Exchange Sony A7R IV with GFX 50S?

Started 3 months ago | Questions
pepsijunior
pepsijunior Senior Member • Posts: 1,042
Re: Exchange Sony A7R IV with GFX 50S?
1

Keep the A7RIV. I have both the 100 and that and find them useful for different things. But not sure you need the S anymore unless you don’t like the experience with the Sony.

 pepsijunior's gear list:pepsijunior's gear list
Fujifilm GFX 100 Sony a7R IV Sony a9 II Fujifilm GF 110mm F2 Sigma 70mm F2.8 DG Macro Art +4 more
matteroner
matteroner Contributing Member • Posts: 520
Re: Exchange Sony A7R IV with GFX 50S?

Greg7579 wrote:

Suteetat wrote:

I have GFX 100 with A7r IV ( and Z7 if that matter ).

I used to have 50S before GFX100 came out. Basically, I would not

trade A7r IV or Z7 for a 50S when I have GFX100 for sure.

Basically, I think it would be painful to carry both GFX100 and 50S at the same time.

I personally think that either A7r IV or Z7 will complement GFX100 better as it offer smaller and lighter package than 50S. I use A7r IV a lot with small manual lenses ( don't really like GM lenses much, too big, too heavy for small body often ). I was recently on a trip to Tokyo and was carrying GFX100 and A7r IV with a few GFX lenses and a few manual lenses and the weight is just about the limit of what I can carry. I can't imagine

carrying both 50s and GFX100 with GF lenses mounted on both. It won't be fun when I will be on my feet the whole day.

Also as good as GFX100 is, its AF is still quite a bit behind both A7r IV and Z7 so there will be time when either will be more useful than another big, slow AF camera.

I think this is an interesting thread and well handled here on this Board. If this discussion comparing major brands and which one is best or most useful came up on the Sony or Fuji Boards there would be trouble almost immediately, but not here.

Funny. I am in the same boat in a way. I have the GFX 100 and I'm a travel shooter. I also have the 50r which, as most of you know, I have traveled extensively with and did not mind it at all. In fact, I loved it.

And here is the kicker. I have in my closet the XT-3, XH-1 and X100F plus 14 of the very best Fuji XF lenses. That is some amazing travel kit. But guess what? Since shooting the GFX 50 for the past 11 months, I have not touched it.

When deciding to buy the GFX 100, I was agonizing whether to buy the r4 instead. Use the 50r for my MF and GFX lenses and the alphasevenarefour as the compliment. But I didn't do it (still might).

Why? Because I did not want to venture into GM lens territory. Those are big lenses and make the kit back up there in mass pretty quickly.

But … I don't really want the 50r anymore because I'm afraid I will never shoot it as I am going to make myself travel with the GFX 100 for a while and when at home I'm shooting the 100.

But I could do this … I could walk into my local pro camera shop and trade the 50r and a lot of the Fuji APSC gear for an r4 and the 24-70 and 70-200 big zooms and be right back in the thick of the FF game and use it for travel. That would stick my toe in the Sony water, which I have been close to doing for two years.

I could do that and it would not cost me any more money because I would be losing the Fuji X gear and the 50r on a really bad trade-in value. (That shop will give me about 60% of the used price at B&H.)

But … Many of you have already told me that to compliment my GFX kit with high-res r4 Sony kit is not the best solution because I already have all this great Fuji APSC gear. Why two high-res systems? Well, because I'm finding myself not shooting the Fuji X kit now that I have gone MF.

So I'm thinking about it....

It all boils down to will I shoot the GFX 50r again when I have this beast 100 sitting here? And will I shoot the Fuji X kit again? Probably not. And the Sony alphasevenarethree/four has been whispering to me for along time....

I'll do better than 60% of used for your 50r.  😁

DM if interested.

-- hide signature --

@photomat76

 matteroner's gear list:matteroner's gear list
Canon EOS 400D Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 80D Fujifilm GFX 50R Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM +12 more
Suteetat Forum Member • Posts: 86
Re: Exchange Sony A7R IV with GFX 50S?

Greg7579 wrote:

Suteetat wrote:

I have GFX 100 with A7r IV ( and Z7 if that matter ).

I used to have 50S before GFX100 came out. Basically, I would not

trade A7r IV or Z7 for a 50S when I have GFX100 for sure.

Basically, I think it would be painful to carry both GFX100 and 50S at the same time.

I personally think that either A7r IV or Z7 will complement GFX100 better as it offer smaller and lighter package than 50S. I use A7r IV a lot with small manual lenses ( don't really like GM lenses much, too big, too heavy for small body often ). I was recently on a trip to Tokyo and was carrying GFX100 and A7r IV with a few GFX lenses and a few manual lenses and the weight is just about the limit of what I can carry. I can't imagine

carrying both 50s and GFX100 with GF lenses mounted on both. It won't be fun when I will be on my feet the whole day.

Also as good as GFX100 is, its AF is still quite a bit behind both A7r IV and Z7 so there will be time when either will be more useful than another big, slow AF camera.

I think this is an interesting thread and well handled here on this Board. If this discussion comparing major brands and which one is best or most useful came up on the Sony or Fuji Boards there would be trouble almost immediately, but not here.

Funny. I am in the same boat in a way. I have the GFX 100 and I'm a travel shooter. I also have the 50r which, as most of you know, I have traveled extensively with and did not mind it at all. In fact, I loved it.

And here is the kicker. I have in my closet the XT-3, XH-1 and X100F plus 14 of the very best Fuji XF lenses. That is some amazing travel kit. But guess what? Since shooting the GFX 50 for the past 11 months, I have not touched it.

When deciding to buy the GFX 100, I was agonizing whether to buy the r4 instead. Use the 50r for my MF and GFX lenses and the alphasevenarefour as the compliment. But I didn't do it (still might).

Why? Because I did not want to venture into GM lens territory. Those are big lenses and make the kit back up there in mass pretty quickly.

But … I don't really want the 50r anymore because I'm afraid I will never shoot it as I am going to make myself travel with the GFX 100 for a while and when at home I'm shooting the 100.

But I could do this … I could walk into my local pro camera shop and trade the 50r and a lot of the Fuji APSC gear for an r4 and the 24-70 and 70-200 big zooms and be right back in the thick of the FF game and use it for travel. That would stick my toe in the Sony water, which I have been close to doing for two years.

I could do that and it would not cost me any more money because I would be losing the Fuji X gear and the 50r on a really bad trade-in value. (That shop will give me about 60% of the used price at B&H.)

But … Many of you have already told me that to compliment my GFX kit with high-res r4 Sony kit is not the best solution because I already have all this great Fuji APSC gear. Why two high-res systems? Well, because I'm finding myself not shooting the Fuji X kit now that I have gone MF.

So I'm thinking about it....

It all boils down to will I shoot the GFX 50r again when I have this beast 100 sitting here? And will I shoot the Fuji X kit again? Probably not. And the Sony alphasevenarethree/four has been whispering to me for along time....

I think you need to pick your priority. I like to carry 2 cameras when I travel. I find A7r IV with techart adapter and Leica 50/2 apo or Zeiss 35/1.4ZM a very nice 2nd camera to carry. Even Z7 with 24-70/2.8S, 50/1.8S or other Leica M lenses are also small and light enough as a second camera in comparison to another GFX 50S while not compromising very much on IQ. I have been shooting Nikon for years and GFX system is not going to replace my Nikon with 500/4 e FL or 500PF any time soon. I prefer GFX100 with 250/4 over Nikon with 70-200/2.8e FL for none moving object but sometimes GFX100 AF is not capable enough for my need just yet and 50S definitely will not do it.

I used to shoot Sony A7r x along side Nikon for a long time especially with M lenses. Now that Z7 can take M lens as well so the need for A7r body is less but A7r IV still has some benefit with Techart adapter and I cant let go of 100-400GM and 12-24/4 just yet so I am stuck with 3 systems

EdwardWestonNYC Contributing Member • Posts: 587
Re: That's not what DPReview concluded...

Velocity of Sound wrote:

If you read their "best landscape camera " showdown, the A7RIV is their top pick. The GFX 50S is listed in addition for consideration (listed third, behind the Canon EOS 5DS R, although I don't know that they ordered the list by strength of recommendation). The GFX 100 isn't listed. However, they had this to say:

If you look solely at the camera body, it's hard to justify the GFX 50S over its high-res full-frame peers because, while light, fast and capable by medium format standards, the image quality isn't significantly better than the smaller, lighter, faster and often cheaper rivals. However, the GF lenses make it easier to get full benefit from its 50MP, meaning it regularly delivers to its full capability.

I guess there's some discrepancy there with another series of articles that they wrote some months back, in which they concluded that larger sensors are superior. The conclusion is also a bit wishy-washy: they say image quality isn't significantly better, but that GF lenses regularly deliver "full capability." If that implies that Sony lenses aren't getting the full capability then it would seem to state that image quality is better.

I've never shot a Sony MILC, so I don't really know based on direct experience.

Just be careful of "Editorial" opinions. They "often" are shadowed by advertising dollars (if not direct Sony, or retailers like B&H) then simply having more content (especially with comments/forums) to drive readership/impressions - thus increasing the pricing for ad space.

Having said that, I too have owned all the Sony A-7 bodies through the III's - Perfectly fine camera system. Personally, for the cost of investing just the Sony body, you can pickup a second hand GFX or do your trade back. In the long run its all one system investment. No having to double up on lenses or carry two systems for backup.

That being said, depending on the type of photography you do, the Sony system may be complementary to the GFX.

fcracer Senior Member • Posts: 1,119
Re: Exchange Sony A7R IV with GFX 50S?
5

I have the 50R and my other half uses the A7R4. The Sony is an amazing camera with greatly improved build quality, buttons, and dials compared to the A7R3. The eye detect is incredible, especially the pet eye detect.

However, I hate using the Sony. I really hate the way it feels, I hate the menus which require a google search for simple things like figuring out how to turn on eye detect, and I hate the mushy shutter button.

I think it comes down to whether you use a camera as a tool or for fun. If I’m being paid a lot of money to take photos, I’d use the A7R4 or GFX100; as a hobby, I need to feel inspired to take the camera out, and that is where cameras such as the 50R and Leica M10 excel.

-- hide signature --

Fujifilm GFX50R review: https://fcracer.com/fujifilm-gfx-50r-first-impressions/
Medium format travel camera: https://fcracer.com/medium-format-travel-camera/
Travel and photography blog: https://fcracer.com

 fcracer's gear list:fcracer's gear list
Fujifilm X-T10 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm X-T2 Leica M10 Fujifilm GFX 50R +14 more
MattPointZero
MattPointZero Senior Member • Posts: 1,111
A7riii sensor scores higher -
 MattPointZero's gear list:MattPointZero's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50S Fujifilm GF 110mm F2 Fujifilm GF 45mm F2.8
Velocity of Sound
Velocity of Sound Contributing Member • Posts: 889
Re: Exchange Sony A7R IV with GFX 50S?
1

Greg7579 wrote:

When deciding to buy the GFX 100, I was agonizing whether to buy the r4 instead. Use the 50r for my MF and GFX lenses and the alphasevenarefour as the compliment. But I didn't do it (still might).

Hold on.  You want us to believe that you - Greg, the medium format and Fujifilm super enthusiast - were not only considering, but agonizing, over the decision of the GFX 100 versus the A7RIV?  Good one, Greg!  How long did that agony last, about 1/4000 of a second? 

 Velocity of Sound's gear list:Velocity of Sound's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Fujifilm GFX 50S Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 35-100mm 1:2.0 Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM +10 more
Velocity of Sound
Velocity of Sound Contributing Member • Posts: 889
Double standards
1

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

It is obvious that larger size has an advantage. But the 44x33 mm sensor is just 1.68 times the area of the the 24x36 mm sensor. Going from APS-C is 2.25X, a much larger step. The 1.68X size is equivalent to 2/3EV advantage.

I am a dual-system shooter with µ4/3 (Olympus) and Fuji's GFX system.  The µ4/3 system (and the 4/3 system before it, which I was shooting with for about a decade prior to "upgrading" to the newer mount) were always trashed based on sensor size.  It's a bit better these days but people talked about APS-C as being far superior to 4/3.  Yet the size difference (based on a multiplier) between 4/3 and APS-C is about the same as the difference between "full frame" and "mini medium format."  If there's a significant difference between 4/3 and APS-C then there must be a significant difference between "full frame" and medium format.

So it's been very interesting from my perspective to see the way that both systems are treated.  µ4/3 is still trashed for its size and all of the downsides that people assume must come with it (many of which are overblown, in my opinion).  I figured the GFX system would be universally exalted but it's not the case.  Many "full frame" shooters claim they don't see a significant difference, and there's not a significant difference in sensor sizes.  It comes across as a double standard.  (Both 4/3 and GFX systems earn ire from APS-C and "full frame" shooters for having the 4:3 ratio.)

To me it indicates that the standards and views are not held universally.  They are tweaked so that "full frame" is the preferred format by the photography community and many review sites.  I don't find it fair or particularly intellectually honest.  But then photography is an interesting mixture of art and science, and at the end of the day this is about business rather than pure science.  There's little fairness in business, I suppose.

 Velocity of Sound's gear list:Velocity of Sound's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Fujifilm GFX 50S Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 35-100mm 1:2.0 Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM +10 more
Erik Kaffehr
Erik Kaffehr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,588
Once things are good enough....

Velocity of Sound wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

It is obvious that larger size has an advantage. But the 44x33 mm sensor is just 1.68 times the area of the the 24x36 mm sensor. Going from APS-C is 2.25X, a much larger step. The 1.68X size is equivalent to 2/3EV advantage.

I am a dual-system shooter with µ4/3 (Olympus) and Fuji's GFX system. The µ4/3 system (and the 4/3 system before it, which I was shooting with for about a decade prior to "upgrading" to the newer mount) were always trashed based on sensor size. It's a bit better these days but people talked about APS-C as being far superior to 4/3. Yet the size difference (based on a multiplier) between 4/3 and APS-C is about the same as the difference between "full frame" and "mini medium format." If there's a significant difference between 4/3 and APS-C then there must be a significant difference between "full frame" and medium format.

So it's been very interesting from my perspective to see the way that both systems are treated. µ4/3 is still trashed for its size and all of the downsides that people assume must come with it (many of which are overblown, in my opinion). I figured the GFX system would be universally exalted but it's not the case. Many "full frame" shooters claim they don't see a significant difference, and there's not a significant difference in sensor sizes. It comes across as a double standard. (Both 4/3 and GFX systems earn ire from APS-C and "full frame" shooters for having the 4:3 ratio.)

To me it indicates that the standards and views are not held universally. They are tweaked so that "full frame" is the preferred format by the photography community and many review sites. I don't find it fair or particularly intellectually honest. But then photography is an interesting mixture of art and science, and at the end of the day this is about business rather than pure science. There's little fairness in business, I suppose.

Hi,

Once things are good enough, additional 'goodness' may matter little.

So, if 4/3 delivers the image quality needed, there may be little advantage in going to larger formats. But, it may also depend a little bit on user needs.

Lets look at some parameters:

1) Resolution, that is essentially the number of pixels the camera has. No camera ever can resolve more detail than the pixel resolution.

I normally print A2 (16"x23"). I would say 12 good MP are good enough for that. That said, I would suggest that having a bit more doesn't hurt, though.

2) Acutance, is essentially delivered by the lens. Having smaller pixels improves acutance. Having more pixels benefits acutance, too.

3) Signal Noise Ratio benefits a lot from a large sensor. But again, if the image is clean enough there may be little advantage to a larger sensor.

3) A larger sensor also allows for a higher DR. But DR essentially says how much darks can be pushed. In many situation DR simply doesn't matter. Also, there is nothing like highlight DR.

4) Limited DoF and maximal bokeh. Larger sensors need more stopping down for the same DoF or deliver larger bokeh balls at the same aperture.

Just as an example, once upon the time I was shooting some autumn trees. It was a bit dark and windy.

In that case I had an older 24 MP full frame DSLR and a 16 MP APS-C camera with live view. The APS-C camera had an electronic viewfinder.

I was shooting on a tripod, but I was concerned about wind caused motion on leaves and branches.

  • With the 24x36 mm camera I would use a 70-300/4.5-5.6 lens while with the APS-C the 24-70/2.8 was an option.
  • The APS-C camera had a newer sensor with possibly better performance at high ISO.
  • The APS-C camera had magnified live view, so I knew I could 'nail' focus. With the DSLR I wanted to stop down a bit more as I don't believe in AF being totally accurate.

In the end, I took a shot with each. Both were printed at 16"x23" and there was not a lot of difference, but in the end the APS-C image made it to the wall. Less wind caused motion...

Best regards

Erik

-- hide signature --

Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles

Greg7579
Greg7579 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,236
Re: Double standards
1

Velocity of Sound wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

It is obvious that larger size has an advantage. But the 44x33 mm sensor is just 1.68 times the area of the the 24x36 mm sensor. Going from APS-C is 2.25X, a much larger step. The 1.68X size is equivalent to 2/3EV advantage.

I am a dual-system shooter with µ4/3 (Olympus) and Fuji's GFX system. The µ4/3 system (and the 4/3 system before it, which I was shooting with for about a decade prior to "upgrading" to the newer mount) were always trashed based on sensor size. It's a bit better these days but people talked about APS-C as being far superior to 4/3. Yet the size difference (based on a multiplier) between 4/3 and APS-C is about the same as the difference between "full frame" and "mini medium format." If there's a significant difference between 4/3 and APS-C then there must be a significant difference between "full frame" and medium format.

So it's been very interesting from my perspective to see the way that both systems are treated. µ4/3 is still trashed for its size and all of the downsides that people assume must come with it (many of which are overblown, in my opinion). I figured the GFX system would be universally exalted but it's not the case. Many "full frame" shooters claim they don't see a significant difference, and there's not a significant difference in sensor sizes. It comes across as a double standard. (Both 4/3 and GFX systems earn ire from APS-C and "full frame" shooters for having the 4:3 ratio.)

To me it indicates that the standards and views are not held universally. They are tweaked so that "full frame" is the preferred format by the photography community and many review sites. I don't find it fair or particularly intellectually honest. But then photography is an interesting mixture of art and science, and at the end of the day this is about business rather than pure science. There's little fairness in business, I suppose.

If you follow all this carefully like I do, the language, attitude and leanings of the camera press (and many DPR posters) is amazing when it comes to talking about MF in relation to FF. When Erik says that our GFX / Hassy sensor is "just 1.68 times the area" of FF, one can see the immediate bias and leanings of the argument. That is not to pick on Erik. But that is the kind of bent language the press constantly uses in subtle ways. And then they put it (like Erik did) in terms of 2/3rds stop EV. Well, I guess that is one way to describe it if you are determined to negate the differences that are clearly there. It is a play on words and there seems to be this almost pathological need in the camera press to convince people that FF matches or is at least "very" close to MF. I don't buy it....

But you know what I did buy? The GFX 50r and then 11 months later the GFX 100.

But like I always say, all those high-res new FF cameras are great. (I just bought the Q2 by the way.) There is no need to try to make them sound the same as the much larger MF sensor. 1.68x is not a small comparison number on sensors that big.

It is all mostly nonsense in my opinion and yes, there is a double standard and pure FF fans try to play both ends of the argument. I have seen it thousands of times. Their argument is:  FF = MF. FF>>>APSC. FF >>>>>> MFT.  If you repeat it enough times on DPR, maybe someone starts to believe it that is thinking of buying MF.

But hey, this is a camera equipment forum and people are allowed to argue about camera gear.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR XF 90mm Fujifilm X100F Leica Q2 Fujifilm X-H1 +16 more
Thoughts R Us
Thoughts R Us Senior Member • Posts: 2,794
Re: Double standards
1

Greg7579 wrote:

Velocity of Sound wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

It is obvious that larger size has an advantage. But the 44x33 mm sensor is just 1.68 times the area of the the 24x36 mm sensor. Going from APS-C is 2.25X, a much larger step. The 1.68X size is equivalent to 2/3EV advantage.

I am a dual-system shooter with µ4/3 (Olympus) and Fuji's GFX system. The µ4/3 system (and the 4/3 system before it, which I was shooting with for about a decade prior to "upgrading" to the newer mount) were always trashed based on sensor size. It's a bit better these days but people talked about APS-C as being far superior to 4/3. Yet the size difference (based on a multiplier) between 4/3 and APS-C is about the same as the difference between "full frame" and "mini medium format." If there's a significant difference between 4/3 and APS-C then there must be a significant difference between "full frame" and medium format.

So it's been very interesting from my perspective to see the way that both systems are treated. µ4/3 is still trashed for its size and all of the downsides that people assume must come with it (many of which are overblown, in my opinion). I figured the GFX system would be universally exalted but it's not the case. Many "full frame" shooters claim they don't see a significant difference, and there's not a significant difference in sensor sizes. It comes across as a double standard. (Both 4/3 and GFX systems earn ire from APS-C and "full frame" shooters for having the 4:3 ratio.)

To me it indicates that the standards and views are not held universally. They are tweaked so that "full frame" is the preferred format by the photography community and many review sites. I don't find it fair or particularly intellectually honest. But then photography is an interesting mixture of art and science, and at the end of the day this is about business rather than pure science. There's little fairness in business, I suppose.

If you follow all this carefully like I do, the language, attitude and leanings of the camera press (and many DPR posters) is amazing when it comes to talking about MF in relation to FF. When Erik says that our GFX / Hassy sensor is "just 1.68 times the area" of FF, one can see the immediate bias and leanings of the argument. That is not to pick on Erik. But that is the kind of bent language the press constantly uses in subtle ways. And then they put it (like Erik did) in terms of 2/3rds stop EV. Well, I guess that is one way to describe it if you are determined to negate the differences that are clearly there. It is a play on words and there seems to be this almost pathological need in the camera press to convince people that FF matches or is at least "very" close to MF. I don't buy it....

But you know what I did buy? The GFX 50r and then 11 months later the GFX 100.

But like I always say, all those high-res new FF cameras are great. (I just bought the Q2 by the way.) There is no need to try to make them sound the same as the much larger MF sensor. 1.68x is not a small comparison number on sensors that big.

It is all mostly nonsense in my opinion and yes, there is a double standard and pure FF fans try to play both ends of the argument. I have seen it thousands of times. Their argument is: FF = MF. FF>>>APSC. FF >>>>>> MFT. If you repeat it enough times on DPR, maybe someone starts to believe it that is thinking of buying MF.

But hey, this is a camera equipment forum and people are allowed to argue about camera gear.

As you allude to, there's nothing wrong with a good gear debate.  Kind of like debating sports.

But it is interesting that DPR removed the comments section for their piece proclaiming the A7RIV as the "best camera for landscape photography"...I wonder why?  Perhaps they were getting too much negative blowback on a very flawed conclusion?  Maybe they never intended comments in the first place?  The only other articles without comments are the promotional pieces paid for by a particular manufacturer.  Perhaps this is meant more as a promotional piece?

The Sony is a good camera, no doubt.  But also if one is talking about incremental differences, the number of megapixels, in the IV, is only 1.45 times that in the III model.  Yet some fall over themselves to declare 61 MP as this fantastic number.

For me the bottom line is that the Fuji GFX 100 should most definitely have been included in the list, and once included, it would have won.

Also, the Fuji GFX 50s is also a superior camera for pure landscape photography.

The Sony may be the best Sony, it may be the best FF mirrorless, it may be the best FF for landscapes, it may be the best for landscapes in a particular price range,  but it is not the best camera for landscape photography.

Manzur Fahim
OP Manzur Fahim Senior Member • Posts: 2,588
Re: Double standards
1

Greg7579 wrote:

Velocity of Sound wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

It is obvious that larger size has an advantage. But the 44x33 mm sensor is just 1.68 times the area of the the 24x36 mm sensor. Going from APS-C is 2.25X, a much larger step. The 1.68X size is equivalent to 2/3EV advantage.

I am a dual-system shooter with µ4/3 (Olympus) and Fuji's GFX system. The µ4/3 system (and the 4/3 system before it, which I was shooting with for about a decade prior to "upgrading" to the newer mount) were always trashed based on sensor size. It's a bit better these days but people talked about APS-C as being far superior to 4/3. Yet the size difference (based on a multiplier) between 4/3 and APS-C is about the same as the difference between "full frame" and "mini medium format." If there's a significant difference between 4/3 and APS-C then there must be a significant difference between "full frame" and medium format.

So it's been very interesting from my perspective to see the way that both systems are treated. µ4/3 is still trashed for its size and all of the downsides that people assume must come with it (many of which are overblown, in my opinion). I figured the GFX system would be universally exalted but it's not the case. Many "full frame" shooters claim they don't see a significant difference, and there's not a significant difference in sensor sizes. It comes across as a double standard. (Both 4/3 and GFX systems earn ire from APS-C and "full frame" shooters for having the 4:3 ratio.)

To me it indicates that the standards and views are not held universally. They are tweaked so that "full frame" is the preferred format by the photography community and many review sites. I don't find it fair or particularly intellectually honest. But then photography is an interesting mixture of art and science, and at the end of the day this is about business rather than pure science. There's little fairness in business, I suppose.

If you follow all this carefully like I do, the language, attitude and leanings of the camera press (and many DPR posters) is amazing when it comes to talking about MF in relation to FF. When Erik says that our GFX / Hassy sensor is "just 1.68 times the area" of FF, one can see the immediate bias and leanings of the argument. That is not to pick on Erik. But that is the kind of bent language the press constantly uses in subtle ways. And then they put it (like Erik did) in terms of 2/3rds stop EV. Well, I guess that is one way to describe it if you are determined to negate the differences that are clearly there. It is a play on words and there seems to be this almost pathological need in the camera press to convince people that FF matches or is at least "very" close to MF. I don't buy it....

But you know what I did buy? The GFX 50r and then 11 months later the GFX 100.

But like I always say, all those high-res new FF cameras are great. (I just bought the Q2 by the way.) There is no need to try to make them sound the same as the much larger MF sensor. 1.68x is not a small comparison number on sensors that big.

It is all mostly nonsense in my opinion and yes, there is a double standard and pure FF fans try to play both ends of the argument. I have seen it thousands of times. Their argument is: FF = MF. FF>>>APSC. FF >>>>>> MFT. If you repeat it enough times on DPR, maybe someone starts to believe it that is thinking of buying MF.

But hey, this is a camera equipment forum and people are allowed to argue about camera gear.

That is the thing though. People say just 2/3 stop EV, just 1.68 times and what not, but when used, the images are much better than just 2/3 extra light. There is a clear difference and I think rather than an incremental difference, it is somehow exponentially different. I used to use m4/3, and APS-C never had this effect on image quality over m4/3. But GFX clearly shows this over FF. Magic maybe hahaha

 Manzur Fahim's gear list:Manzur Fahim's gear list
Fujifilm GFX 100 Sony a7R IV Fujifilm GF 110mm F2 Fujifilm GF 23mm F4 Sigma DP2 Merrill +9 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,236
Re: Double standards

Thoughts R Us wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

Velocity of Sound wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

It is obvious that larger size has an advantage. But the 44x33 mm sensor is just 1.68 times the area of the the 24x36 mm sensor. Going from APS-C is 2.25X, a much larger step. The 1.68X size is equivalent to 2/3EV advantage.

I am a dual-system shooter with µ4/3 (Olympus) and Fuji's GFX system. The µ4/3 system (and the 4/3 system before it, which I was shooting with for about a decade prior to "upgrading" to the newer mount) were always trashed based on sensor size. It's a bit better these days but people talked about APS-C as being far superior to 4/3. Yet the size difference (based on a multiplier) between 4/3 and APS-C is about the same as the difference between "full frame" and "mini medium format." If there's a significant difference between 4/3 and APS-C then there must be a significant difference between "full frame" and medium format.

So it's been very interesting from my perspective to see the way that both systems are treated. µ4/3 is still trashed for its size and all of the downsides that people assume must come with it (many of which are overblown, in my opinion). I figured the GFX system would be universally exalted but it's not the case. Many "full frame" shooters claim they don't see a significant difference, and there's not a significant difference in sensor sizes. It comes across as a double standard. (Both 4/3 and GFX systems earn ire from APS-C and "full frame" shooters for having the 4:3 ratio.)

To me it indicates that the standards and views are not held universally. They are tweaked so that "full frame" is the preferred format by the photography community and many review sites. I don't find it fair or particularly intellectually honest. But then photography is an interesting mixture of art and science, and at the end of the day this is about business rather than pure science. There's little fairness in business, I suppose.

If you follow all this carefully like I do, the language, attitude and leanings of the camera press (and many DPR posters) is amazing when it comes to talking about MF in relation to FF. When Erik says that our GFX / Hassy sensor is "just 1.68 times the area" of FF, one can see the immediate bias and leanings of the argument. That is not to pick on Erik. But that is the kind of bent language the press constantly uses in subtle ways. And then they put it (like Erik did) in terms of 2/3rds stop EV. Well, I guess that is one way to describe it if you are determined to negate the differences that are clearly there. It is a play on words and there seems to be this almost pathological need in the camera press to convince people that FF matches or is at least "very" close to MF. I don't buy it....

But you know what I did buy? The GFX 50r and then 11 months later the GFX 100.

But like I always say, all those high-res new FF cameras are great. (I just bought the Q2 by the way.) There is no need to try to make them sound the same as the much larger MF sensor. 1.68x is not a small comparison number on sensors that big.

It is all mostly nonsense in my opinion and yes, there is a double standard and pure FF fans try to play both ends of the argument. I have seen it thousands of times. Their argument is: FF = MF. FF>>>APSC. FF >>>>>> MFT. If you repeat it enough times on DPR, maybe someone starts to believe it that is thinking of buying MF.

But hey, this is a camera equipment forum and people are allowed to argue about camera gear.

As you allude to, there's nothing wrong with a good gear debate. Kind of like debating sports.

But it is interesting that DPR removed the comments section for their piece proclaiming the A7RIV as the "best camera for landscape photography"...I wonder why? Perhaps they were getting too much negative blowback on a very flawed conclusion? Maybe they never intended comments in the first place? The only other articles without comments are the promotional pieces paid for by a particular manufacturer. Perhaps this is meant more as a promotional piece?

The Sony is a good camera, no doubt. But also if one is talking about incremental differences, the number of megapixels, in the IV, is only 1.45 times that in the III model. Yet some fall over themselves to declare 61 MP as this fantastic number.

For me the bottom line is that the Fuji GFX 100 should most definitely have been included in the list, and once included, it would have won.

Also, the Fuji GFX 50s is also a superior camera for pure landscape photography.

The Sony may be the best Sony, it may be the best FF mirrorless, it may be the best FF for landscapes, it may be the best for landscapes in a particular price range, but it is not the best camera for landscape photography.

I had no idea that DPR negated those comments, because I made a lot of them on that thread but didn't check back.  I think it is obvious that DPR has a pro-Sony and Nikon FF marketing bias to some degree, or maybe it is their business model for other reasons.  Hey, it's their company.  Maybe they just want to push FF as the practical solution for most people.  That is legitimate as long as they give some appearance of being fair, which they did with the GFX 100.

That said, it is pretty obvious to all that they are not interested in hyping up GFX and Hassy MF as much as they are high-res FF (especially Sony).  That is pretty obvious.

But I am very good at reading the English language, and I have a finely-tuned radar for picking up on the editorial tone and direction of DPR reviews, editorials and opinion postings by their staff.  They are entitled to their opinions and they are allowed to push an agenda or products just like any other media conglomerate in the world always does.

I like DPR a lot, and I'm very glad they have these Boards for us all to Pontificate and opinionate on.  And I think the moderation is fair and allows us some latitude, especially on the MF Board.

I'm not as passionate about brands or sensor size as I used to be.  I just like camera equipment and I like reading about camera equipment.  These cameras are all so damn good now....  And besides, the products DPR obviously push are legitimately very excellent (Sony, Nikon, high-res FF, etc...).

Lusting after camera gear is not considered to be a sin by the major religions of the world. I checked with several religious scholars on this important point.  Therefore I am free of sin in that regard...  But I am loaded with sin in other regards and am fortunate and thankful to own serious amounts of Fuji APSC and MF gear, love my new Leica high-res FF Q2, and I lust after the Sony alphasevenarefour (a sinless lust stimulated by DPR!).

😎

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR XF 90mm Fujifilm X100F Leica Q2 Fujifilm X-H1 +16 more
matteroner
matteroner Contributing Member • Posts: 520
Re: Double standards
3

Yeah just 1.68x.  What a load.

It's like getting hit by a 200lb linebacker vs a 336  linebacker.

The difference is significant no matter how you want to downplay it....

The fact is that a larger sensor gives you more room to Express your vision than the smaller sensors.

Cell phone cameras do great, but if you try to push any part of the image they fall apart pretty quick. Even in RAW.

-- hide signature --

@photomat76

 matteroner's gear list:matteroner's gear list
Canon EOS 400D Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 80D Fujifilm GFX 50R Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM +12 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,236
Re: Double standards
1

matteroner wrote:

Yeah just 1.68x. What a load.

It's like getting hit by a 200lb linebacker vs a 336 linebacker.

The difference is significant no matter how you want to downplay it....

The fact is that a larger sensor gives you more room to Express your vision than the smaller sensors.

Cell phone cameras do great, but if you try to push any part of the image they fall apart pretty quick. Even in RAW.

It is the most commonly used and misleading MF vs FF talking point, and the number 1.68x is always combined with the word "just" or "only" by the FF fans.

I have seen this phrase posted hundreds of times on 6 different DPR forums.

Again, I was not picking on Erik at all. He is a MF forum member and a friend here. He could have said it innocently. I'm just making a general point here about that phrase that has nothing to do with Erik. I agree with most of his musings about MF....

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR XF 90mm Fujifilm X100F Leica Q2 Fujifilm X-H1 +16 more
Manzur Fahim
OP Manzur Fahim Senior Member • Posts: 2,588
Re: Double standards

Greg7579 wrote:

matteroner wrote:

Yeah just 1.68x. What a load.

It's like getting hit by a 200lb linebacker vs a 336 linebacker.

The difference is significant no matter how you want to downplay it....

The fact is that a larger sensor gives you more room to Express your vision than the smaller sensors.

Cell phone cameras do great, but if you try to push any part of the image they fall apart pretty quick. Even in RAW.

It is the most commonly used and misleading MF vs FF talking point, and the number 1.68x is always combined with the word "just" or "only" by the FF fans.

I have seen this phrase posted hundreds of times on 6 different DPR forums.

Again, I was not picking on Erik at all. He is a MF forum member and a friend here. He could have said it innocently. I'm just making a general point here about that phrase that has nothing to do with Erik. I agree with most of his musings about MF....

Yes definitely not picking on Erik, I respect him and always like his posts and comments. He is a friend of ours. But I think from m4/3 the image quality is good, better on APS-C, then better on FF, and then better again on MF, but at this point it actually improved to a level that it makes a difference to us, but technically it is only 1.68x larger so it doesn't sound so different on paper.

 Manzur Fahim's gear list:Manzur Fahim's gear list
Fujifilm GFX 100 Sony a7R IV Fujifilm GF 110mm F2 Fujifilm GF 23mm F4 Sigma DP2 Merrill +9 more
JimKasson
JimKasson Forum Pro • Posts: 27,720
Re: Double standards

Manzur Fahim wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

matteroner wrote:

Yeah just 1.68x. What a load.

It's like getting hit by a 200lb linebacker vs a 336 linebacker.

The difference is significant no matter how you want to downplay it....

The fact is that a larger sensor gives you more room to Express your vision than the smaller sensors.

Cell phone cameras do great, but if you try to push any part of the image they fall apart pretty quick. Even in RAW.

It is the most commonly used and misleading MF vs FF talking point, and the number 1.68x is always combined with the word "just" or "only" by the FF fans.

I have seen this phrase posted hundreds of times on 6 different DPR forums.

Again, I was not picking on Erik at all. He is a MF forum member and a friend here. He could have said it innocently. I'm just making a general point here about that phrase that has nothing to do with Erik. I agree with most of his musings about MF....

Yes definitely not picking on Erik, I respect him and always like his posts and comments. He is a friend of ours. But I think from m4/3 the image quality is good, better on APS-C, then better on FF, and then better again on MF, but at this point it actually improved to a level that it makes a difference to us, but technically it is only 1.68x larger so it doesn't sound so different on paper.

I think it's best to think of the 33x44 mm sensor as 37.5% higher than a FF sensor. Considering the area gives a misleading impression.

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/the-dimensions-of-resolution/

Jim

-- hide signature --
 JimKasson's gear list:JimKasson's gear list
Nikon D5 Sony a7 III Nikon Z7 Fujifilm GFX 100 Sony a7R IV +2 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,236
Re: Double standards

JimKasson wrote:

Manzur Fahim wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

matteroner wrote:

Yeah just 1.68x. What a load.

It's like getting hit by a 200lb linebacker vs a 336 linebacker.

The difference is significant no matter how you want to downplay it....

The fact is that a larger sensor gives you more room to Express your vision than the smaller sensors.

Cell phone cameras do great, but if you try to push any part of the image they fall apart pretty quick. Even in RAW.

It is the most commonly used and misleading MF vs FF talking point, and the number 1.68x is always combined with the word "just" or "only" by the FF fans.

I have seen this phrase posted hundreds of times on 6 different DPR forums.

Again, I was not picking on Erik at all. He is a MF forum member and a friend here. He could have said it innocently. I'm just making a general point here about that phrase that has nothing to do with Erik. I agree with most of his musings about MF....

Yes definitely not picking on Erik, I respect him and always like his posts and comments. He is a friend of ours. But I think from m4/3 the image quality is good, better on APS-C, then better on FF, and then better again on MF, but at this point it actually improved to a level that it makes a difference to us, but technically it is only 1.68x larger so it doesn't sound so different on paper.

I think it's best to think of the 33x44 mm sensor as 37.5% higher than a FF sensor. Considering the area gives a misleading impression.

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/the-dimensions-of-resolution/

Jim

Jim, 37.5% is a lot, especially when measuring certain things, like happens a lot on DPR.... 😁  We had a phrase for that in the Army....  It was a certain kind of measuring contest...

We used to get into arguments in these meetings called the Counsel of Colonels and someone would shout, someone get out the ruler!

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR XF 90mm Fujifilm X100F Leica Q2 Fujifilm X-H1 +16 more
JimKasson
JimKasson Forum Pro • Posts: 27,720
Re: Double standards

Greg7579 wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

Manzur Fahim wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

matteroner wrote:

Yeah just 1.68x. What a load.

It's like getting hit by a 200lb linebacker vs a 336 linebacker.

The difference is significant no matter how you want to downplay it....

The fact is that a larger sensor gives you more room to Express your vision than the smaller sensors.

Cell phone cameras do great, but if you try to push any part of the image they fall apart pretty quick. Even in RAW.

It is the most commonly used and misleading MF vs FF talking point, and the number 1.68x is always combined with the word "just" or "only" by the FF fans.

I have seen this phrase posted hundreds of times on 6 different DPR forums.

Again, I was not picking on Erik at all. He is a MF forum member and a friend here. He could have said it innocently. I'm just making a general point here about that phrase that has nothing to do with Erik. I agree with most of his musings about MF....

Yes definitely not picking on Erik, I respect him and always like his posts and comments. He is a friend of ours. But I think from m4/3 the image quality is good, better on APS-C, then better on FF, and then better again on MF, but at this point it actually improved to a level that it makes a difference to us, but technically it is only 1.68x larger so it doesn't sound so different on paper.

I think it's best to think of the 33x44 mm sensor as 37.5% higher than a FF sensor. Considering the area gives a misleading impression.

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/the-dimensions-of-resolution/

Jim

Jim, 37.5% is a lot, especially when measuring certain things, like happens a lot on DPR.... 😁 We had a phrase for that in the Army.... It was a certain kind of measuring contest...

We used to get into arguments in these meetings called the Counsel of Colonels and someone would shout, someone get out the ruler!

In the above, I'm not taking a position on whether 37.5% is a lot or a little. It is what it is.

Coming at it from another direction, I bought a GFX 100, not only an a7RIV. That may tell you something.

Jim

-- hide signature --
 JimKasson's gear list:JimKasson's gear list
Nikon D5 Sony a7 III Nikon Z7 Fujifilm GFX 100 Sony a7R IV +2 more
Erik Kaffehr
Erik Kaffehr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,588
Re: Double standards

JimKasson wrote:

Manzur Fahim wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

matteroner wrote:

Yeah just 1.68x. What a load.

It's like getting hit by a 200lb linebacker vs a 336 linebacker.

The difference is significant no matter how you want to downplay it....

The fact is that a larger sensor gives you more room to Express your vision than the smaller sensors.

Cell phone cameras do great, but if you try to push any part of the image they fall apart pretty quick. Even in RAW.

It is the most commonly used and misleading MF vs FF talking point, and the number 1.68x is always combined with the word "just" or "only" by the FF fans.

I have seen this phrase posted hundreds of times on 6 different DPR forums.

Again, I was not picking on Erik at all. He is a MF forum member and a friend here. He could have said it innocently. I'm just making a general point here about that phrase that has nothing to do with Erik. I agree with most of his musings about MF....

Yes definitely not picking on Erik, I respect him and always like his posts and comments. He is a friend of ours. But I think from m4/3 the image quality is good, better on APS-C, then better on FF, and then better again on MF, but at this point it actually improved to a level that it makes a difference to us, but technically it is only 1.68x larger so it doesn't sound so different on paper.

I think it's best to think of the 33x44 mm sensor as 37.5% higher than a FF sensor. Considering the area gives a misleading impression.

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/the-dimensions-of-resolution/

Jim

Hi Jim,

Two small points to make.

1) If you consider noise, sensor area matters. If you have twice the area on the sensor, you can use twice the ISO, aotbe.

2) Doing my normal printing, I would use a passepartout to connect my print to frame. So I can choose my aspect ratio. But, using affordable industrial printing it may be different. The largest print I made from a single exposure was 80x120 cm, AFAIK.

Doing large size prints externally is quite expensive, especially with mounting and framing.

Best regards

Erik

-- hide signature --

Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads