Why is cropping all of a sudden such a topic?

On this new camera, there are more crop modes that mimic legacy Fuji film cameras that were "niche popular", #1, and with this new camera you've now got a sensor big enough that if you change the aspect ration and/or crop (in some cases) you've still got FF image size (in some cases you've got FF on one axis but not another). After that APSC size in the same way.

They seem to have thought a lot about this in the development stage, and it seems to have been a partial driver for other decisions they made, such as the 35mm FL. It's a way they see the fixed FL as less of an issue. I think they are partially right. It seems the first "reviewers" all warmed up to this feature even after being skeptical.

With the APSC camera cropping is immediately more of an issue in terms of the MP one is "throwing away".

DJF55 said:

Just wondering, maybe I am missing something: why is the cropping topic such in focus for the new GFX 100RF and not for the X100VI? Both are non-zoom fixed lens, high MP cameras. Is it lack if IBIS? I don't thinks so - cropping should in my view not compensate for shake. Is it the aperture? If neither, why? Thanks for thoughts and wisdom!

Click to expand...

Because Fuji saw use of the camera to "zoom" by cropping as one of its appeals and saw shoppers wanting to use it that way as a significant slice of the potential market for this camera. This is strongly inferable from its "crop lever" as well as from Fuji PR and marketing content, verbal and otherwise.

And because this potential use case is already being praised and blissfully exclaimed over by some of the advance reviewers and others who've had a chance to handle the camera. It is also being discussed pretty intensely by commenters here and at other discussion contexts who haven't yet handled the camera but plan to order it and are stating its "zoom" component is significant in their planned use, while other commenters are raising a skeptical eyebrow at this dimension of its supposed appeal and usability. Your reference to the no-IBIS issue being only one point of discussion.

The GFX100RF's "zoom by crop" character is getting more attention than that of the X100VI because its starting focal length from which you begin "zooming by crop" is wider, it starts with over double the megapixels, and it's a much bigger sensor to reduce coverage on in increments by cropping.

There has been a flurry of DPR features already about the camera so I'm linking this specific DPR story below, to refer you to its handy-dandy chart showing crop factor in FF terms for different "zooms." You've got "zoom" crops at around FF, APSC, and m43 coverage at different equivalent focal lengths in addition to your starting point of 28mm equivalent on the full MF sensor. More scope for "zooming" than X100VI, at least theoretically.

Do I see this as a desirable use case at $5K for F4 and no IBIS? Nope. But Fuji is betting there is a (monied) consumer base who will think it's a great "compact solution." And I would bet they've done their market research and a certain shopper will indeed want the camera to use it this way.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-gfx100rf-medium-format-fixed-lens-initial-review

DJF55 said:

Just wondering, maybe I am missing something: why is the cropping topic such in focus for the new GFX 100RF and not for the X100VI? Both are non-zoom fixed lens, high MP cameras. Is it lack if IBIS? I don't thinks so - cropping should in my view not compensate for shake. Is it the aperture? If neither, why? Thanks for thoughts and wisdom!

Click to expand...

You are close I think.

It is, because the 100RF is largely a disappointing camera. No ibis and ois is disappointing. The f4 lens with heavy distortion and vignetting is also disappointing. There is not much the camera has going for it, so that's why those whose job it is to promote the camera, are pushing the whole cropability angle. And there is some truth in it. You get a very compact camera, with great cropability.

But I think, a used 100s with a nice lens is a much better value proposition. Not as compact though obviously.

I think there are two reasons.

Firstly the X100 starts at 35mm equivalent, which is already wide-normal and is a really versatile field of view. You can’t go wide, and you’re near enough to normal that you can generally just step forward. Whereas the 100RF is natively wide, which means using it at wide-normal or normal demands a crop. Few people are going to drop nearly £5k on something for just wide angle shots. So cropping is business-as-usual for the 100RF where it’s more of a sideshow for the X100.

Secondly, I think it gets disproportionately a lot of chatter on here because sometimes there’s a bit of a belief that the entire point of medium format is to extract every last drop of image quality and detail that’s available from current technology, and that to use the sensor for any other purpose is almost heresy.

boastar said:

DJF55 said:

Just wondering, maybe I am missing something: why is the cropping topic such in focus for the new GFX 100RF and not for the X100VI? Both are non-zoom fixed lens, high MP cameras. Is it lack if IBIS? I don't thinks so - cropping should in my view not compensate for shake. Is it the aperture? If neither, why? Thanks for thoughts and wisdom!

Click to expand...

You are close I think.

It is, because the 100RF is largely a disappointing camera. No ibis and ois is disappointing. The f4 lens with heavy distortion and vignetting is also disappointing. There is not much the camera has going for it, so that's why those whose job it is to promote the camera, are pushing the whole cropability angle. And there is some truth in it. You get a very compact camera, with great cropability.

But I think, a used 100s with a nice lens is a much better value proposition. Not as compact though obviously.

Click to expand...

It's only disappointing if you don't value the small size and weight. It's a design choice.

I initially felt the same - and would have preferred a larger camera with a 3.2 lens and IBIS - but the more I looked at it the more I kept coming to the conclusion that if there was no size and weight advantage, I may as well just have an ILC GFX - so the more time goes on, the more the design choices make sense for me, and I am over my initial disappointment.

It will no doubt be a room divider though!

Jeff Biscuits said:

I think there are two reasons.

Firstly the X100 starts at 35mm equivalent, which is already wide-normal and is a really versatile field of view. You can’t go wide, and you’re near enough to normal that you can generally just step forward. Whereas the 100RF is natively wide, which means using it at wide-normal or normal demands a crop. Few people are going to drop nearly £5k on something for just wide angle shots. So cropping is business-as-usual for the 100RF where it’s more of a sideshow for the X100.

Click to expand...

Sorry Jeff, but I do not understand your point. Wide-normal, natively wide, normal ... Are you talking about the difference between 35 mm eq. and 28 mm eq? So if the 100RF had had a 35 mm eq lens, cropping would not be the flavour of the Fujifilm day?

Jeff Biscuits said:

Secondly, I think it gets disproportionately a lot of chatter on here because sometimes there’s a bit of a belief that the entire point of medium format is to extract every last drop of image quality and detail that’s available from current technology, and that to use the sensor for any other purpose is almost heresy.

Click to expand...

DJF55 said:

Jeff Biscuits said:

I think there are two reasons.

Firstly the X100 starts at 35mm equivalent, which is already wide-normal and is a really versatile field of view. You can’t go wide, and you’re near enough to normal that you can generally just step forward. Whereas the 100RF is natively wide, which means using it at wide-normal or normal demands a crop. Few people are going to drop nearly £5k on something for just wide angle shots. So cropping is business-as-usual for the 100RF where it’s more of a sideshow for the X100.

Click to expand...

Sorry Jeff, but I do not understand your point. Wide-normal, natively wide, normal ... Are you talking about the difference between 35 mm eq. and 28 mm eq? So if the 100RF had had a 35 mm eq lens, cropping would not be the flavour of the Fujifilm day?

Click to expand...

Well, not so much, certainly.

I think when people buy the X100VI they buy it as a 35mm-equivalent camera. That’s a really versatile middle-ground focal length, and in the most common situations where people would use an X100 (street, travel etc) 35mm is rarely going to be too wide, and if it is then it’s close enough to a 40-50mm equivalent that you can generally take one or two steps forward to reframe, avoiding the need to halve the pixel count to get a 50mm equivalent view from your original vantage point.

The 28mm equivalent view is a little different. It’s significantly wider than normal, so if you want that 40-50mm equivalent view then taking a few more steps forward doesn’t quite cut it as a substitute. An alternative is required, really, because a wide-plus-normal pairing (such as the classic 28-and-50 from 35mm film days) covers a ton of situations with two primes.

When the Leica Q2 came out with its higher-resolution sensor, there were quite a lot of people who were pleased about how it was now possible to crop in and retain quality, because now the one camera could usefully be both wide and normal. Cropping was now an acceptable way to make a more versatile camera from a 28mm prime.

Ricoh of course took a different approach. With a 26MP sensor and an f/2.8 lens, cropping from their long-established 28mm equivalent isn’t very appealing, so they built the 40mm equivalent GR IIIx. (Of course, Leica followed suit with the Q3 43, but I’m going to speculate that Q3 43 owners use the crop feature a lot less than Q3 owners do.)

There is a third way to approach it, which is an optical teleconverter. But they’re generally big and awkward: the X100 teleconverter is quite large in comparison to the camera and makes it quite front-heavy, and the same was true of Ricoh’s teleconverters that predated the IIIx. There is no teleconverter for the 100RF, and it seems hugely unlikely that they would attempt to design, build and sell an equally compact 50mm-ish clone of the 100RF, so the big sensor means cropping is how they deliver wide-plus-normal in one camera.

Basically I just think that people with a 28mm also find great value in a 40-50mm, but on average people with a 35mm don’t have as much need for a 50-70mm.

I could be entirely wrong of course

DJF55 said:

Jeff Biscuits said:

I think there are two reasons.

Firstly the X100 starts at 35mm equivalent, which is already wide-normal and is a really versatile field of view. You can’t go wide, and you’re near enough to normal that you can generally just step forward. Whereas the 100RF is natively wide, which means using it at wide-normal or normal demands a crop. Few people are going to drop nearly £5k on something for just wide angle shots. So cropping is business-as-usual for the 100RF where it’s more of a sideshow for the X100.

Click to expand...

Sorry Jeff, but I do not understand your point. Wide-normal, natively wide, normal ... Are you talking about the difference between 35 mm eq. and 28 mm eq? So if the 100RF had had a 35 mm eq lens, cropping would not be the flavour of the Fujifilm day?

Click to expand...

Not answering for someone else, just throwing in my 2 cents. X100 starts at 35mm equivalent, at APSC crop. X100 crop factor rises and IQ diminishes the more you crop from there.

100RF starts at 28mm equivalent at full MF sensor coverage. First "crop zoom" gives 35mm equivalent, at crop coverage of about FF. Also stated as 1:1 crop, in FF terms.

In a way, those complaining that Fuji should have given them a 35mm FF X100 are incorrect. Fuji has given them that, with a bunch of MP rez, too. But, um, F4 and no IBIS.

UsherFellig said:

In a way, those complaining that Fuji should have given them a 35mm FF X100 are incorrect. Fuji has given them that, with a bunch of MP rez, too. But, um, F4 and no IBIS.

Click to expand...

I think what they should have done is this:

Design a 38mm lens, which allows all of the aspect ratios (except the vertical 3:4, which frankly doesn’t need to exist) to be delivered with the same angle of view as a 35mm lens, giving around 70-75MP for the non-pano formats.

This would need an image circle of 46.4mm diameter, which is obviously less than the 54.8mm required for the full frame.

A smaller image circle means you can reduce the size of the optics, so this gives you the opportunity to do one of three things:

1. Make the lens even smaller.
2. Give the lens a larger aperture.
3. Keep the larger image circle, and allow the sensor to move by potentially as much as 4mm in any direction.

If you took option 3, ie IBIS, then you retain the opportunity to have a full sensor mode which locks the IBIS out and gives you a 100MP 4:3 image at 32mm equivalent. (You could set this at 28mm with the existing lens, but a 32mm-equivalent lens maximises the 35mm equivalent crops.)

So, while I’m no lens designer and things are rarely as simple as they first seem, I wonder whether committing fully to the concept of aspect ratios and building this as a 35mm-equivalent true multi-aspect ratio camera might have been a way to give it IBIS as well as more satisfying creative control.

Jeff Biscuits said:

UsherFellig said:

In a way, those complaining that Fuji should have given them a 35mm FF X100 are incorrect. Fuji has given them that, with a bunch of MP rez, too. But, um, F4 and no IBIS.

Click to expand...

I think what they should have done is this:

Design a 38mm lens, which allows all of the aspect ratios (except the vertical 3:4, which frankly doesn’t need to exist) to be delivered with the same angle of view as a 35mm lens, giving around 70-75MP for the non-pano formats.

This would need an image circle of 46.4mm diameter, which is obviously less than the 54.8mm required for the full frame.

Click to expand...

Then we could argue over whether that's medium format.

Jeff Biscuits said:

A smaller image circle means you can reduce the size of the optics, so this gives you the opportunity to do one of three things:

1. Make the lens even smaller.
2. Give the lens a larger aperture.
3. Keep the larger image circle, and allow the sensor to move by potentially as much as 4mm in any direction.

If you took option 3, ie IBIS, then you retain the opportunity to have a full sensor mode which locks the IBIS out and gives you a 100MP 4:3 image at 32mm equivalent. (You could set this at 28mm with the existing lens, but a 32mm-equivalent lens maximises the 35mm equivalent crops.)

So, while I’m no lens designer and things are rarely as simple as they first seem, I wonder whether committing fully to the concept of aspect ratios and building this as a 35mm-equivalent true multi-aspect ratio camera might have been a way to give it IBIS as well as more satisfying creative control.

Click to expand...

--

Jeff Biscuits said:

Secondly, I think it gets disproportionately a lot of chatter on here because sometimes there’s a bit of a belief that the entire point of medium format is to extract every last drop of image quality and detail that’s available from current technology, and that to use the sensor for any other purpose is almost heresy.

Click to expand...

Sure seems that way. I don't follow Leica discussion boards closely, but I wonder whether there was the same degree of hostility among Leica owners/users when the Q series introduced the zoom-crop feature.

Because of the price and the lack of stabilization I'm unlikely to get an RF anytime soon, and perhaps never will. But in evaluating the camera's capabilities I think the extraordinarily versatile and convenient in-camera crop feature is a big plus.

JimKasson said:

Jeff Biscuits said:

This would need an image circle of 46.4mm diameter, which is obviously less than the 54.8mm required for the full frame.

Click to expand...

Then we could argue over whether that's medium format.

Click to expand...

Don’t some people argue about that even with the GFX sensor anyway? Fujifilm call it “larger than full-frame” so it still just about fits that

Jeff Biscuits said:

JimKasson said:

Jeff Biscuits said:

This would need an image circle of 46.4mm diameter, which is obviously less than the 54.8mm required for the full frame.

Click to expand...

Then we could argue over whether that's medium format.

Click to expand...

Don’t some people argue about that even with the GFX sensor anyway? Fujifilm call it “larger than full-frame” so it still just about fits that

Click to expand...

Last time i looked, they called it "large format".

JimKasson said:

Jeff Biscuits said:

UsherFellig said:

In a way, those complaining that Fuji should have given them a 35mm FF X100 are incorrect. Fuji has given them that, with a bunch of MP rez, too. But, um, F4 and no IBIS.

Click to expand...

I think what they should have done is this:

Design a 38mm lens, which allows all of the aspect ratios (except the vertical 3:4, which frankly doesn’t need to exist) to be delivered with the same angle of view as a 35mm lens, giving around 70-75MP for the non-pano formats.

This would need an image circle of 46.4mm diameter, which is obviously less than the 54.8mm required for the full frame.

Click to expand...

Then we could argue over whether that's medium format.

Click to expand...

Likewise if cropping is such a topic, imo.

JimKasson said:

JimKasson said:

A smaller image circle means you can reduce the size of the optics, so this gives you the opportunity to do one of three things:

1. Make the lens even smaller.
2. Give the lens a larger aperture.
3. Keep the larger image circle, and allow the sensor to move by potentially as much as 4mm in any direction.

If you took option 3, ie IBIS, then you retain the opportunity to have a full sensor mode which locks the IBIS out and gives you a 100MP 4:3 image at 32mm equivalent. (You could set this at 28mm with the existing lens, but a 32mm-equivalent lens maximises the 35mm equivalent crops.)

So, while I’m no lens designer and things are rarely as simple as they first seem, I wonder whether committing fully to the concept of aspect ratios and building this as a 35mm-equivalent true multi-aspect ratio camera might have been a way to give it IBIS as well as more satisfying creative control.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
DJF

Matt2134 said:

boastar said:

DJF55 said:

Just wondering, maybe I am missing something: why is the cropping topic such in focus for the new GFX 100RF and not for the X100VI? Both are non-zoom fixed lens, high MP cameras. Is it lack if IBIS? I don't thinks so - cropping should in my view not compensate for shake. Is it the aperture? If neither, why? Thanks for thoughts and wisdom!

Click to expand...

You are close I think.

It is, because the 100RF is largely a disappointing camera. No ibis and ois is disappointing. The f4 lens with heavy distortion and vignetting is also disappointing. There is not much the camera has going for it, so that's why those whose job it is to promote the camera, are pushing the whole cropability angle. And there is some truth in it. You get a very compact camera, with great cropability.

But I think, a used 100s with a nice lens is a much better value proposition. Not as compact though obviously.

Click to expand...

It's only disappointing if you don't value the small size and weight. It's a design choice.

I initially felt the same - and would have preferred a larger camera with a 3.2 lens and IBIS - but the more I looked at it the more I kept coming to the conclusion that if there was no size and weight advantage, I may as well just have an ILC GFX - so the more time goes on, the more the design choices make sense for me, and I am over my initial disappointment.

It will no doubt be a room divider though!

Click to expand...

I like Fuji. So I hope many will like and buy this camera.

I think my disappointment stems from the fact, that it is both: not stabilized, and a slowish lens. I could have lived with one or the other. But both being absent together obviously robs you of the chance to mitigate the negatives of missing one.

Honestly, even with stabilization and a fast lens, I would probably still prefer my Q3-43, because that’s my much preferred focal length of the two. But I would have definitely tested the RF, had it had let’s say a 2.0 lens, or the 4.0 but with ois.

boastar said:

Matt2134 said:

boastar said:

DJF55 said:

Just wondering, maybe I am missing something: why is the cropping topic such in focus for the new GFX 100RF and not for the X100VI? Both are non-zoom fixed lens, high MP cameras. Is it lack if IBIS? I don't thinks so - cropping should in my view not compensate for shake. Is it the aperture? If neither, why? Thanks for thoughts and wisdom!

Click to expand...

You are close I think.

It is, because the 100RF is largely a disappointing camera. No ibis and ois is disappointing. The f4 lens with heavy distortion and vignetting is also disappointing. There is not much the camera has going for it, so that's why those whose job it is to promote the camera, are pushing the whole cropability angle. And there is some truth in it. You get a very compact camera, with great cropability.

But I think, a used 100s with a nice lens is a much better value proposition. Not as compact though obviously.

Click to expand...

It's only disappointing if you don't value the small size and weight. It's a design choice.

I initially felt the same - and would have preferred a larger camera with a 3.2 lens and IBIS - but the more I looked at it the more I kept coming to the conclusion that if there was no size and weight advantage, I may as well just have an ILC GFX - so the more time goes on, the more the design choices make sense for me, and I am over my initial disappointment.

It will no doubt be a room divider though!

Click to expand...

I like Fuji. So I hope many will like and buy this camera.

I think my disappointment stems from the fact, that it is both: not stabilized, and a slowish lens. I could have lived with one or the other. But both being absent together obviously robs you of the chance to mitigate the negatives of missing one.

Honestly, even with stabilization and a fast lens, I would probably still prefer my Q3-43, because that’s my much preferred focal length of the two. But I would have definitely tested the RF, had it had let’s say a 2.0 lens, or the 4.0 but with ois.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand where you are coming from. And it is a tough choice against the Q3 /Q3 43. I haven't used the 43, but I had a Q3 for a while and it was VERY enjoyable to use.

I am taking a gamble on the RF, which I was certain I wasn't going to do when all the specs dropped, and I have been swayed one way and then the other depending on who I am watching using it on youtube! But even though I made the decision, I do have that slight fear that comes from knowing I am taking a bit of a punt. I'll let you know next week!

I have huge curiosity about the versions they rejected though - I'd love to see the prototypes that they did with faster lenses and with IBIS to understand what size and weight it really added.

tex said:

On this new camera, there are more crop modes that mimic legacy Fuji film cameras that were "niche popular", #1, and with this new camera you've now got a sensor big enough that if you change the aspect ration and/or crop (in some cases) you've still got FF image size (in some cases you've got FF on one axis but not another). After that APSC size in the same way.

They seem to have thought a lot about this in the development stage, and it seems to have been a partial driver for other decisions they made, such as the 35mm FL.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you are getting at - the X100 series is 35mm EFL, as are the Ricoh GR IIIx and the Sony RX1 series.

I wasn't so much discussing focal lengths as underlining what Fuji has said about cropping down from the 100mp medium format sensor---you can crop down and still have FF---at around 60mp at that, and then apsc. With Fuji's other cameras you drop down from apsc.

For some of us FF is as low as we want to go. I was in Oly for 8 years and enjoyed their cameras, but once Sony produced a sub $2K FF camera then I got one and never turned back. Today, medium format is my primary rig, with FF as backup.

Breakfastographer said:

tex said:

On this new camera, there are more crop modes that mimic legacy Fuji film cameras that were "niche popular", #1, and with this new camera you've now got a sensor big enough that if you change the aspect ration and/or crop (in some cases) you've still got FF image size (in some cases you've got FF on one axis but not another). After that APSC size in the same way.

They seem to have thought a lot about this in the development stage, and it seems to have been a partial driver for other decisions they made, such as the 35mm FL.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you are getting at - the X100 series is 35mm EFL, as are the Ricoh GR IIIx and the Sony RX1 series.

Click to expand...

Let me correct myself - it's 35mm FL for the GFX100RF, which works out to 28mm EFL, so matching the GR III, not IIIx, as well as the Leica Q2 and Q3 and any of the Sigma DP1 models.