Large Format 4x5 versus gfx 50r

[M Kitzman]

The first image is large format shot on a Linhof with a 110xl supersymmar by Schneider-Kreuznach. The lens is considered one of the finest at the time. The image was shot in the morning during the summer and it is hard to replicate the same lighting at this time.

The second image is the GFX 50R with the Fuji 32-64 zoom. I used photoshop to correct the perspective, not having the advantage of the rise of the LInhof. I also cropped out about a quarter of the foreground to more match the Linhof.

What is sad is the LInhof image was taken about ten years ago after the church had undergone a major restoration and now we can see the deterioration of much of the stucco work. Seems it was not properly sealed and it is just melting away.

The Gfx comes close and in a similar light I think it would produce an equally satisfying image. Shows you how far digital photography has really progressed.

I ordered the Fotodiox adapter that marries the gfx to the Linhof and will re-shoot the image next week. This will involve stitching two to three frames with camera oriented in the vertical position. I will share the results with you. The 4x5 allows fairly good movement with the Schneider-Kreuznach 210 and the NIkon 300 large format lenses. The 110xl can also be used but there is very little if any movement since the rear elements of the lens have to mounted very close to the sensor. The ability to use the camera movement and the same time greatly increase the resolution should result in some killer images. Hope you enjoy the comparison thus far. MK




4x5 St.Cajetan, Auraria Campus, Denver





Fuji Gfx 50r

 

[Rich42]

Very interesting. But unless the two systems are compared under identical lighting conditions, its impossible to make an accurate visual comparison. The 4x5 image has the advantage that most of the church is lit by oblique lighting which enhances detail, making it look better all over than the GFX image.

However, in portions of the GFX image where it is lit well, it seems to be sharper than the 4x5.

It will be very interesting to see your images under the same lighting.

I know my Nikon, Fuji and Schneider LF lenses are excellent. Especially on fine grained film. But I would not be surprised to see the GFX system equal or out perform them.

I am hoping to be able to get the 100MP GFX next year. It will be very interesting to see its performance with swings and tilts mounted on my view camera.

Rich

 

[JimKasson]

What film did you use? Scanner? Color profiles? If it's a chrome, does the sky really look purplish?

 

[JimKasson]

What film did you use? Scanner? Color profiles? If it's a chrome, does the sky really look purplish?

I switched from my laptop to a freshly-calibrated Eizo monitor, and the sky looks only a teensy bit purplish. Switching the monitor to sRGB from Rec 2020 or Adobe 1998 reduces even that. Serves me right for judging on an un-calibrated monitor, and there appear to be some small color management issues in the chain from the OP to my monitor.

Jim

 

[Richard Feynman]

The dynamic range from the Fuji is astoundingly better. On the Fuji image on the left is a blue sign that can clearly be read that says "state historical fund". On the 4x5 image the sign isn't just unreadable, it can't even be seen, it just disappears into the shadows.

 

[JimKasson]

The dynamic range from the Fuji is astoundingly better. On the Fuji image on the left is a blue sign that can clearly be read that says "state historical fund". On the 4x5 image the sign isn't just unreadable, it can't even be seen, it just disappears into the shadows.

If it was scanned from a chrome, that's no surprise.

 

[Rich42]

As a drum scanner operator with over 30 years experience I can tell you that the scanner, scanner software, and the operator's skill all play a very large role in the quality of the resulting image file.

So does proper exposure of the film.

Velvia is a very dramatic film to view visually. But it's difficult to scan well and it is very dependent on precisely the right exposure (1/6 stop adjustments). On even slightly underexposed images, shadows can go very dense and although detail can easily be seen on the light table with a loupe, it's futile to try to dig down into those optical densities with any scanner. I've got the scars to prove it.

I hope you'll try your next comparison with both Velvia and a color negative film. I recommend Kodak Ektar 100.

But then you have to hope you can get a good drum scan of color negative material. Most drum scanners are not set up to do that well. Color processing labs easily handle color negative film with Noritsu and Frontier scanners to cater to the wedding photography trade but those have limited resolution and only produce files in sRGB color space. They serve that genre well and produce quality images but the scans are not drum scan quality.

I also hope you compare a large format system (lenses and film) to the GFX system. That is, use GF lenses.

Rich

 

[M Kitzman]

Hi Rich,

I did use a gf lense on the gfx, the 32-64 zoom.

In regards to resolution, it is amazing how little awareness the general public has for resolution. They seemed to be responding to something else, probably color, composition and emotional connection. I saw this while doing art shows.

Jim, I see your point about the sensor. I just know that when adapting my Sony to the large format it produced very sharp images when stitched together. My concern is also to utilize the 4x5 movements. I had to stand back a considerable distance with the gfx to capture the church. Had I been closer the image would have superior. I would be interested to see if you noticed the church being shorter in the gfx image. Thanks to all.

 

[JimKasson]

Hi Rich,

I did use a gf lense on the gfx, the 32-64 zoom.

In regards to resolution, it is amazing how little awareness the general public has for resolution. They seemed to be responding to something else, probably color, composition and emotional connection. I saw this while doing art shows.

Jim, I see your point about the sensor. I just know that when adapting my Sony to the large format it produced very sharp images when stitched together.

The bold part is important.

My concern is also to utilize the 4x5 movements. I had to stand back a considerable distance with the gfx to capture the church. Had I been closer the image would have superior. I would be interested to see if you noticed the church being shorter in the gfx image. Thanks to all.

Good luck to you.

 

[The Davinator]

The dynamic range from the Fuji is astoundingly better. On the Fuji image on the left is a blue sign that can clearly be read that says "state historical fund". On the 4x5 image the sign isn't just unreadable, it can't even be seen, it just disappears into the shadows.

You are joking...right?

 

[Richard Feynman]

The dynamic range from the Fuji is astoundingly better. On the Fuji image on the left is a blue sign that can clearly be read that says "state historical fund". On the 4x5 image the sign isn't just unreadable, it can't even be seen, it just disappears into the shadows.

You are joking...right?

 

[The Davinator]

The dynamic range from the Fuji is astoundingly better. On the Fuji image on the left is a blue sign that can clearly be read that says "state historical fund". On the 4x5 image the sign isn't just unreadable, it can't even be seen, it just disappears into the shadows.

You are joking...right?

LOL...