't understand the web-based tech that would explain this, but in LR when we tell it to view at 1:1 full res, it scales perfectly with how we have our monitors set up in windows. 6K monitors scale at 25% in windows. I think 4K was 175% (can't remember).

But on the internet inside of DPR, it doesn't know what monitor you are using or what your windows setting is once you click on that link to view at full zoom because that takes you outside of the normal web interface for the site. The rest of DPR scales beautifully when you are in normal views.

I said that wrong, but it is a scaling problem that applies only to view at 100% zoom, and not to the rest of the interface.

Click to expand...

Why not click on the external link and view that way? I never ever used that dpr window which pops up on clicking on the pictures.

Click to expand...

I don't understand. What are you talking about? I click on the image and then I click on Full Zoom.

Click to expand...

This how I view DPR files at 1:1



When you click the "original size" link, it opens a new browser tab automatically and loads the file. If you click "original link" for two different images, it opens them in different tabs and you can compare them easily by flicking back and forth between the tabs. Or you can open a tab, right click the image and "save as" if you want to download the files and use your own viewing software (like LR's X-Y comparator).

I never use the DPR viewing tool, I don't see any IQ difference between the tab view and the downloads. All this talk of DPR spoiling the image quality seems so much hot air to me.

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

Greg7579 said:

bobby350z said:

Greg7579 said:

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

Seriously and all kidding aside.... There could be other factors at play here that we don't know, and I never trust viewing a jpeg using the very unreliable DPR "100% Zoom" option,

Click to expand...

It's not unreliable if you understand all the places where scaling is taking place.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know - I'm not knocking DPR on this at all. My only point is that when people out there click on 100 Zoom, we don't know what they are seeing or making judgments off of.

I don't understand the web-based tech that would explain this, but in LR when we tell it to view at 1:1 full res, it scales perfectly with how we have our monitors set up in windows. 6K monitors scale at 25% in windows. I think 4K was 175% (can't remember).

But on the internet inside of DPR, it doesn't know what monitor you are using or what your windows setting is once you click on that link to view at full zoom because that takes you outside of the normal web interface for the site. The rest of DPR scales beautifully when you are in normal views.

I said that wrong, but it is a scaling problem that applies only to view at 100% zoom, and not to the rest of the interface.

Click to expand...

Why not click on the external link and view that way? I never ever used that dpr window which pops up on clicking on the pictures.

Click to expand...

I don't understand. What are you talking about? I click on the image and then I click on Full Zoom.

Click to expand...

This how I view DPR files at 1:1



When you click the "original size" link, it opens a new browser tab automatically and loads the file. If you click "original link" for two different images, it opens them in different tabs and you can compare them easily by flicking back and forth between the tabs. Or you can open a tab, right click the image and "save as" if you want to download the files and use your own viewing software (like LR's X-Y comparator).

I never use the DPR viewing tool, I don't see any IQ difference between the tab view and the downloads. All this talk of DPR spoiling the image quality seems so much hot air to me.

Click to expand...

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

JimKasson said:

DMillier said:

Greg7579 said:

bobby350z said:

Greg7579 said:

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

Seriously and all kidding aside.... There could be other factors at play here that we don't know, and I never trust viewing a jpeg using the very unreliable DPR "100% Zoom" option,

Click to expand...

It's not unreliable if you understand all the places where scaling is taking place.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know - I'm not knocking DPR on this at all. My only point is that when people out there click on 100 Zoom, we don't know what they are seeing or making judgments off of.

I don't understand the web-based tech that would explain this, but in LR when we tell it to view at 1:1 full res, it scales perfectly with how we have our monitors set up in windows. 6K monitors scale at 25% in windows. I think 4K was 175% (can't remember).

But on the internet inside of DPR, it doesn't know what monitor you are using or what your windows setting is once you click on that link to view at full zoom because that takes you outside of the normal web interface for the site. The rest of DPR scales beautifully when you are in normal views.

I said that wrong, but it is a scaling problem that applies only to view at 100% zoom, and not to the rest of the interface.

Click to expand...

Why not click on the external link and view that way? I never ever used that dpr window which pops up on clicking on the pictures.

Click to expand...

I don't understand. What are you talking about? I click on the image and then I click on Full Zoom.

Click to expand...

This how I view DPR files at 1:1



When you click the "original size" link, it opens a new browser tab automatically and loads the file. If you click "original link" for two different images, it opens them in different tabs and you can compare them easily by flicking back and forth between the tabs. Or you can open a tab, right click the image and "save as" if you want to download the files and use your own viewing software (like LR's X-Y comparator).

I never use the DPR viewing tool, I don't see any IQ difference between the tab view and the downloads. All this talk of DPR spoiling the image quality seems so much hot air to me.

Click to expand...

That approach is still subject to OS and browser scaling. Solution is not to view the files in a browser.

--
https://blog.kasson.com

Click to expand...

Rodenmg said:

JimKasson said:

DMillier said:

Greg7579 said:

bobby350z said:

Greg7579 said:

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

Seriously and all kidding aside.... There could be other factors at play here that we don't know, and I never trust viewing a jpeg using the very unreliable DPR "100% Zoom" option,

Click to expand...

It's not unreliable if you understand all the places where scaling is taking place.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know - I'm not knocking DPR on this at all. My only point is that when people out there click on 100 Zoom, we don't know what they are seeing or making judgments off of.

I don't understand the web-based tech that would explain this, but in LR when we tell it to view at 1:1 full res, it scales perfectly with how we have our monitors set up in windows. 6K monitors scale at 25% in windows. I think 4K was 175% (can't remember).

But on the internet inside of DPR, it doesn't know what monitor you are using or what your windows setting is once you click on that link to view at full zoom because that takes you outside of the normal web interface for the site. The rest of DPR scales beautifully when you are in normal views.

I said that wrong, but it is a scaling problem that applies only to view at 100% zoom, and not to the rest of the interface.

Click to expand...

Why not click on the external link and view that way? I never ever used that dpr window which pops up on clicking on the pictures.

Click to expand...

I don't understand. What are you talking about? I click on the image and then I click on Full Zoom.

Click to expand...

This how I view DPR files at 1:1



When you click the "original size" link, it opens a new browser tab automatically and loads the file. If you click "original link" for two different images, it opens them in different tabs and you can compare them easily by flicking back and forth between the tabs. Or you can open a tab, right click the image and "save as" if you want to download the files and use your own viewing software (like LR's X-Y comparator).

I never use the DPR viewing tool, I don't see any IQ difference between the tab view and the downloads. All this talk of DPR spoiling the image quality seems so much hot air to me.

Click to expand...

That approach is still subject to OS and browser scaling. Solution is not to view the files in a browser.

Click to expand...

Normally I use this method and once opened in the browser right click on it, do a save as and then open in PS.

Click to expand...

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

JimKasson said:

DMillier said:

Greg7579 said:

bobby350z said:

Greg7579 said:

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

Seriously and all kidding aside.... There could be other factors at play here that we don't know, and I never trust viewing a jpeg using the very unreliable DPR "100% Zoom" option,

Click to expand...

It's not unreliable if you understand all the places where scaling is taking place.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know - I'm not knocking DPR on this at all. My only point is that when people out there click on 100 Zoom, we don't know what they are seeing or making judgments off of.

I don't understand the web-based tech that would explain this, but in LR when we tell it to view at 1:1 full res, it scales perfectly with how we have our monitors set up in windows. 6K monitors scale at 25% in windows. I think 4K was 175% (can't remember).

But on the internet inside of DPR, it doesn't know what monitor you are using or what your windows setting is once you click on that link to view at full zoom because that takes you outside of the normal web interface for the site. The rest of DPR scales beautifully when you are in normal views.

I said that wrong, but it is a scaling problem that applies only to view at 100% zoom, and not to the rest of the interface.

Click to expand...

Why not click on the external link and view that way? I never ever used that dpr window which pops up on clicking on the pictures.

Click to expand...

I don't understand. What are you talking about? I click on the image and then I click on Full Zoom.

Click to expand...

This how I view DPR files at 1:1



When you click the "original size" link, it opens a new browser tab automatically and loads the file. If you click "original link" for two different images, it opens them in different tabs and you can compare them easily by flicking back and forth between the tabs. Or you can open a tab, right click the image and "save as" if you want to download the files and use your own viewing software (like LR's X-Y comparator).

I never use the DPR viewing tool, I don't see any IQ difference between the tab view and the downloads. All this talk of DPR spoiling the image quality seems so much hot air to me.

Click to expand...

That approach is still subject to OS and browser scaling. Solution is not to view the files in a browser.

Click to expand...

Ap0ll0n said:

DMillier said:

Ap0ll0n said:

bobby350z said:

DMillier said:

I didn't mean you can use PP to correct a problem with the camera and make it more like it's big brother, I meant the difference is not inherent to the cameras, it's either a lighting difference or one caused by differences in editing.

Click to expand...

Lighting was changing fast as sun was coming in/out of the clouds for the winery shot. The bldg shot was at evening similar lighting changes between one shot and the next. Also due to ISO being 125 on XT5, I had to make some changes on the fly. The only adjustment in post is very small change in exposure to make them look same.

Click to expand...

Ok! That clarifies what I had also asked before. So I don't think we should be looking at this photo in that case. It has been amusing and the rest hopefully helpful to folks that don't know the difference.

Click to expand...

Nothing in life is perfect unless you are as accurate a tester as Jim. There is nothing amusing about this series of comparisons, I find them quite shocking.

But I am getting the clear message from you that you made up your mind in advance that the GFX is going automatically to be vastly superior and you have no intention of being dissuaded of that by mere evidence. So these examples which show that the the cameras produce remarkably similar results, are just going to be dismissed and laughed away.

Click to expand...

Good afternoon Daniel

First, may I just say I love your photos and find you have a great ability of isolating a subject. Many folks can learn from you on that front.

About Fuji X vs GFX, I can see why you may think that about me. Let me inform you I have been a Fuji X user since the X100, and eventually since the XT5, came out, and having shot over 100k photos on them, I have some clue of what that system can do. I have also done my own and looked at more than the couple of GFX comparisons shown here, some of which I posted in this forum very recently. And I hope you realize I was replying to a blind test, Before the OP confirmed which photo belongs to which camera. So I agree with you that I have made up my mind, just Not in advance.

And nobody is laughing away at anything by the way, which I believe is evident via my courteous and objective exchange and discussion with the OP. Not sure why you would think all that.

Finally, of course nothing is perfect but, in case it wasn't obvious, I was supporting that the last two photos were doing a disservice to the XT5, not the other way round.

Ap0ll0n said:

I'm mightily impressed by the 40MP APS-C files. I expected the GFX to absolutely slaughter it, but to my eyes, while the medium format has the edge, the differences are quite subtle, almost close to negligible.

Were I completely camera-less at this point in time, with a bunch of cash lined up to spend on new gear, I would certainly be inclined to pursue further comparisons and take a closer look at the APS-C system. The advantages of smaller formats in convenience, portability and flexibility, cost, are undeniable, MF relies on far superior image quality, but I'm not seeing it here.

It very much looks to me from this comparison, that with today's modern sensors, the advantage largely goes to the sensor with the highest pixel count. The sensor size may not be so important. Medium format has the edge, not because of the sensor size per se, but because the big sensor allows more pixels, and more pixels allows more detail. But here I'm seeing that even a massive 2.5x the pixel count advantage doesn't seem to make that much difference. And noise and DR advantages at base ISO don't really seem to be that useful any more, because all sensors are so thoroughly scrubbed of noise.

The question I am left with after this demo is why aren't the GFX results much, much better, rather than hardly better at all? The sensor is 3x the area and has 250% more pixels. It should annihilate the 40MP sensor, but it doesn't. Have we reached the era of diminishing returns where you pay 10x the price for a 5% improvement? How big do you have to print to be able to see any difference at all?

It would be very interesting to see the comparison with the 50MP MF sensor...

Click to expand...

Thank you for your thoughts and opinion.

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

I don't use any scaling, everything set to 100%, that may be why people using scaling do see something different.

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

DPR needs to delete the 100% Zoom option or fix the scaling like mother sites have.

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

DavidMillier said:

Click to expand...

Apologies if that previous post came out a bit harsh.

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

DMillier said:

I don't use any scaling, everything set to 100%, that may be why people using scaling do see something different.

Click to expand...

You have to scale with windows using a 4K, 5K or 6K monitor, and every GFX anbd Hassy shooter should be using a 4K pro monitor of at least 27 and preferably 32 inches, so you should be scaling on your 4K monitor.

In Windows you set scaling for 4K monitors at 150 or sometimes 175%. 6K 250%.

If you don't, your websites and productivity programs are going to present very small and distorted and you won't be reading text.

Windows is very good at scaling now so of course you are scaling on your 4K monitor.

If you are not, you are wrong.

DPR needs to delete the 100% Zoom option or fix the scaling like mother sites have.

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

Ap0ll0n said:

DMillier said:

Ap0ll0n said:

bobby350z said:

DMillier said:

I didn't mean you can use PP to correct a problem with the camera and make it more like it's big brother, I meant the difference is not inherent to the cameras, it's either a lighting difference or one caused by differences in editing.

Click to expand...

Lighting was changing fast as sun was coming in/out of the clouds for the winery shot. The bldg shot was at evening similar lighting changes between one shot and the next. Also due to ISO being 125 on XT5, I had to make some changes on the fly. The only adjustment in post is very small change in exposure to make them look same.

Click to expand...

Ok! That clarifies what I had also asked before. So I don't think we should be looking at this photo in that case. It has been amusing and the rest hopefully helpful to folks that don't know the difference.

Click to expand...

Nothing in life is perfect unless you are as accurate a tester as Jim. There is nothing amusing about this series of comparisons, I find them quite shocking.

But I am getting the clear message from you that you made up your mind in advance that the GFX is going automatically to be vastly superior and you have no intention of being dissuaded of that by mere evidence. So these examples which show that the the cameras produce remarkably similar results, are just going to be dismissed and laughed away.

Click to expand...

Good afternoon Daniel

First, may I just say I love your photos and find you have a great ability of isolating a subject. Many folks can learn from you on that front.

About Fuji X vs GFX, I can see why you may think that about me. Let me inform you I have been a Fuji X user since the X100, and eventually since the XT5, came out, and having shot over 100k photos on them, I have some clue of what that system can do. I have also done my own and looked at more than the couple of GFX comparisons shown here, some of which I posted in this forum very recently. And I hope you realize I was replying to a blind test, Before the OP confirmed which photo belongs to which camera. So I agree with you that I have made up my mind, just Not in advance.

And nobody is laughing away at anything by the way, which I believe is evident via my courteous and objective exchange and discussion with the OP. Not sure why you would think all that.

Finally, of course nothing is perfect but, in case it wasn't obvious, I was supporting that the last two photos were doing a disservice to the XT5, not the other way round.

DavidMillier said:

I'm mightily impressed by the 40MP APS-C files. I expected the GFX to absolutely slaughter it, but to my eyes, while the medium format has the edge, the differences are quite subtle, almost close to negligible.

Were I completely camera-less at this point in time, with a bunch of cash lined up to spend on new gear, I would certainly be inclined to pursue further comparisons and take a closer look at the APS-C system. The advantages of smaller formats in convenience, portability and flexibility, cost, are undeniable, MF relies on far superior image quality, but I'm not seeing it here.

It very much looks to me from this comparison, that with today's modern sensors, the advantage largely goes to the sensor with the highest pixel count. The sensor size may not be so important. Medium format has the edge, not because of the sensor size per se, but because the big sensor allows more pixels, and more pixels allows more detail. But here I'm seeing that even a massive 2.5x the pixel count advantage doesn't seem to make that much difference. And noise and DR advantages at base ISO don't really seem to be that useful any more, because all sensors are so thoroughly scrubbed of noise.

The question I am left with after this demo is why aren't the GFX results much, much better, rather than hardly better at all? The sensor is 3x the area and has 250% more pixels. It should annihilate the 40MP sensor, but it doesn't. Have we reached the era of diminishing returns where you pay 10x the price for a 5% improvement? How big do you have to print to be able to see any difference at all?

It would be very interesting to see the comparison with the 50MP MF sensor...

Click to expand...

Thank you for your thoughts and opinion.

Click to expand...

David, not Daniel, but you can call me Dan

Apologies if that previous post came out a bit harsh.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

DPR needs to delete the 100% Zoom option or fix the scaling like mother sites have.

Click to expand...

It's not DPR's problem. It's sending the right information to the browser.

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

DavidMillier said:

You encouraged/ordered me to get a 4K monitor. I don't regret it, but I do regret how bloody tiny the writing is.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

DavidMillier said:

Of course, I blame you for this inconvenience.

Click to expand...

DavidMillier said:

And for making me buy medium format gear

Click to expand...

DavidMillier said:

for making me upgrade my computer and buying a new graphics card and tripling the amount of RAM.

Click to expand...

DavidMillier said:

And, indeed, for buying an A7Riv

Click to expand...

DavidMillier said:

and for the choice of holiday destinations, and for the value of the pound and for England losing the European Cup final after extra time on penalties (oh, wait, that's later tonight)....

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

DPR needs to delete the 100% Zoom option or fix the scaling like mother sites have.

Click to expand...

It's not DPR's problem. It's sending the right information to the browser.

Click to expand...

It is DPR's problem and even more our problem. They could fix it if they tried hard a spent a little money.

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

They could better control how jpeg files present with certain viewing options all the way to full res (and not beyond), and they could allow downloads of various sizes like Flickr, but they don't, which is a choice.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Tell me how they could fix the 100% viewing issue.

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

JimKasson said:

Tell me how they could fix the 100% viewing issue.

Click to expand...

Hire some IT guys and tell them to fix it.

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

We had this discussion 5 years ago when I told you the problems it was causing when people made judgements based on the mess that is that function, and you got really mad at me for attacking DPR! LOL.

Click to expand...