Is the GFX100RF's incredible sensor wasted on mediocre glass?

UsherFellig said:

Truman Prevatt said:

UsherFellig said:

Those who don't care are loving it as a handheld FF, APSC, m43 zoom, and that's great for them. Those who do care might think about showing it some respect, plunking it onto a tripod, and letting stretch its wings and fly.

Click to expand...

Why not all the above? It is a bit anthropomorphic to ascribe the feeling of respect or disrespect to a camera. It’s a camera and what seems a very versatile one, for Pete’s sake.

Click to expand...

I did mean, all of the above. Those Jonas Rask crop photos look like APSC and m43 to me, but lovely APSC and m43, it is one totally legit way to enjoy the camera and people have every right to enjoy the camera that way.

But the launch point here was complaints about the lens, that supposedly it's mediocre. I'm just saying, people are using it cropped, and also walking around with it, but then complaining about the lens. That's not the most likely way to get the Wow factor out of this lens, same with any non-IBIS medium or large format creature. The Wow factor will be the full sensor, beckoned and beguiled onto a nice secure perch where it can burst into song. I've seen some spectacular images um, flit by, here and there from this camera, and they were indeed full 28mm equivalent, in good light, tripod.

As for anthropomorphism, that is ascribing human characteristics to something, which is simply too limiting when one is taking the Shinto view, the anima mundi view. The Miyazaki view, perhaps one might venture. I had a teacher who used to say, "The instrument will teach you how it wants to be played." I wouldn't presume to start a Sunday Salon thread on the topic, but . . can this not be so of cameras?

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

UsherFellig said:

As for anthropomorphism, that is ascribing human characteristics to something, which is simply too limiting when one is taking the Shinto view, the anima mundi view. The Miyazaki view, perhaps one might venture. I had a teacher who used to say, "The instrument will teach you how it wants to be played." I wouldn't presume to start a Sunday Salon thread on the topic, but . . can this not be so of cameras?

Click to expand...

I've always said that, if you pay close attention to your work, it will teach you what you need to do next. But that's different than paying attention to your camera.

Click to expand...

Truman Prevatt said:

UsherFellig said:

Truman Prevatt said:

UsherFellig said:

Those who don't care are loving it as a handheld FF, APSC, m43 zoom, and that's great for them. Those who do care might think about showing it some respect, plunking it onto a tripod, and letting stretch its wings and fly.

Click to expand...

Why not all the above? It is a bit anthropomorphic to ascribe the feeling of respect or disrespect to a camera. It’s a camera and what seems a very versatile one, for Pete’s sake.

Click to expand...

I did mean, all of the above. Those Jonas Rask crop photos look like APSC and m43 to me, but lovely APSC and m43, it is one totally legit way to enjoy the camera and people have every right to enjoy the camera that way.

But the launch point here was complaints about the lens, that supposedly it's mediocre. I'm just saying, people are using it cropped, and also walking around with it, but then complaining about the lens. That's not the most likely way to get the Wow factor out of this lens, same with any non-IBIS medium or large format creature. The Wow factor will be the full sensor, beckoned and beguiled onto a nice secure perch where it can burst into song. I've seen some spectacular images um, flit by, here and there from this camera, and they were indeed full 28mm equivalent, in good light, tripod.

As for anthropomorphism, that is ascribing human characteristics to something, which is simply too limiting when one is taking the Shinto view, the anima mundi view. The Miyazaki view, perhaps one might venture. I had a teacher who used to say, "The instrument will teach you how it wants to be played." I wouldn't presume to start a Sunday Salon thread on the topic, but . . can this not be so of cameras?

Click to expand...

At the end of the day - Robert Johnson made the guitar not the guitar making Robert Johnson. I, however, have no problems when one ascribes anthropomorphism to a horse or a dog. As one that has raced horses for 50 to 100 mile races, you are partners and you have to be able to communicate. With my wonderful mare who had a long career of over 3000 competitive miles, hell I spent more time with her than I did with my wife. She made more sense to me than my wife - but that's a different story. I would expect that someone finishing the Iditarod would say the same about his dogs.

But a piece of metal with some electronics and some glass - on come on.

Click to expand...

Sherman90 said:

The real nagging doubt in my head is: the lens is just mediocre.

Am I wrong?

Click to expand...

RangerPhotog said:

Sherman90 said:

The real nagging doubt in my head is: the lens is just mediocre.

Am I wrong?

Click to expand...

Mediocre? By what standard? Below is a simple quick snapshot taken on Saturday at f/4 and at ISO 2000. The hair detail on the waitress's arm blew me away. She was walking toward me. She was not stationary. Below is a downsized version of the original image straight out of the camera. There has been no processing like sharpening or noise reduction at all. The one with arm is a crop from the original image.





No other camera I have could maintain detail like that of such a small part of an image at ISO 2000 or perhaps any ISO.

I do not get into doing scientific testing. I go by what I see in a file when I put it up on a computer. This does not look like a mediocre lens to me even though to pixel peepers it may be. I am in the art world and I have never been asked what camera I use except from camera geeks.

I have to laugh at some of comments I hear from so-call professional photographer talking heads in YouTube videos. One guy was saying he had to shoot his D850 at 1/200 shutter speed for optimum sharpness and he feels you would have to shoot the 100RF at 1/320 shutter speeds. Heck.... when the Nikon D2X first came out there was all kind of talk about needing a tripod to shoot it because of the 12.4 MPs sensor. Fast forward to the D3X, that same talk was made about its 24.5 MPs sensor and then the D810 with its 36.4MP sensor. I simply shot the D2X and the D810 just like I shot any camera and there wasn't a problem.

There are many complaints about not having IBIS. The XT-5 was the first camera I ever had with IBIS. I was able to do without IBIS for the past 50 years shooting. Then there are many complaints about the f/4 aperture. A f/2.8 lens would be ridiculously large on the body and if that is what you need, then this camera is not for you. Some people need to put this camera into its proper prospective. This is a niche camera and not a do-everything camera. I knew this buying it. It is not as if I am getting rid of all my other cameras.

Much is made of Leica lenses and their magical ability. I sincerely have not been able to judge this magic looking at images online so how can anyone judge the lens on the 100RF by viewing images online? Oh yeah...I do not study charts. I only study the images I take. I have shot with many of Nikon's top lenses through the years. I currently shoot with Fuji's top X series lenses. I have not been using this camera all that long but I will say now that if a photographer cannot get stunning results from this camera, they have to look at themself as the cause of their problems and not this camera.

I am not being being overly defensive over this camera at all but to call the lens "mediocre" is rather ridiculous.

Click to expand...

boastar said:

Separation is something that I like about middle format. Being able to get a full body portrait, even stopped down a bit, but still getting great background separation. That’s something the 100RF didn’t produce in a way I am used to from other GF lenses.

Click to expand...

RangerPhotog said:

Sherman90 said:

The real nagging doubt in my head is: the lens is just mediocre.

Am I wrong?

Click to expand...

Mediocre? By what standard? Below is a simple quick snapshot taken on Saturday at f/4 and at ISO 2000. The hair detail on the waitress's arm blew me away. She was walking toward me. She was not stationary. Below is a downsized version of the original image straight out of the camera. There has been no processing like sharpening or noise reduction at all. The one with arm is a crop from the original image.





No other camera I have could maintain detail like that of such a small part of an image at ISO 2000 or perhaps any ISO.

I do not get into doing scientific testing. I go by what I see in a file when I put it up on a computer. This does not look like a mediocre lens to me even though to pixel peepers it may be. I am in the art world and I have never been asked what camera I use except from camera geeks.

I have to laugh at some of comments I hear from so-call professional photographer talking heads in YouTube videos. One guy was saying he had to shoot his D850 at 1/200 shutter speed for optimum sharpness and he feels you would have to shoot the 100RF at 1/320 shutter speeds. Heck.... when the Nikon D2X first came out there was all kind of talk about needing a tripod to shoot it because of the 12.4 MPs sensor. Fast forward to the D3X, that same talk was made about its 24.5 MPs sensor and then the D810 with its 36.4MP sensor. I simply shot the D2X and the D810 just like I shot any camera and there wasn't a problem.

There are many complaints about not having IBIS. The XT-5 was the first camera I ever had with IBIS. I was able to do without IBIS for the past 50 years shooting. Then there are many complaints about the f/4 aperture. A f/2.8 lens would be ridiculously large on the body and if that is what you need, then this camera is not for you. Some people need to put this camera into its proper prospective. This is a niche camera and not a do-everything camera. I knew this buying it. It is not as if I am getting rid of all my other cameras.

Much is made of Leica lenses and their magical ability. I sincerely have not been able to judge this magic looking at images online so how can anyone judge the lens on the 100RF by viewing images online? Oh yeah...I do not study charts. I only study the images I take. I have shot with many of Nikon's top lenses through the years. I currently shoot with Fuji's top X series lenses. I have not been using this camera all that long but I will say now that if a photographer cannot get stunning results from this camera, they have to look at themself as the cause of their problems and not this camera.

I am not being being overly defensive over this camera at all but to call the lens "mediocre" is rather ridiculous.

Click to expand...

jhunna said:

You can do this with the RF. It has taken me a week to sort out how to shoot this camera, and I love portraits of people. You can get separation with this camera/lens/sensor. If I couldn't I would send it back.

Maybe you wanted more separation/bokeh and that's fair. But this camera will give you nice portraits.

Click to expand...

boastar said:

Separation is something that I like about middle format. Being able to get a full body portrait, even stopped down a bit, but still getting great background separation. That’s something the 100RF didn’t produce in a way I am used to from other GF lenses.

Click to expand...

Lukacs85 said:

jhunna said:

You can do this with the RF. It has taken me a week to sort out how to shoot this camera, and I love portraits of people. You can get separation with this camera/lens/sensor. If I couldn't I would send it back.

Maybe you wanted more separation/bokeh and that's fair. But this camera will give you nice portraits.

Click to expand...

What is the required separation? In lot of reviews claiming good background blur, and the sample is a close up about a flower.

Click to expand...

Lukacs85 said:

Even my phone achieve separation at close-up. There are DOF simulatiors you can add your specific values and see how meets your requirements. Somebody want slight separation from 2-3m distance, others prefer having 3D pop shallow DOF from 5-6m distance.

Click to expand...

Lukacs85 said:

This camera is not about low DOF photography, this is a F2 and faster lens territory. I find on FF up to F2 I got that depth feeling, I consider F1.2-F2 (existing AF lens speeds) shallow DOF zone, I see less difference between 1.2 and f2 than f2 compared f2.8.

Click to expand...

Lukacs85 said:

With the GFX100RF you have to get quite close to subject for decent background blur, but even from longer distance (4-5m) still have separation.

Click to expand...

Lukacs85 said:

This is the DOF you get from close distance


50mm crop from medium distance

Click to expand...

Sherman90 said:

I've run through all the reading/YouTube promo videos. Kudos to Fuji for building a relatively small medium format P&S. I don't care about IBIS or F4. The real nagging doubt in my head is: the lens is just mediocre. Sure you can zoom in, but the rendering is meh. It may as well be APSC because I can hardly tell the difference. This is the real bottleneck on what is otherwise a fantastic system.

Am I wrong?

Click to expand...

Jeff Biscuits said:

JimKasson said:

SrMi said:

A proper test is hard and time-consuming.

Click to expand...

A good point that is not clear to some people.

Click to expand...

(The following is merely an anecdote and not intended to be dismissive of testing…)

When I was hot-desking in London last week during my 24 hours with the 100RF, I arrived to find that someone had printed out some little quotes and left one on each desk.

The one on my desk didn’t really resonate at the time but now, at this point in this thread, it does:

”Comparison is the thief of joy.” (Teddy Roosevelt)

Click to expand...

boastar said:

Sherman90 said:

I've run through all the reading/YouTube promo videos. Kudos to Fuji for building a relatively small medium format P&S. I don't care about IBIS or F4. The real nagging doubt in my head is: the lens is just mediocre. Sure you can zoom in, but the rendering is meh. It may as well be APSC because I can hardly tell the difference. This is the real bottleneck on what is otherwise a fantastic system.

Am I wrong?

Click to expand...

In general, I agree. It’s a mediocre lens. I didn’t miss stabilization too much when testing the camera, but the slow and mediocre lens takes a lot from the 100mp sensors shine.

i wrote about the camera, and specifically the lens, in comparison to other compacts here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68237102

I would have preferred a slightly less compact, but optically better, and faster lens.

Click to expand...

jhunna said:

I would have liked to have been closer for this shot to get a portrait. BUT you got the moment, and I think far too many people disregard that aspect of the RF. It is a camera that can capture the snapshots AND take professional level shots.

Click to expand...

DavidMillier said:

What does "more" bokeh mean? Bokeh is a quality nor a quantity...

Click to expand...

jhunna said:

DavidMillier said:

What does "more" bokeh mean? Bokeh is a quality nor a quantity...

Click to expand...

I can tell when there is less or more bokeh characteristics in a photo. I can't explain it to you.

Click to expand...

FujLiver said:

the lens is super sharp

There are compromises. Close up at f4 it is not super sharp. Also the edges need a few stops to sharpen up. Otherwise it is exceptionally sharp. But if you think about it, this is the use case. Ie for street or travel it’s mid distance and then for still life, landscape or architecture you can do f8/11 on a tripod. None of these use cases are effected by the lens limitations.

Click to expand...